If jobs are “lost” because robots are doing more work, why is it a problem that the population is aging and there are fewer in “working age”? Shouldn’t the two effects sort of cancel each other out?
In: 13038
>If jobs are “lost” because robots are doing more work, why is it a problem that the population is aging and there are fewer in “working age”? Shouldn’t the two effects sort of cancel each other out?
Eh you’re painting with broad strokes here. There’s three separate ideas that don’t quite connect to each other.
1) Yes automation is eliminating certain jobs, but they are mostly lower end jobs like customer service and some assembly line jobs. This is overall not happening super quickly. McDonald’s now has ordering kiosks but they still employ a high number of workers to actually make the food. Automation hasn’t taken over a lot of jobs, yet.
2) The population aging out is a separate problem particularly in trades. There aren’t enough young people going into trades i.e. electricians, plumbers, construction etc. But there are also trades we don’t think about where the bulk of the workforce is also old and will soon age out: nuclear energy technicians, oil/drilling, air traffic control, airline pilots, etc.
3) The raw number of working age people will decline in many westernized countries due to the Baby Boomer generation retiring. The Baby Boomers are globally such a huge % of the population, that when they do retire, Gen Z won’t have big enough numbers to completely replace them in terms of raw total. This is a problem because workers pay taxes and less workers = smaller tax base. At the same time more Baby Boomers retiring means that the tax burden goes up overall as they will be entitled to Social Security and Medicare (in the US). This is a potential disaster long term as the tax base and tax burden diverge.
Latest Answers