‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

More than 100k people in Japan are now aged 100 or older

217 points · 282 comments · karakoram

  1. shoobiedoo · · focus · HN ↗
    This article calls it a "quiet emergency" but even as a foreigner living in Japan there are alarm bells everywhere. And the government buying 150 F35's is just a slap in the face when there's a massive chunk of the population that is, very quickly, going to need extra care.

    I looked into becoming a care aid myself as I'm tired of office culture in Japan and have some experience in that field. I was shocked to see that they start at less than 10USD, and working your way up takes years, decades even.

    Continuing to kick this can down the road is going to be an absolute disaster.

    1. PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
      >And the government buying 150 F35's is just a slap in the face when there's a massive chunk of the population that is, very quickly, going to need extra care.

      I'm torn on this issue. I think the elderly and people in general should get a decent life, but on the opposite side we have Europe that's investing massively more in making its boomers richer and more comfortable than anyone in human history has ever been(average pension in France is now higher than the average salary), rather than investing that money in ensuring opportunities and prosperity of future generations, who are facing economic stagnation/degrowth and are forced to foot the bill for this elderly spending, with the guarantee the pyramid scheme they're funding will fail them when their turn comes to benefit from it.

      So perhaps Japan sees the defense capability those 150 F-35's bring to its future national security more valuable than keeping the elderly alive for a few more years.

      Yeah, it sounds harsh when you look at people like that, but taking care of people takes resources(money), and money is finite, so all these decisions are a game theory trolley problem, where you have to choose whose lives a country should prioritize the most: the past generations, or the future generations.

      Historically in the history of nations would be willing to sacrifice the elderly to prioritize the survival and growth of its future generations, that was the social contract of the tribe, that is until the western boomers came and decided they deserve to fuck the future of their nation if they can get wealthier and feel good till the end.

      I'm not saying there's one correct solution here, because I don't have it. I'm saying tough decisions have to be made from which there will be winners and losers, so a nation should choose the winners carefully, if it wishes to have a future.

      1. threethirtytwo · · focus · HN ↗
        When those boomers die where does the money go?
        1. NuclearPM · · focus · HN ↗
          Musk, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos.
          1. boringg · · focus · HN ↗
            Even though they have some money their wealth is trivial compared to the generational transfer.
            1. NuclearPM · · focus · HN ↗
              Trivial? Sounds like bootlicker-talk.

              Top 5 billionaires ≈ bottom 40% of Americans — roughly 135 million people.

              (The bottom quarter of households have essentially zero or negative net worth, so most of that $2.2T sits with people in the 25th–40th percentile range. It's an estimate — the Fed doesn't publish fine-grained slices — but 5 people vs ~135 million is about where it evens out.)

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.