Hacker News Reader

If the burden is too high, there's a risk that future generations will simply decline to care for the elderly who contributed to the problem (childlessness), but then expect the children to care for them in retirement.

View on HN

That's almost a "positive" scenario in my view, I would prefer people who are left to care about themselves and their kids rather than the elderly who screwed them up.

The alternative is, more and more resources will be allocated towards the elderly and by consequence less towards kids, making the problem worse with every generation. Not clear though how to break out of this spiral by democratic means if elderly are the majority.

Except, the elderly aren’t the majority. There are just as many Millenials as Boomers. It’s a matter of getting Gen x, millenials, Gen z and Gen alpha to actually vote.

Democracy is little more than simulated warfare. Rather than harsh campaigns and brutal battles over every issue, society has learned it's cheaper to predict the outcome and avoid the bother.

But if the majority voting bloc is geriatric, then that does rather change the fundamentals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com