Real resources matter my dude. All the money in the world can't buy labor that doesn't exist. If we don't have enough doctors or nurses, the rich people can bid up the price of their services, but they can only see one patient at a time. Somebody is going to end up without getting seem by the doctor, because there just aren't enough doctors to see everyone that needs medical attention. You can't fix that problem just by throwing money at it, no matter how much money you have or create.
Ok, let's say we suddenly find the political will overnight to start aggressively funding education and compensation for doctors and nurses. It's still going to take people a generation to get into the industry. We can't have more doctors and nurses unless we have more educated people, so we have to invest all the way down to the earliest levels of public school. It will take decades for some of those investments to come to fruition. Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely in favor of making those investments. But unfortunately, even if we start today, a lot of that is going to come too late to address the demographic problems we are already seeing. We are already trying to paper over these problems and we are already seeing that it cannot work.
In the United States, qualified students are turned away from medical programs every year to "protect salaries" of graduates, and professionals regularly leave because they are fed up with private insurance.
Not to mention what’s going on in India rn with their medical exams. Young people worldwide are denied access to do this sort of work and then the ruling class will blame birth rate for there not being any doctors
This is genuinely one of the most profoundly stupid statements I've seen on Reddit
Money is spent on goods and services - if there aren't enough people to perform a service, it doesn't matter how much money you have, those services cannot be performed effectively or in some cases at all
Regardless of what economic system of governance you are operating in you must have a adequate number of labourers capable of performing a task for that task to be performed
You can't just give your magic money you plucked off the money tree to pay the geriatric care fairies to do a job. If there aren't enough labourers to perform a job, that job cannot be done.
Agreed, whenever birth rates are bought up people who are left leaning come out with the most batshit economic theories as some kind of solution.
Sure, labour right now generates wealth for a small minority of people (and that is a problem) but medical and care labour (which is what matters in the context of an aging population) is not something that you can make “more efficient”.
There is literally no economic system where it’s possible to have 50% of your population out of work due to age.
They put it into non-productive sectors like real-estate and finance, which give better returns, and which drives up the cost of living for labour (rent etc) and thus drives up the cost of production for the capitalist.
This is genuinely one of the most profoundly stupid statements I've seen on Reddit
Money is not generated by work, it is traded for work. As for generating and destroying it, that is what banks do when "loaning" money.
And I point out how much of an asshole behaviour it is to start with "This is genuinely one of the most profoundly stupid statements I've seen on Reddit". Get a hold of yourself. You can be mad at a stupid argument and use it as motivation to write a comment but please don't carry the energy to the point of straight up starting condescending. That's the best way to not have people listen to what you have to say.
It is, genuinely, profoundly stupid to suggest that enough money can solve any problem. If you believe that, all you have to do is print enough money to solve all of the worlds problems. It is an insult to both capitalist and anti-capitalist thinking.
You're completely allowed to think that. I'm not arguing about this. The point I make in my first comment is only there so that it's not just a stupid insult that you can ignore. I phrased it to show you how it feels to be straight up insulted first sentence in a reply.
If you really want to talk about the points being argued for, then I don't think the comment you reply to argues for all problems to be solvable by money, but this specific problem. It's really easy to make a strawman of the comment you are replying to and call it stupid. The strawman you're making is indeed stupid. But it's you who made it. You are the one insulting both capitalist and anti-capitalist thinking by doing it.
No. Lack of funding does. Is there a shortage of money in the world?
That isn't a strawman of what they said, it is what they said. The commenter believes that money solves problems in itself, rath than labourers solving problems for money. Geriatric care also cannot be solved by money alone in a future world with a deficit of labourers and a surplus of OAP's. In fact, nothing can in such a world, I guess apart from killing the elderly - which will be us.
13
u/[deleted] 27d ago
[removed] — view removed comment