Exactly and I'm glad to see this the top comment.
I live in Denmark. I am Danish. Too many people nurse fantasies of the Nordics as some kind of socialist utopia.
The fact is Denmark grows more corrupt by the day. They keep pushing the retirement age so I will be working until I'm 72. Healthcare quality has been dropping for more than 40 years now. The wealthy own the majority of land. We are currently home to a government that is leading the EU in its push for a surveillance mandate that is frankly terrifying in its scope. That same government pushed through the most garbage mega-project I have personally ever witnessed—that we the taxpayers are supposed to fund—despite voter outcry. Digital tenders get sold in backroom deals to a single company that is so ethically bankrupt they've been called out numerous times for workplace violations by our unions.
We're all fucked in the global slide toward authoritarianism and the wealthy's capture of the world economy. And while they get fat supping on our labor we're at each other's throats for who can be crowned the greatest victim.
It's unlikely you will have any retirement except your own savings, as the unfunded pension funds start to collapse globally. Maybe Danish is different but you can check from local sources.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_crisis
I think it will be ok due to two factors. One even if funds go bust care of old people is basically done by young people chipping in and helping and that can go on. Two, regarding aging populations, against that we'll have AI and robots doing stuff before most people retire.
> Two, regarding aging populations, against that we'll have AI and robots doing stuff before most people retire.
We also have immigration against that. Lots of people in their late 10s or early 20s ready to start contributing to the economy. But most western countries have to much right wing populism going on to realize that that's a solution and work on proper integration efforts. Easier to pull the criminal foreigners card and collect votes at the next election.
>One even if funds go bust care of old people is basically done by young people chipping in and helping and that can go on.
If you mean "young people" in general, the fertility rate ensures they'll be less and less, and thus a heavier and heavier burdern to chip in for older people.
If you mean young people that are family, an increased (over 30%) number of old people won't have children or will have estranged children, and no help.
As for "AI and robots" don't bet on those either. It takes people to maintain an economy and an infrastructure that makes and deploys robots at any significant scale, and those will be scarce, and the demographic hit will make both productivity and consumption contract too. Societies increasingly can't even fix potholes and basic public services.
I was having a look after that at the current state of AI robots and they are coming along, eg. this is a figure robot folding towels https://x.com/minchoi/status/1961798845584613649
You don't have to extrapolate that much improvement for them to start having an impact and I imagine factories in China will churn them out like they do most other tech.
Whether or not there are enough young people does not matter.
The plan was to have fully funded pensions, bootstrapping them after the start. You cannot have infinite growth any case, as eventually we run out of space and resources. It must come to end at some decade.
However funding pensions full was never executed. It was too easy for politicians not to pass taxes, social benefit costs and such to do this, because boomers would have complained decades ago when they were still in the fullest earning potential.
So it does matter. Contracting economy, aging population, worse social dynamisc, political and institutional inertia, productivity drops, etc. Robots aren't going to offset but a tiny part of this.
And between payroll taxes and the fact that stocks, 401ks, etc depend on economic growth, things will turn real shitty...
Yes yes, and we already work 2 days per day as all these prophets of technosalvation predicted.
I've been heavily saving for retirement from the day I started working, and approaching FIRE before 40 (living in the Nordics). I've been telling some close friends that even if they don't aim for early retirement, they need to at least have a backup option for regular retirement, but they can't seem to sympathize enough with their 70 year old self who is forced to keep working. And who is going to hire a 70 year old human in 30 years? What economic value could they possibly provide in 2055?
Everyone here needs to make money and save everything they can right now. If you're not saving 50%+ of your income you AGMI
I can tell from Germany, maybe some will hire, because unless they can replace workers with robots, like it is happening in some supermarkets, they will get whatever they can.
It doesn't come up often, but I have seen a decent amount of 70+ people doing what they can, as cashiers, kiosks, hospitals, doctor offices, bus drivers,...or in general any job where youth isn't into applying for learning on the job, or even so where demand isn't getting fulfilled.
> I can tell from Germany, maybe some will hire, because unless they can replace workers with robots, like it is happening in some supermarkets, they will get whatever they can.
No, they will do what they have done in the last 20 years which is import people from the middle-east or northern Africa to do the jobs and pay them the lowest wage possible.
My wife works in healthcare in Sweden and more than 50% of the people who work on the hospital wards/in age care these days are either newly arrived migrants or descendants of recent migrants.
Unfortunately most of these people are under-qualified, barely speak Swedish but they are cheap.
That puts a lot of pressure to keep the wages of everyone down because they keep bringing more and more people from abroad. This isn't even a fix because as soon as they get their permanent residencies or citizenship (for the ones who do not have it), these people move on to something else because the jobs are just awful with long hours on your feet and being treated like a servant by the patients/residents.
Unfortunately that is why many European countries are going back to a reality I thought it was gone, back when I was a kid, being the first generation being born after carnation revolution.
Yeah, you basically need private insurance to get a competent doctor.
This is not going to work forever. Eventually conditions can get bad enough that upper middle class MENA people won't prefer a lower class European position.
>I can tell from Germany, maybe some will hire, because unless they can replace workers with robots, like it is happening in some supermarkets, they will get whatever they can.
What's more likely going forward is that they'll downscale their operations in a contracting economy, than hire 70 years olds or needing robots for the same jobs. And if it needs be, they'll get immigrants for most jobs.
It all depends on how stronger right wing parties keep getting across Europe.
I only know one of those initialisms.
FIRE -> Financial Independency, Retire Early.
AGMI -> Are Gonna Make It?
The usual one is "NGMI" (Not Gonna Make It)
But you just have to assume based on context here that he intends to say "Aren't Gonna Make It"
> the most garbage mega-project I have personally ever witnessed
Which project was that?
They probably mean Lynetteholmen, which is a giant artificial peninsula to be built on reclaimed land off Copenhagen.
Curiously there's no English wiki page for it, but machine translation is good these days:
https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynetteholmen
That's the one! Here's a good overview by a Dane on its folly: https://youtu.be/K4icpF0S5BM?si=zjB2qkB-wy-VQu58
[dead]
I said a good overview. Many experts have given their analysis on why Lynetteholmen sucks including environmental scientists [1]. The very fact that the environmental assessments were done piecemeal [2] plainly demonstrates the politicians responsible for this mega-project disaster knew exactly how bad it was.
[1] https://www.dn.dk/nyheder/forskere-i-skarp-kritik-af-miljovu...
[2] https://dm.dk/bio/alle-artikler/groenne-byer-skov-og-landska...
I guess the Danish mega project is kamelåså.
> Too many people nurse fantasies of the Nordics as some kind of socialist utopia.
Yes pretty much, and hello form Norway.
rather than down-voting opinions you don't like. You could tell me why I am wrong.
Yes, but at least Mette Frederiksen got her photo-op in an F16 cockpit with Zelensky!
Supporting Ukraine against Moscovite aggression is important for all of Europe. Otherwise next they will come for other countries in Europe, as proven by them many times before.
This is extremely little money compare to the alternative.
> important for all of Europe
What makes it important for Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy or Liechtenstein?
Irish person here. We feel it is important to support the international rule of law. Big countries should not be allowed to invade and take their smaller neighbours. Due to our history we are very sensitive to imperialism.
"Lisbon should be Russian says Kremlin propagandist"
https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2023-11-28/lisbon-shoul...
If Russia.cobquers Ukraine they will use the people of Ukraine against the rest of Europe.
But you should be aware that russian foreign policy is not decided in the television. TV propaganda serves internal purposes. And there is a policy and strategy on Kremlin, not just crazy evil Putin trying to destroy the world of Good.
Contrary to hysteric media narrative, decision makers in Kremlin are not mad, crazy or whatever, and believing this brings more harm than good. Russia isn't strong enough to seriously threaten Western Europe, and they are aware of it. Moreover, they have not much to gain by trying to conquer Lisbon versus monstrous costs they would need to bear, even if we ignore the fact they wouldn't be able to not only reach Lisbon, but Berlin as well. Europe is no longer a center of the world, regardless if we like it or not.
That doesn't mean Russia cannot harm interests of countries of Western Europe, carry out sabotage acts, sow and fuel internal strife etc. They can, and they do. But it is not an existential threat.
Whats the endgame of the "Russia isn't quite as bad/powerful/ambitious as you think, just let them take Ukraine" posture though?
Where do the Baltics and Poland stand in such a scenario? And in 5-20 years when they've encroached there, what of Germany? Do we let them just slowly digest Eastern Europe all over again?
At what point before the US coup on 2014 was Ukraine not controlled by Russia?
There is an answer, but probably only an actual Ukrainian “nationalist” can tell you. And it was only a couple of years.
Good that Ukraine is a democracy now then, and control themselves.
> just let them take Ukraine
Eh, I always forget it is kinda pointless to discuss politics here.
Never stated that they should just take Ukraine, or they are not "as bad". And please spare me lectures about lingering doom of the Easter Europe - I live in Poland, 20 km from the Ukrainian border. I am aware of stakes, especially considering idiocy of my government.
What I objected to is a proposition that "Europe" is some political monolith, and all countries here are equally threatened by Russia. Some European countries are under serious threat (mine among them), others are less threatened, and some are not threatened in any serious manner.
Lack of understanding this causes people to be constantly surprised that things look as they look.
I am more surprised by the reaction of Hungary than Portugal's reaction. They gave even been invaded by Soviets.
The other commenter from Ireland had a good point about rule based world order. And Ukraine has received a lot of help in particular from Canada but also from Australia.
But not enough to actually help them win the war, and why? Because stakes are not high enough for Canada or Australia. The same is true for countries I listed before. Poland for example is different - stakes are very high, but we are governed by morons and worms.
Obviously many countries see it beneficial to prevent Russia from reaching its goals, because that's how international politics work, especially when everything became global, but it doesn't mean they are threatened by it or they would be invaded if Ukraine falls.
The hope that punishing Russia for breaking rules would in any way prevent others from trying the same in the future is naive. For rules to be respected in a particular moment of history, there has to be a force that is able to effectively enforce those rules in that particular moment of history. Without it any punishment that happened in past will not matter.
As for Hungary - Orban is very good player. inb4 no, I wouldn't like to live in Hungary, but that doesn't prevent me from appreciating political skill.
I actually don't understand what you are trying to say in any of your posts. There are lots of words, nitpicks about saying "all of Europe" when some countries are less affected than others, "I am from Poland" "out government are morons" without saying how. "Canada themselves does not give Ukraine enough to win the war" "Orban is a good player".
You are saying lots of things but there is no coherency, no strategy, no alternatives.