That’s the last few years, I’m talking long term. No western society can survive the next century without severe welfare cuts unless everything gets automated or we start allowing a lot more immigrants (yes, eventually possibly outnumbering the native folks). It’s a process that has been going on for a while now.
The current high unemployment is mostly because of a weak economy, but the economy itself is weak for a number of reasons, one being that all the taxation wasn’t really being invested in things that benefit the economy. A super cynical outlook would be that housing the homeless is part of the problem because that money could’ve been used to support business growth instead. I’m not going to claim that, but I will say that Finland should’ve found places to refocus spending a decade ago, not now.
A planned economy could theoretically do this better, but 1) at the expense of people’s agency in terms of selecting work, 2) at the expense of nice-to-have nonessential goods and services that we’ve all known accustomed to, 3) still not forever because eventually retirees will outnumber working-age folk by a huge margin. Even China went for capitalism because that’s easier than fully controlling an economy.
That’s the last few years, I’m talking long term. No western society can survive the next century without severe welfare cuts unless everything gets automated or we start allowing a lot more immigrants (yes, eventually possibly outnumbering the native folks). It’s a process that has been going on for a while now.
The current high unemployment is mostly because of a weak economy, but the economy itself is weak for a number of reasons, one being that all the taxation wasn’t really being invested in things that benefit the economy. A super cynical outlook would be that housing the homeless is part of the problem because that money could’ve been used to support business growth instead. I’m not going to claim that, but I will say that Finland should’ve found places to refocus spending a decade ago, not now.
A planned economy could theoretically do this better, but 1) at the expense of people’s agency in terms of selecting work, 2) at the expense of nice-to-have nonessential goods and services that we’ve all known accustomed to, 3) still not forever because eventually retirees will outnumber working-age folk by a huge margin. Even China went for capitalism because that’s easier than fully controlling an economy.