The welfare spending provides an oversized return in productivity. What is common to all the low spenders - low life expectancy.
I don’t think this is correct. Prevention provides outsized benefits, but unless benefits lead to a return to work, they do not result in increased productivity. I’m happy to be proven wrong if you have a source. I think this is a moral discussion rather than an economic one.
I understand your point. It’s just easy to make it economic as an example, productivity can go to hell. Life satisfaction and life expectancy by themselves should be a big enough motivation to support public welfare. It’s just that the arguments against are usually rooted in economic motivations, e.g. inefficiency of the tax money management.
What is common to all the low spenders - low life expectancy.
Low spender here. In my case, I don’t need much that I don’t already have and have opted out of consumerism to a large extent. So no, it’s not common to all low spenders, unless your definition of “low” is something extreme like under £1 a day.
There could be a misunderstanding here, I meant public welfare spending, not personal spending.
Countries who spend more on public welfare would get more people being productive rather than staying home sick. Higher life expectancy and higher life satisfaction is also expected.
Increased life expectancy should come with proportionally increased retirement age. Which is also a very unpopular policy. Otherwise you end with an aging population and the whole mess we’re in today.
The welfare spending provides an oversized return in productivity. What is common to all the low spenders - low life expectancy.
I don’t think this is correct. Prevention provides outsized benefits, but unless benefits lead to a return to work, they do not result in increased productivity. I’m happy to be proven wrong if you have a source. I think this is a moral discussion rather than an economic one.
I understand your point. It’s just easy to make it economic as an example, productivity can go to hell. Life satisfaction and life expectancy by themselves should be a big enough motivation to support public welfare. It’s just that the arguments against are usually rooted in economic motivations, e.g. inefficiency of the tax money management.
Low spender here. In my case, I don’t need much that I don’t already have and have opted out of consumerism to a large extent. So no, it’s not common to all low spenders, unless your definition of “low” is something extreme like under £1 a day.
There could be a misunderstanding here, I meant public welfare spending, not personal spending.
Countries who spend more on public welfare would get more people being productive rather than staying home sick. Higher life expectancy and higher life satisfaction is also expected.
Increased life expectancy should come with proportionally increased retirement age. Which is also a very unpopular policy. Otherwise you end with an aging population and the whole mess we’re in today.