Housing generates redistribution flows for youth and local education, at local levels in the U.S. Whereas nationally, the needs of the elderly take a top priority for government redistribution. While the scope of the national priority was not entirely intentional, it nonetheless became a natural extension of special privileges and knowledge use rights for the medical establishment in the 20th century. Old/young distribution patterns have become exacerbated, in that neither group is expected to directly contribute to or take part in the economy. This loss matters on a number of levels.
The mental and emotional capacity of both groups would become stronger, were they able to engage with others on economic terms. What's more, there would be little remaining economic burden for the remainder of the population, should the young and old become able to do so. Everyone would gain better work life balance.
When work meant primarily physical burdens, it was quite understandable that younger and older citizens needed relief. But work - and culture as well - has radically changed. Even though knowledge work is not yet widely shared among citizens, the digital capacity for this potential development is already in place. People are anxious to be a part of knowledge work, and the only thing holding back their desires are the limits of today's institutions.
While physical work often wasn't desirable in the same sense as knowledge work, people left physically demanding jobs - for the most part - only when necessary. After all, work loss of any kind generally meant the loss of identity and social status. Think how much greater, is the loss of skills capacity on the part of those who now wait for a chance to contribute. Even though other citizens are "carrying their load", it's not that the young and old want to remain on the sidelines.
No one should have to be limited to the role of a passive consumer at any age. Services resources for the old and the young, have fallen into consumption patterns which neither group are expected to negotiate for, or directly take part in. That is the very antithesis of a free market.
Granted - this is a different argument than what normally gets presented. However I feel it to be important, in that the tax code has been beaten to death with no mercy for the redistribution needs of the present. To be sure, solutions are not at all easy to determine when tax complexity is running rampant. But at the very least, the debt loads of redistribution suggests that societies start fresh, where it is possible to do so. How might populations generate redistribution through greater skills liquidity, so that citizens can assist one another through the course of a lifetime?
Communities need to be able to more effectively utilize their resources, so that populations of all ages can benefit. Government taxation began with the best of intentions, but much of the present methodology needs to scrapped. While that sounds extreme, one can at least start with small projects so that populations need not be overwhelmed by growing debt in the years ahead.
What is needed? In my next post I want to revisit local investment potential which could work in tandem with new service infrastructure settings. The first priority is to allow local investment potential to bring the marginalized back into existing systems, so that their disadvantages do not continue to accumulate over time. When governments attempt to compensate the disadvantaged through tax credits and the like, that only exacerbates the differences between members of society in ways that become progressively more difficult to resolve.
Local services systems could disperse knowledge use more effectively, and be the first point of entry to bring underutilized resources back into the mainstream of economic life. Ultimately, this is a better strategy for governments, than constant attempts to juggle between the needs of those in power, and the needs of those who are disadvantaged.