When you have a 4:1 worker:retired ratio the burden on workers is much lighter than when you have a 1:1 ratio. See public retirement funds as a big ponzi scheme, it only works if people getting in > people cashing out. Living pay checks to pay checks means that you have 0 margin and will l00% rely on society to survive.

> Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages?

I don't think it's that simple. It's a societal / economical problem on a world scale, not an economy 101 course, I don't think anyone can predict where we're going but it'll definitely require some major changes.

> At the same time, automation will

"Automation will ..." has been used for 60+ years. If all these prophets were right we'd be working 3 hours a day by now. As long as we (collectively) are not ok with people not working, all automation does is moving people from shitty jobs to other shitty jobs (mostly in the service industry).

> I'm confused by your reference to people who live paycheck to paycheck. Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages?

I believe the concern is that a lot of those people who are living paycheque to paycheque are getting to / are at retiring age - we need social safety nets to support these people, and we have a whole lot less people working to afford it.

>I'm confused by your reference to people who live paycheck to paycheck. Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? ... I would expect a lot fewer truck drivers and more healthcare workers.

Who's going to pay for the healthcare workers, if the old people don't have any savings or assets to pay them? If your answer is to tax the workers, that system will collapse if there's a 1:1 ratio of workers to retired people.