Productivity has already increased several times over while the working age population has decreased. Working the young population into extermination is the current paradigm and is giving the current results, which is all according to plan.

That would be raising taxes.

- indifferent to how much automation you have, people still need to pay for it, for money they don't earn.

Automation and increased productivity can also lower the cost of necessities such as food and health care, meaning retired people could theoretically get by with less.

No.

A part of necessities are access to assets.

In the model you propose, inequality in itself will make those more expensive.

When people refer to “raise taxes” they usually talk about raising the rates, but you don't need to raise rates, if the GDP increase then the amount collected through taxes increases even if you don't change the rate.

And as such, it feels like labelling that “raise taxes” is disingenuous.

Exactly, another way to increase taxes is also by increasing gdp.

Indeed the normal Understanding is not only about increasing rates - look at Switzerland eg.

I'd you really wanted to fit this square peg into your artificial triangle hole, I'd argue that in practice this is closer to “lowering benefits” than to “raise taxes” since the purchasing power of the retired would decline compare to the population average.

But again, there's no basis to chose just your three items in particular.

This is not fitting anything into anywhere. This is how economists think about.

Economists working on pensions think about productivity a lot, and they don't bundle that in your “raise taxes” category.

The money made and saved isn’t going to go to governments and the population though. As it stands, a couple of billionaires will become richer.

That's a political decision though, and they try to hide it behind this kind of false trilemma.