Consumers can't consume if they don't have the money. Every time you fire someone and he can't get job for time X, you are reducing overall consumption during that time X.
Instead the money if concentrated in fewer hands and there is an upper limit to what a human can consume (e.g. a single rich person can't eat more than hundred middle class people).
If someone is spending less on healthcare, they will instead direct that money into buying perhaps restaurant meals. More demand for restaurant meals means that prices and profit margins in that industry will go up which will cause more restaurants to open, who will in turn employ more chefs and waiters causing their wages to go up and causing them to buy more things (like healthcare).
I don't think healthcare expenditure would have reduced cost, because health is not a negotiable goods.
If anyone becomes permanently unemployable, he will become poor. If there is demand for restaurant meals, prices and profit margins will increase and poorer people will be unable to afford it.
Each person that becomes poor, is another consumer less and the rest of people will become richer. Once you have waiters/chefs that have super high wages, they'll be automated and removed permanently from their job. Repeat until there are only few producers/consumers and the rest are living on a fringe.
Instead the money if concentrated in fewer hands and there is an upper limit to what a human can consume (e.g. a single rich person can't eat more than hundred middle class people).
reply