I'm pretty sure it's implied that people who die have their time taken out of circulation. One guy gets shot and his timer turns black, but it stays at the higher number and the guy who shoots him looks upset and isn't shown actually taking the time.
The one year in circulation thing for everyone over twenty-five I think is also implied, since other methods of getting "time" are never addressed and rich people are described as "thieves." There is probably a lot of time stored up from the however many years this system has been in place, but spread out over a large population it's probably not significant. The inflation might be kept in check by the fact that time is constantly taken out of the economy, at a rate of one second per person over twenty-five, per second. I'd even go as far to say as deflation might be a problem with "money" leaving the economy that fast.
I'm pretty sure there has to be more time in circulation from somewhere. It is said that most don't live past 5 additional years. While if it was just 1 per person, the average life span would be less than 1. Also they keep saying there is plenty of time for everyone.
As far as inflation goes, it doesn't really make sense in the longer term, and it is not just prices going up, but quotas go up for being paid the same amount. Sounds more like a temporary inflation occurred to reduce the population, while getting people to work harder. I'm sure after a while they planned to announce a "benevolent" price drop once they weed out all the "lazy" people.
"I'm sure after a while they planned to announce a "benevolent" price drop once they weed out all the "lazy" people." That seems incredibly unlikely considering how little the rich people seem to give a shit about the poor. They're ALL lazy in their opinions. And if they're not, then why aren't they super rich like us?
It is irrelevant wether the rich care about the poor or not. If the prices continue to rise indefinitely, eventually no one would have been able to earn enough to stay alive and all the poor people would have died within a week of that limit. Drawing time from the poor means you need to have a population of poor to draw from.
The most interesting one I can see is, "Could their system actually work if the Timekeepers were economists rather than population cops?" Money, when you come down to it, is essentially just time and effort spent to produce value. If people were paid in time honestly for their work according to basic application of supply and demand, then they would produce resources equal to if not greater than those they consumed. Population control wouldn't be an issue if all the people alive earned the time on their hands. By definition, a healthy economy creates resources faster than they are consumed.
Hide / Show Replies
Even if it worked in theory, it's based on the assumption that one can simply create time in the same way one can create currency. The film's premise seems to suggest that rather than time being created, it's stolen from people by making them only able to live to 26 (without gaining more time).
Also, you bring up the issue of "if people were paid in time "honestly" for their work". Do you really think people get paid "honestly" right now? And what exactly is "honestly" when the thing you're buying and selling is LITERALLY your ability to continue living?
Second Door to the front
Headscratcher section for this film? Because boy do I have a lot (starting from why nobody invests in wristguards in this films)
Hide / Show Replies
Go ahead and make a headscratchers page in the appropriate Namespace.
Courtesy Redlink: In Time
Was it ever actually said or implied that there is only one year in circulation for every person over 25? Do the people who've died have their years yanked from circulation or something? Because if there's another year (a lot of 'money' for most of the population) every time someone turns 25, controlling inflation is a rather sticky issue.
Hide / Show Replies