If you invest upfront, that investment, like not having to handle healthcare for all those homeless, returns dividents.

There are plenty of capitalist nations providing favorable conditions to people having children, most of them in Europe. It doesn’t work because people don’t have a dozen children if they don’t need them as a retirement plan.

Evidently not, especially if we don't disregard the fact that those states never provided good living standards for the people they colonised.

Children are becoming much more of an economic burden, and people are being provided fewer and fewer resources to raise them.

The problem behind homelessness in Finland, a nation that actually wants to do something about it, is the same as the problem behind retirement ages rising across Europe, etc.

If retirement age was the sole barrier to providing guaranteed housing under capitalism, we would have witnessed capitalist guaranteed housing before. We didn't.

You’re talking about a nation that taxes the wealthy quite dearly.

And yet, it still maintains a class of people whose existence is based on making the rest of society poorer.

A planned economy shuffles things around, but it doesn’t make these workers appear out of thin air.

And yet, planned economies have always featured long-term guaranteed housing, while no capitalist economies seem to have.

No economic system fixes the fact that with every passing year, there are more people whose upkeep needs to be provided by yet fewer people.

Are you saying that, for example, 200 years ago, there were more working-class people that were able to work than there are now? Or are low birth-rates something that can be avoided?