3 ms·

I'm not an advocate of "debtors prisons" as a traditional concept, but I'm also very reluctant to sympathize with those living on a fixed income who refuse to p

I'm not an advocate of "debtors prisons" as a traditional concept, but I'm also very reluctant to sympathize with those living on a fixed income who refuse to pick up and move to an area where the cost of living adequately aligns with their financial means. As in, if a person is old and broke, they should be grateful to have the freedom to move to a cheap place to live, not bemoan that they can no longer afford their house near the beach or whatever. I'm hoping there is some kind of reckoning whereby these poverty-destined seniors can be inevitably moved to dense housing and care facilities for cost-effectiveness...well, not counting the immense medical bills they'll probably try to rack up on their way out the door. Want that new hip at 74? Sure, just pay for it all out of your pocket. Might sound cruel, but strangling the youth to feed the elderly, as would be the alternative, doesn't work in the US economic model.

DanBC 11y ago
Is this parody? Or are you being serious? EDIT: Really, I can't tell.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  For about 5 years, I volunteered with the elderly in rest homes. I saw what happens to us as we get old, infirm, sick, and lose the last of our mental faculties. I'm being somewhat serious, in that I've watched the elderly closely and believe they will vote en masse for their own desires and interests until the younger generations are completely unable to survive. I'd probably shock you by also holding a belief that voting and driving are two things senior citizens should prove competent to do in order to continue to be allowed to do them in society.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > For about 5 years, I volunteered with the elderly in rest homes. Your personal experiences of the elderly in rest homes are probably not a representative sample of the elderly in society, for all the usual reasons that personal experiences aren't representative, plus the fact that elderly in rest homes themselves are likely not representative of elderly in society.
bad_user 11y ago
The youth are going to get old as well. And if you're young and you're not rich already, I bet you don't like birthdays that much.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Actually I have a summer birthday so, yes, I do not enjoy them very much. I'm basically very disappointed at the economy and society that I've inherited. Forgive me if I don't wear a smile while looking critically at those who came before me.
  - zepto 11y ago
    Sounds like you blame the elderly for your situation. What happened to taking responsibility for your own station?
    - 6stringmerc 11y ago
      I'm doing fine right now, but I'm looking ahead 5 years.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      You know what they say, "Recession is when your neighbour loses his job, depression is when you lose yours". It's easy enough to say that it's up to oneself to 'take responsibility', until you find yourself in a place where there are no jobs, and it's really not possible to thrive.
k-mcgrady 11y ago
>> "Might sound cruel, but strangling the youth to feed the elderly, as would be the alternative, doesn't work in the US economic model." It sounds very cruel. There's most certainly a balance we can strike but when politics, particularly in the US, is so two sided balance is hard to find. Picking up the elderly and forcing them to move is pretty drastic. Imagine being 10-20 years from death and having to leave your home, family, friends and community. When your partner dies you're going to be pretty damn lonely and I doubt you'll survive long - or want to survive long. >> "not counting the immense medical bills they'll probably try to rack up on their way out the door. Want that new hip at 74? Sure, just pay for it all out of your pocket." There's absolutely no reason we can't afford to provide free health care to everyone. Health care should not be something you get if you can afford it. I doubt you'll be espousing this same view when you can't walk due to a bad hip and can't afford a new one possibly due to factors outside of your control. If we can afford endless, unnecessary wars, and the bailing out of large financial institutions we can afford to help everyone to lead bearable lives with adequate medical care and decent financial benefits where necessary. Sure there will be people who abuse those systems but from what I've read it's negligible.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  >I doubt you'll be espousing this same view when you can't walk due to a bad hip and can't afford a new one possibly due to factors outside of your control. Sigh, this is unfortunately a subject I refuse to go into much detail about, but this view was entirely crafted under the auspices of having an expensive, lifetime handicap. Pre-ACA, I lived constantly under threat of medical bankruptcy and pre-existing condition rules that were written to benefit big companies at the expense of my health. I had to make a lot of compromises, and still do, and I have very little sympathy for those who have lived a long and productive life and will do anything to stay alive, I just don't feel that way personally. I know I take more out of the health care system than I put in. At least I can admit that. What we're dealing with in the case of the elderly is straight up denial that they could have any responsibility for their station in life now, and I'm not buying it.
  - k-mcgrady 11y ago
zanny 11y ago
You don't have to strangle the youth to feed the elderly. IT is always a false dichotomy to think that you need the poor to provide for the poor. Here are numbers to consider. Per capita real GDP in 2015 in the US was $51,143. Fourty years ago it was $24,693. We have more than doubled our per-person wealth, and are continuing to increase at 2%, roughly twice the rate of inflation. We are absolutely wealthy as a country. Beyond measure. At some point, it should be reasonable to say some things about how advanced your society should be now. In the past, there have been many points where people and leaders together agreed we were advanced and prosperous enough to invest in our own country. Just in the US, some examples would be: * Public education. Spending money to make sure no matter your means you have access to a generalized curriculum of schooling. * Transportation infrastructure. Be it rail, canals, trollies, roads - even the old dirt roads dug out for carriages, airports, subways, bike paths, or sidewalks. * Clean water. * Sewage * Electricity * Twisted pair * Coaxial * Fiber? * Welfare that tries to insure people do not starve, or sleep in the streets. * Prisons to remove from society those who cannot participate (and for some reason people who like smoking plants). * Guaranteed access to healthcare. Oh wait, only first world countries do that. All of these are expenses, that we pay for in taxes and rationalize as being worth the cost, because our economy can bear the cost. And it has done more than weather these costs, it has exploded even with them upon it, and often because of these expenses - these investments - we are more productive as a result. Peace of mind in retirement may not be as obviously beneficial to the econonmy as having an interstate highway system, but the benefits now should be apparent in how we can easily see that when children are not burdened to care for their ailing parents they prosper. So the question is not if the young are suffering for the rich, because social security has existed for going on five generations since the 40s and has had provable economic benefit in the intervening years. It is important to distinguish the benefits of the expense (social security) from the means to pay for it. This of course ties back into growing wealth inequality, but it is important to separate why it is good to do something and why you might be getting the money to do it the wrong way.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >We are absolutely wealthy as a country. Well now that you mention it... if we have responsibility to the poor of this country, do we not also have responsibility to the poor of other countries? Even more so if you are talking about the US due to all our meddling in the affairs of other countries.
eggman 11y ago
hey man; what you do is ..... do you know what the definition of is, is!
zepto 11y ago
Yes - they should have anticipated the dramatic changes in technology and economics and planned accordingly. Failure to do so means they deserve to die as penniless cripples. /s

DanBC 11y ago

Is this parody? Or are you being serious? EDIT: Really, I can't tell.

6stringmerc 11y ago
For about 5 years, I volunteered with the elderly in rest homes. I saw what happens to us as we get old, infirm, sick, and lose the last of our mental faculties. I'm being somewhat serious, in that I've watched the elderly closely and believe they will vote en masse for their own desires and interests until the younger generations are completely unable to survive. I'd probably shock you by also holding a belief that voting and driving are two things senior citizens should prove competent to do in order to continue to be allowed to do them in society.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > For about 5 years, I volunteered with the elderly in rest homes. Your personal experiences of the elderly in rest homes are probably not a representative sample of the elderly in society, for all the usual reasons that personal experiences aren't representative, plus the fact that elderly in rest homes themselves are likely not representative of elderly in society.

bad_user 11y ago

The youth are going to get old as well. And if you're young and you're not rich already, I bet you don't like birthdays that much.

6stringmerc 11y ago
Actually I have a summer birthday so, yes, I do not enjoy them very much. I'm basically very disappointed at the economy and society that I've inherited. Forgive me if I don't wear a smile while looking critically at those who came before me.
- zepto 11y ago
  Sounds like you blame the elderly for your situation. What happened to taking responsibility for your own station?
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    I'm doing fine right now, but I'm looking ahead 5 years.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    You know what they say, "Recession is when your neighbour loses his job, depression is when you lose yours". It's easy enough to say that it's up to oneself to 'take responsibility', until you find yourself in a place where there are no jobs, and it's really not possible to thrive.

k-mcgrady 11y ago

>> "Might sound cruel, but strangling the youth to feed the elderly, as would be the alternative, doesn't work in the US economic model." It sounds very cruel. There's most certainly a balance we can strike but when politics, particularly in the US, is so two sided balance is hard to find. Picking up the elderly and forcing them to move is pretty drastic. Imagine being 10-20 years from death and having to leave your home, family, friends and community. When your partner dies you're going to be pretty damn lonely and I doubt you'll survive long - or want to survive long. >> "not counting the immense medical bills they'll probably try to rack up on their way out the door. Want that new hip at 74? Sure, just pay for it all out of your pocket." There's absolutely no reason we can't afford to provide free health care to everyone. Health care should not be something you get if you can afford it. I doubt you'll be espousing this same view when you can't walk due to a bad hip and can't afford a new one possibly due to factors outside of your control. If we can afford endless, unnecessary wars, and the bailing out of large financial institutions we can afford to help everyone to lead bearable lives with adequate medical care and decent financial benefits where necessary. Sure there will be people who abuse those systems but from what I've read it's negligible.

6stringmerc 11y ago
>I doubt you'll be espousing this same view when you can't walk due to a bad hip and can't afford a new one possibly due to factors outside of your control. Sigh, this is unfortunately a subject I refuse to go into much detail about, but this view was entirely crafted under the auspices of having an expensive, lifetime handicap. Pre-ACA, I lived constantly under threat of medical bankruptcy and pre-existing condition rules that were written to benefit big companies at the expense of my health. I had to make a lot of compromises, and still do, and I have very little sympathy for those who have lived a long and productive life and will do anything to stay alive, I just don't feel that way personally. I know I take more out of the health care system than I put in. At least I can admit that. What we're dealing with in the case of the elderly is straight up denial that they could have any responsibility for their station in life now, and I'm not buying it.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago

zanny 11y ago

You don't have to strangle the youth to feed the elderly. IT is always a false dichotomy to think that you need the poor to provide for the poor. Here are numbers to consider. Per capita real GDP in 2015 in the US was $51,143. Fourty years ago it was $24,693. We have more than doubled our per-person wealth, and are continuing to increase at 2%, roughly twice the rate of inflation. We are absolutely wealthy as a country. Beyond measure. At some point, it should be reasonable to say some things about how advanced your society should be now. In the past, there have been many points where people and leaders together agreed we were advanced and prosperous enough to invest in our own country. Just in the US, some examples would be: * Public education. Spending money to make sure no matter your means you have access to a generalized curriculum of schooling. * Transportation infrastructure. Be it rail, canals, trollies, roads - even the old dirt roads dug out for carriages, airports, subways, bike paths, or sidewalks. * Clean water. * Sewage * Electricity * Twisted pair * Coaxial * Fiber? * Welfare that tries to insure people do not starve, or sleep in the streets. * Prisons to remove from society those who cannot participate (and for some reason people who like smoking plants). * Guaranteed access to healthcare. Oh wait, only first world countries do that. All of these are expenses, that we pay for in taxes and rationalize as being worth the cost, because our economy can bear the cost. And it has done more than weather these costs, it has exploded even with them upon it, and often because of these expenses - these investments - we are more productive as a result. Peace of mind in retirement may not be as obviously beneficial to the econonmy as having an interstate highway system, but the benefits now should be apparent in how we can easily see that when children are not burdened to care for their ailing parents they prosper. So the question is not if the young are suffering for the rich, because social security has existed for going on five generations since the 40s and has had provable economic benefit in the intervening years. It is important to distinguish the benefits of the expense (social security) from the means to pay for it. This of course ties back into growing wealth inequality, but it is important to separate why it is good to do something and why you might be getting the money to do it the wrong way.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>We are absolutely wealthy as a country. Well now that you mention it... if we have responsibility to the poor of this country, do we not also have responsibility to the poor of other countries? Even more so if you are talking about the US due to all our meddling in the affairs of other countries.

eggman 11y ago

hey man; what you do is ..... do you know what the definition of is, is!

zepto 11y ago

Yes - they should have anticipated the dramatic changes in technology and economics and planned accordingly. Failure to do so means they deserve to die as penniless cripples. /s