4 ms·
>For individuals who gave their entire adult lives to an institution in exchange for security in retirement, it seems tone-deaf. When you put it like that it s
by rubber_duck 11y ago
>For individuals who gave their entire adult lives to an institution in exchange for security in retirement, it seems tone-deaf.
When you put it like that it sounds like they had zero responsibility for the situation. It's usually populist policies that are democratically elected that lead to this situation in the first place - it's interesting how politicians always get the blame but the people who voted/campaigned/supported them because it was in their direct interest at the time aren't even considered.
Reality is a lot of pension systems around the world are unsustainable and built on the assumption that population and economy will continue to grow. Even the mandatory "private" pension funds in my country (Eastern Europe) mostly buy government bonds and that ends up being spent by the government. And nobody is even talking about reducing government spending or getting a sustainable budged they are just worried their privileges don't get touched and throw around nonsensical demagoguery to rationalize their views.
I find it hard to be sympathetic with people that cause this kinds of problems in the first place and impose it on others trough democratic process.
- superuser2 11y ago> When you put it like that it sounds like they had zero responsibility for the situation. We have no evidence that government workers voted to defund their own pensions - presumably that was everyone else.
- iofj 11y agoI don't get that such a thing is even possible. Those workers were offered compensation, including future compensation, in trade for work now. Why does the state get to annul the future compensation once the work is done ? Even weirder: why do libertarians here seem to be in favor of the state doing so ? You'd think breaking contracts would be a huge no-no for them.