5 ms·

The entitlement unsustainability is entirely a problem of demographics. People are living longer and having fewer children, so the ratio of young working people

The entitlement unsustainability is entirely a problem of demographics. People are living longer and having fewer children, so the ratio of young working people (who pay) to old retired people (who benefit) is diminishing. The classic answers are to either increase FICA taxes or cut benefit levels... which seems idiotic, when the obvious solution (to me) is to just raise the eligibility age. Part of the problem is that people are living longer, and are mostly healthy and able to work longer, so raise the retirement age.

orangecat 17y ago
Part of the problem is that people are living longer, and are mostly healthy and able to work longer You're right about the demographics, but I'm not sure this part is correct. Yes people are living longer, but it seems that a great deal of that is that when a 70 year old contracts condition A which used to be fatal, we can now often keep them alive at great expense until they die at 80 of condition B. It doesn't mean they'd be effective workers at 70. My "obvious" solution is to focus on curing aging, which is generally the fundamental cause of both A and B. Until that happens, means-test benefits. Warren Buffett doesn't need to be getting checks from the government.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  'Curing' aging is really going to break the economy. Pension systems were not meant to take care of people for ever, if 'aging' gets cured then you can expect to work until you drop dead.
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    If aging is really cured then I will be happy to work until I either have the assets to retire unassisted or work forever. After all, I'll be in perfect health. And just think how productive I will be after a century or two!
    - jballanc 17y ago
      Ok, people really have to STOP entertaining these sorts of ideas. "Aging" is not going to be cured. PERIOD. FULL STOP! The primary increases in longevity over the past century have come from increasing survival into adulthood. If, instead of considering longevity at birth, you look at longevity at 35 (that is, how long you can expect to live if you've already made it to 35), the increases are a lot less dramatic. Furthermore, if you look at the records for "oldest living person", that number effectively hasn't moved in the last 200 years, and is stuck somewhere between 110 and 120, which should give you a pretty good idea of where the upper limit is. Sure, with improvements in medicine, we can keep people productive into their 70s and 80s when they used to spend their last decade or so as invalids. The future of medicine looks like this: you're healthy and active into old age, then you hit the floor. No long suffering, no being bed ridden...but you still hit the floor at some point. Entertaining the notion that we could live forever if only we spent enough on medical technology is one of the main reasons that we're in the situation we're in. You are not immortal. You will die.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        > You are not immortal. You will die. Spot on. I keep saying that but that's not a very popular point of view here. HN is rife with 'uploaders' too, people that think that within their lifetime they'll be uploading themselves in to a computer so they'll be immortal. I really don't get how people can delude themselves like that, given 0 evidence some enormous extrapolation gets made which then attracts a lot of followers.
        sailormoon 17y ago
        Speaking of 0 evidence ... The human body is a machine. It is a very complex and intricate machine, but a machine it is nonetheless. Yes, we do not yet have the understanding. Yes, we do not yet have the necessary tools. But we will have them one day. It is a machine, and any machine can be fixed with the right knowledge and tools, and it would seem quite foolish to claim otherwise. It would seem equally foolish, of course, to plan one's life around the very uncertain wager that these technologies will be acquired by humankind within one's lifetime. No disagreement from me on that one.

orangecat 17y ago

Part of the problem is that people are living longer, and are mostly healthy and able to work longer You're right about the demographics, but I'm not sure this part is correct. Yes people are living longer, but it seems that a great deal of that is that when a 70 year old contracts condition A which used to be fatal, we can now often keep them alive at great expense until they die at 80 of condition B. It doesn't mean they'd be effective workers at 70. My "obvious" solution is to focus on curing aging, which is generally the fundamental cause of both A and B. Until that happens, means-test benefits. Warren Buffett doesn't need to be getting checks from the government.

jacquesm 17y ago
'Curing' aging is really going to break the economy. Pension systems were not meant to take care of people for ever, if 'aging' gets cured then you can expect to work until you drop dead.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  If aging is really cured then I will be happy to work until I either have the assets to retire unassisted or work forever. After all, I'll be in perfect health. And just think how productive I will be after a century or two!
  - jballanc 17y ago
    Ok, people really have to STOP entertaining these sorts of ideas. "Aging" is not going to be cured. PERIOD. FULL STOP! The primary increases in longevity over the past century have come from increasing survival into adulthood. If, instead of considering longevity at birth, you look at longevity at 35 (that is, how long you can expect to live if you've already made it to 35), the increases are a lot less dramatic. Furthermore, if you look at the records for "oldest living person", that number effectively hasn't moved in the last 200 years, and is stuck somewhere between 110 and 120, which should give you a pretty good idea of where the upper limit is. Sure, with improvements in medicine, we can keep people productive into their 70s and 80s when they used to spend their last decade or so as invalids. The future of medicine looks like this: you're healthy and active into old age, then you hit the floor. No long suffering, no being bed ridden...but you still hit the floor at some point. Entertaining the notion that we could live forever if only we spent enough on medical technology is one of the main reasons that we're in the situation we're in. You are not immortal. You will die.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      > You are not immortal. You will die. Spot on. I keep saying that but that's not a very popular point of view here. HN is rife with 'uploaders' too, people that think that within their lifetime they'll be uploading themselves in to a computer so they'll be immortal. I really don't get how people can delude themselves like that, given 0 evidence some enormous extrapolation gets made which then attracts a lot of followers.
      - sailormoon 17y ago
        Speaking of 0 evidence ... The human body is a machine. It is a very complex and intricate machine, but a machine it is nonetheless. Yes, we do not yet have the understanding. Yes, we do not yet have the necessary tools. But we will have them one day. It is a machine, and any machine can be fixed with the right knowledge and tools, and it would seem quite foolish to claim otherwise. It would seem equally foolish, of course, to plan one's life around the very uncertain wager that these technologies will be acquired by humankind within one's lifetime. No disagreement from me on that one.