6 ms·

Changing that abruptly would be seriously destabilizing for the entire world. You're absolutely right about this point, which is why benefits need to be remove

Changing that abruptly would be seriously destabilizing for the entire world. You're absolutely right about this point, which is why benefits need to be removed over time. (People that have expected a Social Security check, and have paid into it their entire lives can't be expected to react just as they reach retirement. However, a 25-year-old can be told, "save for your own retirement, because this won't be there for you.") Having said that, controls can be removed instantly, and to very positive effect. Even a partial relaxation could massively improve things! Imagine how much better my situation would be if the federal government had, in 1999, decided not to keep restricting the number of medical residents allowed to enter/be funded each year. (https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/gme/71178/gme_gme0012.html https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/gme/71178/gme_gme0012.html)

ZenPsycho 10y ago
Disingenuously left out of your arguments here is the fact that a medical education costs a hell of a lot of money, and your economic measures would remove the ability to study medicine from a lot of people who might be willing to learn, but don't have massively rich parents. Deregulating university fees, getting rid of social security, and so fourth massively reduces the number of people who are able to study medicine.
- maxharris 10y ago
  Disingenuously left out of your arguments here First, this is way out of line. I'm going to reply anyway, but please don't do this kind of thing in your next reply. Second, instead of treating it like a black box that has a fixed cost that we have to accept, take a medical education apart the way Musk would do when figuring the ultimate cost of one his cars or rockets: Putting people in a room, books in their hands, and having them sit in front of a lecturer is not actually that expensive. I won't name names, but two medical students I knew in the last fifteen years actually skipped most of their lectures, studied straight out of the book and did just fine. It is true that the hands-on aspect of medical training is more expensive, but people in much poorer countries manage to do it. Even if you managed to show that this education outlined above is inferior to the ones available today, right now I'd still be overjoyed to see a doctor educated in this manner. It's better than waiting two months (note that this is not even for treatment - it's just a biopsy!) while I can feel this thing getting bigger, with sharper pain as time goes on. Finally, what is the point here? An more economically "equal" society, or a society where people like me don't die waiting in line for care? I stridently advocate for the latter.
  - ZenPsycho 10y ago
    "Finally, what is the point here? An more economically "equal" society, or a society where people like me don't die waiting in line for care? I stridently advocate for the latter." this is a false dichotomy. To get more doctors you need more people who can afford the education. Not less. I'd say check your privilege- Any of those options you listed for getting an education still take a vastly greater amount of resources, than you are giving credit for. You can't study out of a book if you don't have a house to live in. as for whether my comment was out of line, I'd say if your argument is to take away government subsidy for infrastructure, force people to pay for their own education, leaving out the basic costs of the education is a critical part of the argument you left out, and for a transparently self serving purpose.
    - maxharris 10y ago
      > I'd say check your privilege That is not the right advice for any human being, no matter where they start. I'm fighting for my life right now - a life I had to strive for. I don't take a moment for granted, even with the pain and the uncertainty that I'm under right now. I paid for my education (UW-Madison, class of 2011). I've never wanted anything but to earn my place in the world. You say that I'm motivated by a self-serving purpose? You're goddamned right that I am. I have the moral right (like anyone else) to strive for existence, your ideas be damned.
      - ZenPsycho 10y ago
        When I say self serving purpose, I mean your Ayn Randian ideology. What you are arguing for would actually produce fewer doctors.
        maxharris 10y ago
        How would removing a federal cap on doctor training - that our own congress wrote into law in 1999 - produce fewer doctors? (https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/gme/71178/gme_gme0012.html https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/gme/71178/gme_gme0012.html)
sokoloff 10y ago
The problem with SS is that if the 25 year olds don't keep paying, there's no money to give to the 75 year olds who paid their whole working life. The money THEY contributed is long ago spent. It's much harder to tell the 25 year olds to keep paying FICA and save for their own retirement.
- maxharris 10y ago
  If 25-year-olds are in a booming economy (a result of decreasing the economic controls), the taxes won't hurt nearly as much. Also, the knowledge that those are getting phased out and are a one-time thing will help a great deal. The end result is a society where entire generations of people stop viewing each other as burdens and resources (young and old), and instead as individuals, with their own lives and responsibility to lead them to be the best they can be. That is a just society. (Hat tip to Don Watkins for the phrase "burdens and resources")
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    IMO, it would take a very strong economy and very selfless generation to contribute 12.4% of their earnings over a lifetime and get nothing. They'd have to save well over a third of their earning power to have a hope of retiring. (12.4% that FICA is taking and giving to someone else, 12.4% for their own private replacement version of it, and at least 10% to replace what would today be their own supplemental retirement [today's 401k/403b/IRA/investments].) That's seriously into Mr Money Mustache territory! IME with people, knowing that they are the only ones in history getting so screwed and this is a one-time thing will NOT make it OK nor reduce the feelings of burdens and resources. (I do like that phrase a lot. I also wish you a good medical outcome, ofc.)
  - new_hackers 10y ago
    Nope. It isn't just, it is the jungle. A wise man once told me, "you must push the cart when you are young, so that you may ride it when you are old." Our older generations must be looked after by the younger, instead of just discarded when their utility is below market average. Your scenario works when everyone is on a fair and equal playing field, however for those that are disadvantaged, you are quite literally saying they must starve or be killed for the good of society. That my friend is a cruel world, and not one which I wish to strive for.

ZenPsycho 10y ago

Disingenuously left out of your arguments here is the fact that a medical education costs a hell of a lot of money, and your economic measures would remove the ability to study medicine from a lot of people who might be willing to learn, but don't have massively rich parents. Deregulating university fees, getting rid of social security, and so fourth massively reduces the number of people who are able to study medicine.

maxharris 10y ago
Disingenuously left out of your arguments here First, this is way out of line. I'm going to reply anyway, but please don't do this kind of thing in your next reply. Second, instead of treating it like a black box that has a fixed cost that we have to accept, take a medical education apart the way Musk would do when figuring the ultimate cost of one his cars or rockets: Putting people in a room, books in their hands, and having them sit in front of a lecturer is not actually that expensive. I won't name names, but two medical students I knew in the last fifteen years actually skipped most of their lectures, studied straight out of the book and did just fine. It is true that the hands-on aspect of medical training is more expensive, but people in much poorer countries manage to do it. Even if you managed to show that this education outlined above is inferior to the ones available today, right now I'd still be overjoyed to see a doctor educated in this manner. It's better than waiting two months (note that this is not even for treatment - it's just a biopsy!) while I can feel this thing getting bigger, with sharper pain as time goes on. Finally, what is the point here? An more economically "equal" society, or a society where people like me don't die waiting in line for care? I stridently advocate for the latter.
- ZenPsycho 10y ago
  "Finally, what is the point here? An more economically "equal" society, or a society where people like me don't die waiting in line for care? I stridently advocate for the latter." this is a false dichotomy. To get more doctors you need more people who can afford the education. Not less. I'd say check your privilege- Any of those options you listed for getting an education still take a vastly greater amount of resources, than you are giving credit for. You can't study out of a book if you don't have a house to live in. as for whether my comment was out of line, I'd say if your argument is to take away government subsidy for infrastructure, force people to pay for their own education, leaving out the basic costs of the education is a critical part of the argument you left out, and for a transparently self serving purpose.
  - maxharris 10y ago
    > I'd say check your privilege That is not the right advice for any human being, no matter where they start. I'm fighting for my life right now - a life I had to strive for. I don't take a moment for granted, even with the pain and the uncertainty that I'm under right now. I paid for my education (UW-Madison, class of 2011). I've never wanted anything but to earn my place in the world. You say that I'm motivated by a self-serving purpose? You're goddamned right that I am. I have the moral right (like anyone else) to strive for existence, your ideas be damned.
    - ZenPsycho 10y ago
      When I say self serving purpose, I mean your Ayn Randian ideology. What you are arguing for would actually produce fewer doctors.
      - maxharris 10y ago
        How would removing a federal cap on doctor training - that our own congress wrote into law in 1999 - produce fewer doctors? (https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/gme/71178/gme_gme0012.html https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/gme/71178/gme_gme0012.html)

sokoloff 10y ago

The problem with SS is that if the 25 year olds don't keep paying, there's no money to give to the 75 year olds who paid their whole working life. The money THEY contributed is long ago spent. It's much harder to tell the 25 year olds to keep paying FICA and save for their own retirement.

maxharris 10y ago
If 25-year-olds are in a booming economy (a result of decreasing the economic controls), the taxes won't hurt nearly as much. Also, the knowledge that those are getting phased out and are a one-time thing will help a great deal. The end result is a society where entire generations of people stop viewing each other as burdens and resources (young and old), and instead as individuals, with their own lives and responsibility to lead them to be the best they can be. That is a just society. (Hat tip to Don Watkins for the phrase "burdens and resources")
- sokoloff 10y ago
  IMO, it would take a very strong economy and very selfless generation to contribute 12.4% of their earnings over a lifetime and get nothing. They'd have to save well over a third of their earning power to have a hope of retiring. (12.4% that FICA is taking and giving to someone else, 12.4% for their own private replacement version of it, and at least 10% to replace what would today be their own supplemental retirement [today's 401k/403b/IRA/investments].) That's seriously into Mr Money Mustache territory! IME with people, knowing that they are the only ones in history getting so screwed and this is a one-time thing will NOT make it OK nor reduce the feelings of burdens and resources. (I do like that phrase a lot. I also wish you a good medical outcome, ofc.)
- new_hackers 10y ago
  Nope. It isn't just, it is the jungle. A wise man once told me, "you must push the cart when you are young, so that you may ride it when you are old." Our older generations must be looked after by the younger, instead of just discarded when their utility is below market average. Your scenario works when everyone is on a fair and equal playing field, however for those that are disadvantaged, you are quite literally saying they must starve or be killed for the good of society. That my friend is a cruel world, and not one which I wish to strive for.