5 ms·

I really don't see 70+ year old people working staff jobs for 50 hours a week with brutal commutes and skimpy PTO benefits, as is now the average for people hol

I really don't see 70+ year old people working staff jobs for 50 hours a week with brutal commutes and skimpy PTO benefits, as is now the average for people holding a single role for less than 5 years. I can see labor ages skewing upward, though, if a bigger share of the workforce adopts coworking, telecommuting and part-time/contract labor trends. This would make things easier for a share of the workforce that wants to take life a little easier than the average 30-year-old. Recall that a union laborer with a pension plan can retire with a lifetime fixed income at age 55... and historically this sort of arrangement applied to a large share of the U.S. workforce (including many non-college-grads) not too long ago. And the people who lived/worked under that arrangement were either able to purchase cheap real estate that has since appreciated tremendously in value, or they were able to send children to college and post-college educations that secured high-paying professional incomes... or both... and this slice of society is weighing heavily on the rest of the workforce via high land prices, rent-seeking behavior, and anti-socialist politics. I think remedying this situation would help society far more than a mild economic boost due to retirement-age workers clinging to their jobs

sremani 10y ago
Wait a minute my friend, people had it hard before WWII and people seem to be overly positive about the two decades following WWII. People's life expectancy has risen, so a pension plan would have to feed a person for a decade now, has to feed them for two or more. Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you are in a work force for 30 years its your responsibility to build a nest egg. Social Security was supposed to be a safety net, not a retirement plan. Both the Left and Right, has to stop glorifying the 50s and 60s, yes they gave us 70s and stagflation and Regan. PG has a wonderful column about refragmentation. http://paulgraham.com/re.html http://paulgraham.com/re.html subsequent HN comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10826836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10826836
- brianvan5155 10y ago
  My comment didn't speak to the pre-WWII era, but going back to the nineteenth century, the U.S. has always had a robust workforce more-often-than-not offering opportunity for upward mobility for those motivated enough to take on the work. What's significantly different now is that we have a much bigger safety net for the retired, young, ill and disabled. But what's also different is the very recent lack of upward mobility. People born after the 70's are coming in behind their parents unless they inherit land or equity holdings. Does a worker stop paying rent to a landlord in order to build that "nest egg" as you admonish them to do so? It's hard to save for retirement when the landlord keeps coming back every year with a $300/month rent increase - because they can, because every landlord is doing it, and because elected officials and courts give them cover to do so.
  - sremani 10y ago
    There is nothing to west of Oregon (technically pacific ocean), most of the 19th century is because of west-ward expansion. People can go to Montana and get homestead etc. Again, this is not beating up on people who are down on luck, My inspiration in life has been Helen Keller, who is blind, deaf and mute, she wrote damn fucking awesome books. You are trying to shoot the messenger, your argument is similar any thing that is worthy has already been discovered. Upward mobility is hard, it usually is and has been and historically there are only few times, when a raising tide rose all the boats, but there is a thing about tides, they raise and fall.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      Your entire post is nonsensical - fact of the matter is that unlike Silicon Valley tech workers, the vast majority of the country doesn't get paid six figures for sitting on their arses all day, and the vast majority of what they are paid goes to necessary expenses. Building enough savings to survive for two decades is simply not possible unless you're decidedly upper middle class.
      - sremani 10y ago
        I disagree with your assessment. I do not live in Silicon Valley nor do I make 6-figure salary.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    That's actually why most financial advisers will tell you not to rent long term if at all possible. Purchasing a home (on average) will cost you nothing in the long term because you can refinance later in life or use it as an asset for other investments. Essentially, not a single dollar paid to a landlord comes back to you. At least a percentage of every dollar will come back to you with a mortgage. Not to mention if you buy a home, you'll often pay less than you would renting. This makes perfect sense if you think about it, the landlord is trying to make money. Point being, buying a home is a "nest egg" which is why 0-5% down was and is a thing. If you don't like landlords move, and buy your own home. It's really that easy and will benefit you in the long run.
- pjc50 10y ago
  > its your responsibility to build a nest egg In the time of negative bond yields? It doesn't actually change the quantity of economic output needed by old people whether their pension is private or public. Either it's routed through taxation or dividend payments, but the end result - diverted from accumulation/investment into consumption - must be the same. Unless, of course, the move to push people into private pensions is so their value can be reduced without anyone in particular having to take responsibility for that. Philip Green passim.
  - lbotos 10y ago
    I'm not sure why negative bond yields means that you shouldn't be living below your means and trying to secure a positive financial future?
    - pjc50 10y ago
      Do you want moral homilies or financial advice? Sure, living below your means is generally good advice; but my point was that as interest rates go down that affects the discount rate, and the amount of income required to achieve a particular nominal income in retirement increases dramatically. (Also, there's quite a lot of people who are barely able to get over the first financial hurdle of paying rent, let alone buying a house, both of which are more important than pension saving. Being a renter even with a big pension is much worse than being a homeowner with a small pension.)

sremani 10y ago

Wait a minute my friend, people had it hard before WWII and people seem to be overly positive about the two decades following WWII. People's life expectancy has risen, so a pension plan would have to feed a person for a decade now, has to feed them for two or more. Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you are in a work force for 30 years its your responsibility to build a nest egg. Social Security was supposed to be a safety net, not a retirement plan. Both the Left and Right, has to stop glorifying the 50s and 60s, yes they gave us 70s and stagflation and Regan. PG has a wonderful column about refragmentation. http://paulgraham.com/re.html http://paulgraham.com/re.html subsequent HN comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10826836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10826836

brianvan5155 10y ago
My comment didn't speak to the pre-WWII era, but going back to the nineteenth century, the U.S. has always had a robust workforce more-often-than-not offering opportunity for upward mobility for those motivated enough to take on the work. What's significantly different now is that we have a much bigger safety net for the retired, young, ill and disabled. But what's also different is the very recent lack of upward mobility. People born after the 70's are coming in behind their parents unless they inherit land or equity holdings. Does a worker stop paying rent to a landlord in order to build that "nest egg" as you admonish them to do so? It's hard to save for retirement when the landlord keeps coming back every year with a $300/month rent increase - because they can, because every landlord is doing it, and because elected officials and courts give them cover to do so.
- sremani 10y ago
  There is nothing to west of Oregon (technically pacific ocean), most of the 19th century is because of west-ward expansion. People can go to Montana and get homestead etc. Again, this is not beating up on people who are down on luck, My inspiration in life has been Helen Keller, who is blind, deaf and mute, she wrote damn fucking awesome books. You are trying to shoot the messenger, your argument is similar any thing that is worthy has already been discovered. Upward mobility is hard, it usually is and has been and historically there are only few times, when a raising tide rose all the boats, but there is a thing about tides, they raise and fall.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    Your entire post is nonsensical - fact of the matter is that unlike Silicon Valley tech workers, the vast majority of the country doesn't get paid six figures for sitting on their arses all day, and the vast majority of what they are paid goes to necessary expenses. Building enough savings to survive for two decades is simply not possible unless you're decidedly upper middle class.
    - sremani 10y ago
      I disagree with your assessment. I do not live in Silicon Valley nor do I make 6-figure salary.
- lettergram 10y ago
  That's actually why most financial advisers will tell you not to rent long term if at all possible. Purchasing a home (on average) will cost you nothing in the long term because you can refinance later in life or use it as an asset for other investments. Essentially, not a single dollar paid to a landlord comes back to you. At least a percentage of every dollar will come back to you with a mortgage. Not to mention if you buy a home, you'll often pay less than you would renting. This makes perfect sense if you think about it, the landlord is trying to make money. Point being, buying a home is a "nest egg" which is why 0-5% down was and is a thing. If you don't like landlords move, and buy your own home. It's really that easy and will benefit you in the long run.
pjc50 10y ago
> its your responsibility to build a nest egg In the time of negative bond yields? It doesn't actually change the quantity of economic output needed by old people whether their pension is private or public. Either it's routed through taxation or dividend payments, but the end result - diverted from accumulation/investment into consumption - must be the same. Unless, of course, the move to push people into private pensions is so their value can be reduced without anyone in particular having to take responsibility for that. Philip Green passim.
- lbotos 10y ago
  I'm not sure why negative bond yields means that you shouldn't be living below your means and trying to secure a positive financial future?
  - pjc50 10y ago
    Do you want moral homilies or financial advice? Sure, living below your means is generally good advice; but my point was that as interest rates go down that affects the discount rate, and the amount of income required to achieve a particular nominal income in retirement increases dramatically. (Also, there's quite a lot of people who are barely able to get over the first financial hurdle of paying rent, let alone buying a house, both of which are more important than pension saving. Being a renter even with a big pension is much worse than being a homeowner with a small pension.)