3 ms·
> If we live two dozen more years that means someone will have to pay for those retirements. You're assuming that we'd just extend life rather than slow or par
by chimprich 10y ago
> If we live two dozen more years that means someone will have to pay for those retirements.
You're assuming that we'd just extend life rather than slow or partially reverse ageing as the article describes. You would assume that people would work for longer if this was the case. You may even get a "better" (from an economics point of view) ratio of working life to retirement time.
- conjectures 10y agoThis is important. The demographics issue isn't so much people being old, it's being old and infirm. If advances give us a healthier old age rather than merely a longer one, then they would alleviate rather than exacerbate the problem.