7 ms·

I think you're presenting a false choice. We live in a society where an awful lot of money goes to things and people that don't particularly need or merit it.

I think you're presenting a false choice. We live in a society where an awful lot of money goes to things and people that don't particularly need or merit it. What you mean to be saying is "accept the fact that without a radical change in how we view the purpose of employment and retirement, most people cannot . . ." Basically, what's the goal? The goal right now is for each entity in the system to hold onto as much money as it possibly can. It's a company-first view of the problem, and therefore not one that really addresses the main point: People shouldn't be expected to work into their old age.

koolba 10y ago
> I think you're presenting a false choice. We live in a society where an awful lot of money goes to things and people that don't particularly need or merit it. That's why people don't have a higher savings rate. Most people are idiots when it comes to spending, the dumbest habit of which is increasing your spending on pace with increased in income. Okay maybe not the dumbest as it's even dumber when they increase it faster than income (ex: new job => new car with higher monthly payment v.s. difference in salary). > What you mean to be saying is "accept the fact that without a radical change in how we view the purpose of employment and retirement, most people cannot . . ." > Basically, what's the goal? The goal right now is for each entity in the system to hold onto as much money as it possibly can. Why is the company holding onto anything? If you're working as an employee and want to retire one day, demand to be paid for the services you're providing now, save them up, invest them, and then it's yours to spend. Why have the company guess at how to manage that? It's putting an awfully lot of eggs in one basket as well as if the company goes under, your pension will take a hit as well (since no company actually has a fully paid for sinking fund). > It's a company-first view of the problem, and therefore not one that really addresses the main point: People shouldn't be expected to work into their old age. Why not? What else are they going to do anyway and why should they be granted N years of do nothingness just because they're old? Sure sounds like a ponzi scheme to me ...
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  > That's why people don't have a higher savings rate. Most people are idiots when it comes to spending, the dumbest habit of which is increasing your spending on pace with increased in income. Okay maybe not the dumbest as it's even dumber when they increase it faster than income (ex: new job => new car with higher monthly payment v.s. difference in salary). It's also why megacorporations and a very small percentage of people have such immense amounts of money and give essentially nothing back for it. > Why not? What else are they going to do anyway and why should they be granted N years of do nothingness just because they're old? Sure sounds like a ponzi scheme to me... What is so valuable about forcing everyone to work their whole lives? Who benefits?
  - koolba 10y ago
    > It's also why megacorporations and a very small percentage of people have such immense amounts of money and give essentially nothing back for it. Besides you sounding bitter and misinformed or changing the conversation to one about converting the USA to communism, I don't see how that's relevant to this. > What is so valuable about forcing everyone to work their whole lives? Who benefits? They benefit by providing for themselves and their families. They're not being forced to do anything (though food, shelter, and self preservation tend to be good motivators). To flip your question around, why should they get a free ride because they past a certain age? I'm not saying people shouldn't retire, I'm saying that if they want to do it, they need to be realistic about what's financially involved and either save significantly more or realize they're going to be living off of rice and beans.
    - ivraatiems 10y ago
      > Besides you sounding bitter and misinformed or changing the conversation to one about converting the USA to communism, I don't see how that's relevant to this. I didn't say that. I think you're leaping to conclusions. What I'm trying to do, to be frank, is poke holes in the assumptions you're making in the first post about how things are and should be. I'm not a communist (it's never worked as envisioned, and likely can't), but I'm getting pretty sick of the notion that our system as-is is the best one for most people. I want to have a conversation about ways it could either be made better, or what it could be replaced with. > They benefit by providing for themselves and their families. They're not being forced to do anything (though food, shelter, and self preservation tend to be good motivators). Again, this is a false choice. It actually is a couple of false assumptions: First, the idea that food, shelter and self-preservation are things that people must earn, rather than have a right to. Second, that people who are in a "do it or die" situation have any real choice, given that almost nobody would choose the "die" part of that. > To flip your question around, why should they get a free ride because they past a certain age? I'm not saying people shouldn't retire, I'm saying that if they want to do it, they need to be realistic about what's financially involved and either save significantly more or realize they're going to be living off of rice and beans. So, first of all, I agree with the notion that in the system as it is, one has to be prudent and thoughtful, one has to save money, one has to plan for oneself. We're in agreement on all that: With the world the way it is, it's important for each individual to plan and put themselves first. I fully understand how to work within the system we have to keep oneself afloat, and I'm not suggesting people shouldn't. Why shouldn't people get a free ride for food, health, shelter? Why are those things things which must somehow be earned? I'm talking philosophically here, not practically. I'm not saying everyone is entitled to caviar and vegan d3 supplements on private yachts, but I don't understand the assumption that, given a society which could technologically provide basics for everyone, people shouldn't have them.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >That's why people don't have a higher savings rate. Most people are idiots when it comes to spending, No, not at all. People have a low savings rate because they're poor: their wages are low compared to the cost of living. This is a systemic, economy-wide problem for the entire bottom 90% of the population. You can't save when you're facing "heat or eat" each month or trying to make student-loan payments before Social Security kicks in.
  - rubyfan 10y ago
    The entire 90% is not so poor that they can't save 10% of their income. It may be true at certain levels but not the entire 90%. It's about choices and so many people choose to pay for frivolous things like a cable or cell phone bill instead of saving. I'm convinced so many people have fooled themselves into believing the government will cover their retirement shortfall. The problem is ultimately they are probably right but government doesn't have capital to cover the shortfall (not even actual social security obligations it seems)... so they are likely going to take it from the ones that have managed to save for their retirement, wait and see.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      >government doesn't have capital to cover the shortfall (not even actual social security obligations it seems)... If we eliminated the cap on how much salary is taxable for Social Security payroll contributions, all projected obligations and shortfalls would be covered. Social Security is being choked to death for ideological reasons, not starving naturally.

koolba 10y ago

> I think you're presenting a false choice. We live in a society where an awful lot of money goes to things and people that don't particularly need or merit it. That's why people don't have a higher savings rate. Most people are idiots when it comes to spending, the dumbest habit of which is increasing your spending on pace with increased in income. Okay maybe not the dumbest as it's even dumber when they increase it faster than income (ex: new job => new car with higher monthly payment v.s. difference in salary). > What you mean to be saying is "accept the fact that without a radical change in how we view the purpose of employment and retirement, most people cannot . . ." > Basically, what's the goal? The goal right now is for each entity in the system to hold onto as much money as it possibly can. Why is the company holding onto anything? If you're working as an employee and want to retire one day, demand to be paid for the services you're providing now, save them up, invest them, and then it's yours to spend. Why have the company guess at how to manage that? It's putting an awfully lot of eggs in one basket as well as if the company goes under, your pension will take a hit as well (since no company actually has a fully paid for sinking fund). > It's a company-first view of the problem, and therefore not one that really addresses the main point: People shouldn't be expected to work into their old age. Why not? What else are they going to do anyway and why should they be granted N years of do nothingness just because they're old? Sure sounds like a ponzi scheme to me ...

ivraatiems 10y ago
> That's why people don't have a higher savings rate. Most people are idiots when it comes to spending, the dumbest habit of which is increasing your spending on pace with increased in income. Okay maybe not the dumbest as it's even dumber when they increase it faster than income (ex: new job => new car with higher monthly payment v.s. difference in salary). It's also why megacorporations and a very small percentage of people have such immense amounts of money and give essentially nothing back for it. > Why not? What else are they going to do anyway and why should they be granted N years of do nothingness just because they're old? Sure sounds like a ponzi scheme to me... What is so valuable about forcing everyone to work their whole lives? Who benefits?
- koolba 10y ago
  > It's also why megacorporations and a very small percentage of people have such immense amounts of money and give essentially nothing back for it. Besides you sounding bitter and misinformed or changing the conversation to one about converting the USA to communism, I don't see how that's relevant to this. > What is so valuable about forcing everyone to work their whole lives? Who benefits? They benefit by providing for themselves and their families. They're not being forced to do anything (though food, shelter, and self preservation tend to be good motivators). To flip your question around, why should they get a free ride because they past a certain age? I'm not saying people shouldn't retire, I'm saying that if they want to do it, they need to be realistic about what's financially involved and either save significantly more or realize they're going to be living off of rice and beans.
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    > Besides you sounding bitter and misinformed or changing the conversation to one about converting the USA to communism, I don't see how that's relevant to this. I didn't say that. I think you're leaping to conclusions. What I'm trying to do, to be frank, is poke holes in the assumptions you're making in the first post about how things are and should be. I'm not a communist (it's never worked as envisioned, and likely can't), but I'm getting pretty sick of the notion that our system as-is is the best one for most people. I want to have a conversation about ways it could either be made better, or what it could be replaced with. > They benefit by providing for themselves and their families. They're not being forced to do anything (though food, shelter, and self preservation tend to be good motivators). Again, this is a false choice. It actually is a couple of false assumptions: First, the idea that food, shelter and self-preservation are things that people must earn, rather than have a right to. Second, that people who are in a "do it or die" situation have any real choice, given that almost nobody would choose the "die" part of that. > To flip your question around, why should they get a free ride because they past a certain age? I'm not saying people shouldn't retire, I'm saying that if they want to do it, they need to be realistic about what's financially involved and either save significantly more or realize they're going to be living off of rice and beans. So, first of all, I agree with the notion that in the system as it is, one has to be prudent and thoughtful, one has to save money, one has to plan for oneself. We're in agreement on all that: With the world the way it is, it's important for each individual to plan and put themselves first. I fully understand how to work within the system we have to keep oneself afloat, and I'm not suggesting people shouldn't. Why shouldn't people get a free ride for food, health, shelter? Why are those things things which must somehow be earned? I'm talking philosophically here, not practically. I'm not saying everyone is entitled to caviar and vegan d3 supplements on private yachts, but I don't understand the assumption that, given a society which could technologically provide basics for everyone, people shouldn't have them.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>That's why people don't have a higher savings rate. Most people are idiots when it comes to spending, No, not at all. People have a low savings rate because they're poor: their wages are low compared to the cost of living. This is a systemic, economy-wide problem for the entire bottom 90% of the population. You can't save when you're facing "heat or eat" each month or trying to make student-loan payments before Social Security kicks in.
- rubyfan 10y ago
  The entire 90% is not so poor that they can't save 10% of their income. It may be true at certain levels but not the entire 90%. It's about choices and so many people choose to pay for frivolous things like a cable or cell phone bill instead of saving. I'm convinced so many people have fooled themselves into believing the government will cover their retirement shortfall. The problem is ultimately they are probably right but government doesn't have capital to cover the shortfall (not even actual social security obligations it seems)... so they are likely going to take it from the ones that have managed to save for their retirement, wait and see.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >government doesn't have capital to cover the shortfall (not even actual social security obligations it seems)... If we eliminated the cap on how much salary is taxable for Social Security payroll contributions, all projected obligations and shortfalls would be covered. Social Security is being choked to death for ideological reasons, not starving naturally.