5 ms·

Maybe a little out of scope, but, is it not the important issue if the society we live when we retire is richer or poorer than the society today? I mean, if we

Maybe a little out of scope, but, is it not the important issue if the society we live when we retire is richer or poorer than the society today? I mean, if we live in a society, for instance, three times richer (per capita) than today, it would be very strange that old people will have a hard time. In the other hand, if it's a poorer society, even people with savings are probably to have a hard retirement.

athenot 10y ago
It could be a problem if, using your example, society is 3 times richer but that comes from 10% being a lot richer and 90% being somewhat poorer. Inequality, it seems, is rising over time.
- RobertoG 10y ago
  I suppose that what surprise me is the contradiction between the optimism about the future of HN crowd and their pessimism in this issue, as if nothing could be done (in the case that you think something should be done, of course). The inequality thing is far from unavoidable. In a democracy, at least, a society perceived as more fair for the majority should be attainable.
  - kmicklas 10y ago
    > The inequality thing is far from unavoidable. In a democracy, at least, a society perceived as more fair for the majority should be attainable. This is a nice thought in theory, but not really true as long as campaigns themselves are funded by private capital. And any attempt to change that leads to private capital (cough Koch brothers cough) funding candidates to stop it. I'm not super optimistic this will change without some kind of dramatic event (revolution, war, SS being defunded and lots of old people starve, etc.).
    - hx87 10y ago
      > but not really true as long as campaigns themselves are funded by private capital As long as funding correlates strongly with winning, or at least appears to correlate strongly with winning. If that ever goes away, legislators are going to look at lobbyists with a more skeptical eye.

athenot 10y ago

It could be a problem if, using your example, society is 3 times richer but that comes from 10% being a lot richer and 90% being somewhat poorer. Inequality, it seems, is rising over time.

RobertoG 10y ago
I suppose that what surprise me is the contradiction between the optimism about the future of HN crowd and their pessimism in this issue, as if nothing could be done (in the case that you think something should be done, of course). The inequality thing is far from unavoidable. In a democracy, at least, a society perceived as more fair for the majority should be attainable.
- kmicklas 10y ago
  > The inequality thing is far from unavoidable. In a democracy, at least, a society perceived as more fair for the majority should be attainable. This is a nice thought in theory, but not really true as long as campaigns themselves are funded by private capital. And any attempt to change that leads to private capital (cough Koch brothers cough) funding candidates to stop it. I'm not super optimistic this will change without some kind of dramatic event (revolution, war, SS being defunded and lots of old people starve, etc.).
  - hx87 10y ago
    > but not really true as long as campaigns themselves are funded by private capital As long as funding correlates strongly with winning, or at least appears to correlate strongly with winning. If that ever goes away, legislators are going to look at lobbyists with a more skeptical eye.