4 ms·

If your retirement is not self-funded, you likey don't have one. Your future is your responsibility, if you are able. Do it while you can, or grow old without.

bartvk 10y ago
I hate to see so bleak a future, however two years ago I quit my job and started freelancing at 38. That has made me much, much more aware of the need to save money. It's not hard to make a simple spreadsheet and see when you're able to retire. I suggest everyone does so. It's very interesting to see your retirement date move up when you change your savings rate.
gkya 10y ago
Oh yes and everybody should set up their sewage systems and raise their own crops in their own backyards. Society doesn't function like that.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  That is a good illistration of specialization of labor, but I'm not sure how that related to the OP.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    I think his point is that civilization is based on the principle of not letting people fend for themselves (e.g.: through public works like sewage systems), and that this naturally extends to retirement pensions.
    - gkya 10y ago
      The point is that civilisation is nothing else than working together as a society. The retirement system is not philantrophy, it's retributions for those who spent a good part of their life as a cog in the machine. And it's not like the retired receive their pensions ex nihilo, they pay in advance through the social security cuts (1). We teach our children to become a part of the civilisation and take care of them until they actually do so. And we should equally take care of the elderly because they've already took their part in the civilised society, and now they have the right to enjoy their last hours in peace. But we always like receiving, and giving always torments us. That's no civilisation, though, but just a bad likeness thereof. (1) That's, at least, how it functions here in Turkey: every month, a certain amount of your wage goes to your retirement fund, and when you retire, you receive your pension, an amount that depends on your past contributions to your fund and on the height of your position.
      - omginternets 10y ago
        Indeed, but that's beside the immediate point I was clarifying.
shorttime 10y ago
This certainly seems to be the trend in America today. Looking at history, clearly we are moving toward the individual being the pinnacle of importance. Gone are the days of family, unity, knowing neighbors, big social gatherings. Even interactions with others today are not as community-oriented, barely anyone knows their neighbors, people rarely communicate in public scenarios (subways), everyone wants their own sovereignty without having to lend a helping hand. I can only mention these opinions from things I've read on the past and my own experiences but it seems that the individual is the importance in today's society. Not sure if that's a good thing either. The individual must be precise and unfailing if there is no safety net. A group can better handle risk and mitigate negative consequences. The only benefit I see from focusing more on the individual is freedom. Freedom at what cost?

bartvk 10y ago

I hate to see so bleak a future, however two years ago I quit my job and started freelancing at 38. That has made me much, much more aware of the need to save money. It's not hard to make a simple spreadsheet and see when you're able to retire. I suggest everyone does so. It's very interesting to see your retirement date move up when you change your savings rate.

gkya 10y ago

Oh yes and everybody should set up their sewage systems and raise their own crops in their own backyards. Society doesn't function like that.

paulddraper 10y ago
That is a good illistration of specialization of labor, but I'm not sure how that related to the OP.
- omginternets 10y ago
  I think his point is that civilization is based on the principle of not letting people fend for themselves (e.g.: through public works like sewage systems), and that this naturally extends to retirement pensions.
  - gkya 10y ago
    The point is that civilisation is nothing else than working together as a society. The retirement system is not philantrophy, it's retributions for those who spent a good part of their life as a cog in the machine. And it's not like the retired receive their pensions ex nihilo, they pay in advance through the social security cuts (1). We teach our children to become a part of the civilisation and take care of them until they actually do so. And we should equally take care of the elderly because they've already took their part in the civilised society, and now they have the right to enjoy their last hours in peace. But we always like receiving, and giving always torments us. That's no civilisation, though, but just a bad likeness thereof. (1) That's, at least, how it functions here in Turkey: every month, a certain amount of your wage goes to your retirement fund, and when you retire, you receive your pension, an amount that depends on your past contributions to your fund and on the height of your position.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      Indeed, but that's beside the immediate point I was clarifying.

shorttime 10y ago

This certainly seems to be the trend in America today. Looking at history, clearly we are moving toward the individual being the pinnacle of importance. Gone are the days of family, unity, knowing neighbors, big social gatherings. Even interactions with others today are not as community-oriented, barely anyone knows their neighbors, people rarely communicate in public scenarios (subways), everyone wants their own sovereignty without having to lend a helping hand. I can only mention these opinions from things I've read on the past and my own experiences but it seems that the individual is the importance in today's society. Not sure if that's a good thing either. The individual must be precise and unfailing if there is no safety net. A group can better handle risk and mitigate negative consequences. The only benefit I see from focusing more on the individual is freedom. Freedom at what cost?