3 ms·
The answer, for people who aren't going to die soon, is "live longer, and get the money to cover it as you go." In practice that'll mean fewer people on a retir
by pjscott 9y ago
The answer, for people who aren't going to die soon, is "live longer, and get the money to cover it as you go." In practice that'll mean fewer people on a retirement-and-death path and more people working in their 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s and 100s and 110s and so on, if all goes well.
- dawhizkid 9y agoSo philosophically is working until you're 110 is a superior life? Assuming there will be fewer good jobs in the future due to automation, would crowding a job market with older workers in their 80s, 90s, 100s a good thing for society and young people entering the job market? The lucky few, with some in tech reading HN, work on what they're intrinsically excited by and get paid to do it. Most don't.
- pjscott 9y agoPhilosophically, working until you're n years old is optimal -- for some value of n that I wouldn't think to dictate to anyone else. Maybe it's 50, and maybe it's 500. I don't know how it'll work out a few centuries from now and neither does anyone else. With luck maybe some of us will live long enough that we'll be able to offer more than glib speculation. Until then, to the extent that I can, I prefer to err on the side of not killing billions of people.