4 ms·

It's not unsustainable, it's just that they didn't raise the age of eligibility as they extended the average lifespan.

• 783629gasd 8y ago
  It's all about demographics and birth rate. Demography is destiny. If your target population is not growing at x%, your welfare state scheme will inevitably collapse. The important thing to realize is that the very act of instituting guaranteed retirement income will itself depress birthrates, since one of the big motivators to have a lot of kids is so you are taken care of when you get too old to work. This doesn't even take into account the myriad other ways in which our modern society depresses birthrates (or at least defers children): feminism, pornography, the demonization of masculinity, the collapse of the family unit, glorification of non-child bearing lifestyles (homosexuality, etc). The modern welfare state is doomed, and importing every poor third worlder will only delay the day of reckoning.
  • dang 8y ago
    Please don't post ideological rants to Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• stretchwithme 8y ago
  The drop in new workers entering the system is one issue. The longer lives of those collecting benefits is a another problem. Even if people weren't living longer, the dearth of new workers paying into the system would still be a problem.
• thatswrong0 8y ago
  But even then it's still only sustainable with a certain set of narrow assumptions, some of which are starting to become challenged. The U.S. only has a somewhat sustainable system for the short term because of immigration and GDP growth. I still don't understand why defined contribution is vilified by the left when it's the only actually sustainable solution, resilient to political, economic, and demographic changes.