3 ms·

> So if you want your pensions to be secured, the benefits cannot be guaranteed by faith in future governments! It's funny how you see this as a positive ? If

> So if you want your pensions to be secured, the benefits cannot be guaranteed by faith in future governments! It's funny how you see this as a positive ? If people have this attitude, of course the result will be mercantilism, or worse : the hoarding of jobs/companies/markets and the only way to get into a specific jobs is to do whatever "the guild" wants, which I guarantee will include paying pensions. And if you "go around" the guild, they will either regulate you out of existence or outright physically attack you. Before you say that can't work I'd like to point out that they did this in almost all of Europe for ~1200 years. And under these conditions, I would understand that way of working. Such things are the alternative. So, I would very much want people to have faith in government, and that very much means you have to pay up the promises made before. > Consider the alternative - are you saying that future generations are always bound to the decisions of past generations, even though they may not even have been alive or of voting age? If a law is fair and benefits society, that future generation will respect it because it benefits society. You mean, paying people for their work what they were promised when they started that work, for example ? Like pensions ? > How as a socialist could you justify a pensioner earning more than a productive active worker? I don't understand why this would be a problem for a socialist ? > Consider the alternative - are you saying that future generations are always bound to the decisions of past generations, What I don't understand is that as a supposed capitalist alternative you're actually advocating making promises (like pensions), then reneging on them. Your alternative is to lie. Make promises, and exploit people who believe them ... I guarantee if there is one thing that kills markets faster than anything else it's a loss of trust. You're advocating, unless I'm mistaking, exploiting trust. This is just not going to work. There's a reason most historical capitalist societies had extreme versions of holding people to their promises. Slavery, debtors' prisons, forced labor, indentured servitude, ... were "solutions" used by past societies to avoid this problem. There was presumably a reason they did this ... do you really want to go back ?

landryraccoon 8y ago
If you are a socialist, you ignored my most important argument : > If the median income in a nation is $40K, but the median pension given by the state exceeds that income, then who is suffering unfairly if the pension is reduced to be more in line with what the average worker earns? If government pensions pay out more at retirement than the median worker makes while working, would you agree that under socialism this would be considered unfair to the worker, and overly exploitative for the pensioner?
- candiodari 8y ago
  > If government pensions pay out more at retirement than the median worker makes while working, would you agree that under socialism this would be considered unfair to the worker, and overly exploitative for the pensioner? No, because, firstly, this isn't true. The government simply has started to pay less. From any individual's perspective, I assure you they don't earn more in retirement than when they were working. If you have heard differently, I assure you that's propaganda. Secondly, I would simply say that current government employees have the right to be paid the same as their predecessors. Lowering pensions ? No way I'd agree to that as a socialist. No way in hell. But you should raise the conditions for government employees.
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    > I assure you they don't earn more in retirement than when they were working. If you have heard differently, I assure you that's propaganda. They earn more than the average worker overall. In California the average government pensioner earns 26% more than the average non retired, currently working worker. Source: https://californiapolicycenter.org/what-is-the-average-pension-for-a-retired-government-worker-in-california/ https://californiapolicycenter.org/what-is-the-average-pensi... That's too much. As a socialist, I would find it clearly exploitative that a non worker is making more than an active worker. That's completely unjustifiable under socialism. The point of a pension is to provide an income so a retiree doesn't live in poverty. Paying a pension that exceeds that of a younger worker who is actively working full time completely goes against that.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      > That's too much. As a socialist, I would find it clearly exploitative that a non worker is making more than an active worker. That's completely unjustifiable under socialism. I don't understand where this is coming from. Personally, I am a socialist and I think it's too little. If I look at it from a capitalist's perspective, I ... also think it's too little.
      - 8y ago

landryraccoon 8y ago

If you are a socialist, you ignored my most important argument : > If the median income in a nation is $40K, but the median pension given by the state exceeds that income, then who is suffering unfairly if the pension is reduced to be more in line with what the average worker earns? If government pensions pay out more at retirement than the median worker makes while working, would you agree that under socialism this would be considered unfair to the worker, and overly exploitative for the pensioner?

candiodari 8y ago
> If government pensions pay out more at retirement than the median worker makes while working, would you agree that under socialism this would be considered unfair to the worker, and overly exploitative for the pensioner? No, because, firstly, this isn't true. The government simply has started to pay less. From any individual's perspective, I assure you they don't earn more in retirement than when they were working. If you have heard differently, I assure you that's propaganda. Secondly, I would simply say that current government employees have the right to be paid the same as their predecessors. Lowering pensions ? No way I'd agree to that as a socialist. No way in hell. But you should raise the conditions for government employees.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  > I assure you they don't earn more in retirement than when they were working. If you have heard differently, I assure you that's propaganda. They earn more than the average worker overall. In California the average government pensioner earns 26% more than the average non retired, currently working worker. Source: https://californiapolicycenter.org/what-is-the-average-pension-for-a-retired-government-worker-in-california/ https://californiapolicycenter.org/what-is-the-average-pensi... That's too much. As a socialist, I would find it clearly exploitative that a non worker is making more than an active worker. That's completely unjustifiable under socialism. The point of a pension is to provide an income so a retiree doesn't live in poverty. Paying a pension that exceeds that of a younger worker who is actively working full time completely goes against that.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    > That's too much. As a socialist, I would find it clearly exploitative that a non worker is making more than an active worker. That's completely unjustifiable under socialism. I don't understand where this is coming from. Personally, I am a socialist and I think it's too little. If I look at it from a capitalist's perspective, I ... also think it's too little.
    - 8y ago