6 ms·
This is not emphasized enough: prior to the last 100 years, the concept of retirement as currently visualized simply did not exist. You had kids, and the kids t
by fomojola 8y ago
This is not emphasized enough: prior to the last 100 years, the concept of retirement as currently visualized simply did not exist. You had kids, and the kids took care of you in your old age (or you just had a terrible old age).
A very small number of people had the resource base to survive growing old gracefully: Social Security was an attempt to extend that to all on a consistent basis. That's not to say some form of it can't be made to work, but as much as we may love the core concept of retirement we may need to accept that it isn't broadly economically viable without a meaningful, direct index against increasing life expectancy (with the usual caveats for infirmity, disease, etc).
It is (in my opinion) a well meaning, long term social experiment that might be coming to an end. I am quite curious to see what (and how) we get to the other side of that.
- ryandrake 8y agoI’m curious too. What’s the solution? Life expectancy keeps going up, but the age at which our bodies can no longer work has stayed relatively flat. People are living long past when they can no longer work. Fact. Society needs to solve this or we risk letting the elderly starve on the street.
- mmirate 8y agoIf someone is unproductive and can't/won't work, then people shouldn't be obligated to give him/her the fruits of their labor.
- ryandrake 8y agoI hope you don’t suddenly become disabled or chronically ill without a support network, with that attitude.
- mmirate 8y ago> disabled or chronically ill a priori, I consider both of those fates worse than death. Support network or no.
- DoreenMichele 8y agoYou probably won't get anyone to engage you in earnest. I have a genetic disorder. I'm significantly impacted by it. I spend part of every single day wishing I were dead and I'm actually pro Right to Die. But your sweeping pronouncements are hard to engage because your first one isn't about your personal preference to die if faced with certain things. It's a pronouncement about not supporting others. I fully support your right to choose to die rather than live with certain things, but it's much more complicated when we start talking about making general policies. At that point, you really need to provide some support for people who have had something unfortunate happen because society just works better when you do. Trying to decide who, what, when, where and how much gets tricky. But a society that throws people to the wolves if they are even temporarily impaired winds up actively creating more problems than it solves. You are lumping together your personal preference to die rather than live with X into your desire to not do shit all for other people and that makes it really hard to have a meaningful discussion here.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 8y agoThe solution is to raise taxes on the highest earners, and a wealth tax on certain types of wealth. To defeat health care inflation with single payer or other universal coverage system. To ensure senior housing is affordable. Off the top of my head.
- EADGBE 8y ago> A very small number of people had the resource base to survive growing old gracefully: Social Security was an attempt to extend that to all on a consistent basis. It was designed as a safety net for lower/middle income, disabled workers, and benefactors to workers; not a primary source of retirement income. It's becoming more and more apparent that it's the former, not the latter.
- EADGBE 8y ago*beneficiaries, not benefactors