4 ms·

Actually until very recently you had your family to fall back on or else you starved to death. When most work was hard physical labor there wasn't much choice i

Actually until very recently you had your family to fall back on or else you starved to death. When most work was hard physical labor there wasn't much choice in retiring in your 50s as by that point you we either dead or clapped out. I think it would be better to be upfront with everyone that employment after 50 is going to be non-existent or paid at a lower rate and let people adjust their spending to match. It would certainly be much better than lying to people that they can work until 65 with an ever increasing wage.

remarkEon 8y ago
Better in what way? That this labour arrangement is fundamentally unsustainable?
- danieltillett 8y ago
  Better in the sense that people would match their spending to a realistic lifetime income.
LoSboccacc 8y ago
Then we should be paid a lot more during our thirties and fourthies but that's unrealistic since we're under the competition of cheap fresh graduates. But the real issue is a failure of the welfare state to protect the elderly and with retirement age ever increasing the problem will only worsen.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  Well maybe people are paid pretty close to what they are actually worth already in their 30s and 40s and the problem is their spending doesn't match their income over their lifetime. If you know you are going to be facing a declining or no income from your 50s onwards you might save more and spend less when you are younger.
  - LoSboccacc 8y ago
    Seriously that's your solution? There are load of people that get by month to month and aren't doing exactly a lavish existence already to be able to cut back spending. What you going to tell them, "though shit now go be homeless somewhere out of sight?"
  - tchaffee 8y ago
    The real problem is that people in their 30s and 40s don't know their real worth and let company owners keep most of that generated value.
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      They might not do this if they knew their employer was going to throw them on the scrap heap as soon as they hit 50.
  - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
    Well maybe people are paid pretty close to what they are actually worth already in their 30s and 40s and the problem is their spending doesn't match their income over their lifetime. In this scenario, poor people are simply paid death wages, regardless of the reason for their low-paying job.
  - solidsnack9000 8y ago
    Well maybe people are paid pretty close to what they are actually worth already in their 30s and 40s and the problem is their spending doesn't match their income over their lifetime. This could be true for a small number of people; but when we look at the population as a whole, spending has to be balanced by productivity. People can't spend money on goods and services that aren't being produced. If there is excess productivity that isn't matched by wages -- if people are consistently able to consume more than they earn -- we have to ask where that extra productivity is coming from.
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      Across the population as a whole people in their 30s and 40s saving more and spending it later will be neutral. I think most of would prefer to live a less luxurious lifestyle in our 30s and 40s if it meant we weren't homeless and unemployable in our 50s and 60s.

remarkEon 8y ago

Better in what way? That this labour arrangement is fundamentally unsustainable?

danieltillett 8y ago
Better in the sense that people would match their spending to a realistic lifetime income.

LoSboccacc 8y ago

Then we should be paid a lot more during our thirties and fourthies but that's unrealistic since we're under the competition of cheap fresh graduates. But the real issue is a failure of the welfare state to protect the elderly and with retirement age ever increasing the problem will only worsen.

danieltillett 8y ago
Well maybe people are paid pretty close to what they are actually worth already in their 30s and 40s and the problem is their spending doesn't match their income over their lifetime. If you know you are going to be facing a declining or no income from your 50s onwards you might save more and spend less when you are younger.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  Seriously that's your solution? There are load of people that get by month to month and aren't doing exactly a lavish existence already to be able to cut back spending. What you going to tell them, "though shit now go be homeless somewhere out of sight?"
- tchaffee 8y ago
  The real problem is that people in their 30s and 40s don't know their real worth and let company owners keep most of that generated value.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    They might not do this if they knew their employer was going to throw them on the scrap heap as soon as they hit 50.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  Well maybe people are paid pretty close to what they are actually worth already in their 30s and 40s and the problem is their spending doesn't match their income over their lifetime. In this scenario, poor people are simply paid death wages, regardless of the reason for their low-paying job.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  Well maybe people are paid pretty close to what they are actually worth already in their 30s and 40s and the problem is their spending doesn't match their income over their lifetime. This could be true for a small number of people; but when we look at the population as a whole, spending has to be balanced by productivity. People can't spend money on goods and services that aren't being produced. If there is excess productivity that isn't matched by wages -- if people are consistently able to consume more than they earn -- we have to ask where that extra productivity is coming from.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    Across the population as a whole people in their 30s and 40s saving more and spending it later will be neutral. I think most of would prefer to live a less luxurious lifestyle in our 30s and 40s if it meant we weren't homeless and unemployable in our 50s and 60s.