4 ms·

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

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.
    - solidsnack9000 8y ago
      What does the spending have to do with becoming unemployable?

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.
  - solidsnack9000 8y ago
    What does the spending have to do with becoming unemployable?