10 ms·
Too Many Americans Will Never Be Able to Retire
- scottlocklin 8y agoPlay stupid games (40 years of anti-natalist policy, dilution of labor bargaining power) win stupid prizes.
- Buldak 8y agoWhat "anti-natalist" policy are you referring to?
- cheez 8y agoYou can't deny that there is a reduction in birth rates. Many policies combine to make this the case: 1. Supplementing housing prices or guaranteeing mortgages makes them unaffordable. People cannot afford to have kids 2. The severity of the divorce process makes people unlikely to want to marry. Marriage rates have declined. Less marriages, less kids. 3. Helicopter money keeps real wages down. Cannot afford to have kids. You may say these are not explicitly "anti-natalist" but in effect they are.
- ecwilson 8y agoI don't think it's a bad thing that the birthrate in the US has gone down. In general, it means women have more opportunities, and that's a good thing. More access to birth control. More women choosing to start a career. They didn't used to have that choice -- they were dependent on marrying a man for financial security.
- DoreenMichele 8y agoSomeone who was some years older than me and had been a hippy once told me something like "TV went off at 9pm. There wasn't much to do after 9pm other than sex and drugs." We now have the internet available 24/7. You can have live conversation with people around the world at any time of the day or night. You can get a lot of your sexual and emotional needs met through some means other than a relationship in meat space. Historically, the default assumption was you got married and presumably the result would be children. We had a lot of cultural norms, like shot gun weddings, to deal with the reality that birth control mostly wasn't a thing and there were consequences to getting your needs met. This was part of why we generally insisted on standards like no sex before marriage. A lot has changed over the years. For good and for bad.
- cheez 8y agoSure, the above are not the only reasons.
- redahs 8y agoThe shift of the state and local tax burden off of real estate held by wealthy savers and on to sales and purchases of household expenditures, the shift of the federal tax burden off of property income (most 'capital' gains are land value gains) and on to payroll earned by younger workers. All of these changes to the tax code have increased the rent which wealthy property owners can extract from younger workers without having to work themselves, at the cost of increasing the tax burden on younger working families, so that they cannot afford to have as many children as early in life.
- scottlocklin 8y agoI am hard pressed to think of any policy enacted by the US government in the last 100 years which wasn't explicitly (and probably purposefully -people used to worry about over population) anti-natalist.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> I am hard pressed to think of any policy enacted by the US government in the last 100 years which wasn't explicitly (and probably purposefully -people used to worry about over population) anti-natalist. For US federal policies that are explicitly pro-natalist (and not merely not explicitly anti-natalist), consider the Child Tax Cred, Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, Family and Medical Leave Act, mandatory maternity coverage in the Affordable Care Act, among others.
- mjevans 8y agoFull socialism is the only true answer. Don't provide the elderly a money stipend, provide them medical care, housing, and other basic needs (and probably free rides on public transit infrastructure).
- locacorten 8y agoYes! What could possibly go wrong?
- colordrops 8y agonothing that couldn't be addressed?
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoNothing that couldn't be addressed, if we turn out to be Sweden. Plenty that won't be successfully addressed, if we turn out to be Venezuela or Zimbabwe. Given the current competence of our government - on both sides - I don't think we can count on being Sweden.
- cheez 8y agoPopulation of Sweden: 9.995 million Population of USA: 325.7 million What makes people think any Swedish model can work large scale in the US?
- colordrops 8y agoAll I see is two numbers, and absolutely no argument as to why that makes any difference.
- x3n0ph3n3 8y agoScale matters. If you don't think so, look at Bubble Sort. It works just fine if you're list size is trivially small. Now try running it on a list with a size > 1 million.
- Proven 8y agoThankfully I've never counsidered the possibility that the financial Ponzi will be able to last long into the future. Every government and pension fund is insolvent. We knew that 20 years ago.
- andrewmcwatters 8y agoWhy should we all have more kids to subsidize social security? I doubt I'll receive any to begin with; I don't factor it into retirement projections at all. With the continuing trend of politicians and businesses attacking American retirement options, there's no incentive. Who even says to themselves and their spouse, "Oh man, we should really have more kids, because 40 years from now, social safety nets are going to be compromised if we don't." Kids are expensive.
- _bxg1 8y agoBut please, tell me more about that shiny new wall.
- robofomo 8y agoyou can't fix it with immigration. A greying white population supporting their lifestyle with the labor of poor, young, non-white workers? I can't think of a more reliable path to civil war. Need to boost birth rate, increase automation, and change economic focus. Cut the welfare state down to poverty relief. Pay down the debt. Get a sovereign fund going.
- fgandiya 8y agoWhat about shifting to a more stable form of retirement instead of the DIY solutions (401ks, IRAs, etc.) pushed since the 80s? As great as they are, there's a lot of BS marketing around 401ks (unless you self manage) and while the market has consistent returns over time, the premise "past returns do not indicate future performance" still applies. Before then there were pensions which seemed more stable. Only thing I wonder about them is what would happen to the pension if the company went out of business.
- rootusrootus 8y agoPensions are insured, so in theory you can't lose everything just because the company went tits up. Also, I don't have statistics handy but as I recall, we tend to think today that pensions were far more common in the past than they really were.
- deathanatos 8y ago> Also, I don't have statistics handy but as I recall, we tend to think today that pensions were far more common in the past than they really were. Best I could find was [1]. 60% of private sector workers covered in 1980 vs. 10% in 2006. Seems to me the reputation is appropriate. [1]: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/pensions-1980-vs-today/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/pensions-1980-...
- rootusrootus 8y agoI may be misremembering, then. I had seen different numbers than that. It may also be that what I'm remembering is a comparison from farther back that explains that the pensions of 30 years ago were a brief blip and that what's going on now is we're reverting to the long term mean. Or I'm entirely wrong, which there is a lot of precedent for.
- zozbot123 8y ago> Before then there were pensions which seemed more stable. Only thing I wonder about them is what would happen to the pension if the company went out of business. "Seemed" is exactly the right word to use, there. At least you're asking the right questions though, so please don't feel so unhappy about it! Here's a hint which has remarkable general usefulness: if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
- paxys 8y agoThe article skips over one important point - people are living longer, and are generally a lot healthier at "retirement age" (60-65) than a generation ago. While the number of young people decline, there's no reason why we can't expect people to continue working for 5 or even 10 more years than expected to make up the difference. I believe what really needs to be fixed isn't birth rates but rather income inequality/working-class wages.
- pojzon 8y agoThat or immigration. As it looks right now, those are the only options.
- smogcutter 8y ago"But now we can keep you alive long enough to squeeze out an extra decade at your desk" is not exactly a silver lining.
- Gibbon1 8y agoCan I do what I'm doing at 75? probably. Can my friends in construction keep working till 75? No, most of them are haven't trouble in their 50's already.
- Terr_ 8y agoWell, suppose a miraculous breakthrough occurred and the life expectancy shot from, say, 75 years up to 750, pushing back the onset of debilitating age. Surely it would seem like grumbling to dismiss it as: "Now they can keep you alive long enough to squeeze out an extra 675 years at your desk." This might be rather millenial of me, but I don't view retirement as some long-deferred tasty dessert for being a good compliant worker who eats their vegetables... as much as a someday-unavoidable lifestyle transition.
- sigfubar 8y agoMy family doesn’t know this, but I have a solid retirement plan. It’s not really a retirement plan in the traditional sense, because I won’t be able to retire from the workforce and enjoy the spoils no matter how hard I try. However, when I’m no longer able to work for money, I’ll pull out my gun and put a bullet in my head. I’m at peace with the idea because it leaves me free to raise my child in the best way possible. What happens to me after is unimportant.
- joshuahughes 8y agoMy wife has a friend whose husband ended his own life that way. The family members who found him not only lost a loved one, but they also have the horrific images of his self-mutilation seered into their memory. I’d really urge you to think about that aspect...
- sigfubar 8y agoYes, that does sound horrible, but I’m not what one would call a suicidal person acting out of desperation. I’m also not an idiot. When the time comes, no one will be subjected to horrific images.
- hnuser1234 8y agoTo avoid the risk of failure and rendering yourself a disfigured invalid, you should acquire helium or nitrogen from a welding shop to do the deed by inert gas asphyxiation. You would also need a cheap regulator to control the flow (available from most hardware stores), a tube to direct the flow, and a plastic bag to contain the gas while you breathe it. Inert gas asphyxiation is painless -- it's just like falling asleep. Helium and Nitrogen are not only chemically inert but also physiologically inert. They have no taste or odor and do not trigger the hypercapnic response as happens with suffocation or CO/CO2 poisoning. Another advantage is this leaves your body intact and presentable for your survivors.
- apta 8y agoWhat a disgusting piece of "advice" to give to someone.
- mnm1 8y agoAccording to https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck... 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. So at a minimum, 78% of Americans will never be able to retire, except perhaps into extreme poverty. The percentage only goes up from there.
- redahs 8y agoWe should phase in a federal 400% annual land value tax on the appraised price which all land would sell for if clear of improvements over the next 80 years. A 400% annual tax on the market value means the expect purchase price of an empty lot will approach 3 months worth of tax payments for holding it. A percentage of the gross revenues can be prebated to citizen residents at the beginning of each year to afford taxes due at the end of the year. A large deduction can be granted for land and real estate property tax payments made to state and local governments. The additional revenues gained from the tax can be used to abolish sales and payroll taxes which fall more heavily on younger working families so it is more affordable for future generations to have a larger number of children earlier in life.
- hnuser1234 8y agoMy retirement plan includes living somewhere where I can own the land and not be raped by property taxes. Many people, my in-laws included, have to flee their high property tax states upon retirement in order to be able to afford to do so. How does this help maintain stable communities? Shouldn't people be able to retire in place?
- wmf 8y agoThey can't use a reverse mortgage to pay property tax?
- hnuser1234 8y agoWhy should people have to enter into an exploitive financial agreement with a bank to pay a tax to stay in their homes that they putatively own during their aged years? How is that just?
- wmf 8y agoWhy should people use government services without paying tax? If they don't want to pay property tax they can live somewhere with a homestead exemption.
- NTDF9 8y agoHow about letting prices deflate so that retirees and millennials can afford to live with normal wages and savings? The whole ponzi scheme is needed only because we have govts, Central banks, Wall Street looking for inflation and returns. Why not let Wall Street go bankrupt and let the economy deflate?
- jorblumesea 8y agoI think this basic fact will push American politics towards more socialist European style programs like universal healthcare. While the boomer generation talks big about some of these conservative values, the basic economic facts will push the drive for leftist policies, even if they are sold as something else in the political world.
- satuenpoo 8y agoToo many adults don't want to retire, judging by their actions and financial choices.