7 ms·

This is going to suck, especially for democracies. Large voting blocks of old people with little savings and non vested interest in the long term outcome of the

This is going to suck, especially for democracies. Large voting blocks of old people with little savings and non vested interest in the long term outcome of the world. Yikes.

e40 7y ago
Yes, this is going to get messy. The old and young fighting over resources. I remember years ago reading a short Sci Fi story posted somewhere. I wish I had saved it. It was in the form of a letter from a father, who had transferred his consciousness to the cloud, to a son who was toiling to pay taxes so the people living in the machine could continue to relax in the afterlife.
- stevesearer 7y ago
  For some reason I felt the need to google hunt for this book based solely on your description. Is it The Uploaded? ... perhaps not since you said short story "In the near future, the elderly have moved online and now live within the computer network. But that doesn’t stop them interfering in the lives of the living, whose sole real purpose now is to maintain the vast servers which support digital Heaven. For one orphan that just isn't enough – he wants more for himself and his sister than a life slaving away for the dead. It turns out that he's not the only one who wants to reset the world..." https://www.amazon.com/Uploaded-Ferrett-Steinmetz/dp/0857667173 https://www.amazon.com/Uploaded-Ferrett-Steinmetz/dp/0857667...
JohnFen 7y ago
Speaking as one who is not quite old, but can see that status coming in the near future, I don't agree that old people are not invested in the long term outcome of the world. Old people tend to have children, grandchildren, and beyond, and tend to be very concerned with what sort of world they'll be living in. That's a very strong investment.
- bumby 7y ago
  It's not that people don't care, it's that we're pre-wired to be biased towards the short-term. The relatively abstract problems of the future tend to take a backseat to the more concrete problems of the here-and-now, disproportionately so in regards to risk
  - swasheck 7y ago
    > pre-wired to be biased towards the short-term. do you mean toward self-preservation?
    - bumby 7y ago
      No, I meant we are biased towards present value rather than future value. I think some of Daniel Kahneman's work has tried to quantify how much higher value the future proposition needs to be before they are equally weighted preferences. For example, if I give you the choice of $1 today or $1.20 next week, most people take the 'today' choice even though it's objectively worth less. There's a tipping point though when the value of future propositions become more favored. More to the point of the discussion, how much quality of life today will people be willing to sacrifice for an abstract idea of quality of life (particularly for somebody else) in the future?
      - user5994461 7y ago
        It's not a bias. What are the odds that you actually show up next week and remember that you owe me money? Pretty low. Better take the $1 now.
        bumby 7y ago
        It actually is a bias, I just probably didn't do the concept justice in explaining it. https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/present-bias/ https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclope... I think what you're referring to is more akin to uncertainty risk.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jdietrich 7y ago
  In a word: Brexit. In two words: climate change. In three words: the housing crisis. The old have a marked tendency to vote against the long-term interests of the young.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    It's not clear to me that those three things are examples of the old being against long-term interests of anybody. First, I don't know if there's a clear age divide on opinions on those things. Perhaps there is, but I haven't seen data on that either way. Subjectively, it doesn't appear to me that this is the case. Second, it may very well be that the stances people are taking on those issues are because they see those stances as being positive in the long term. (I'm not considering "the housing crisis", because I'm not sure what you mean by that in this context). You and I may (and it sounds like we do) disagree with other's assessments on these things, but that doesn't actually speak to motivation.
    - user5994461 7y ago
      There is definitely a clear divide on Brexit. On the young/old axis and the London/countryside axis. For the climate, I think the point is that the younger and future generations will have to live with it, while the oldest will be dead. Not that either generations tried to deny climate change or make it happen.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Well, the "young" of the time voted for the EU when it was proposed back in the 1975 UK referendum and other cases. So there's that. As for climate change that has been the result of half a century of increased consumerism kickstarted in the 50s and spearheaded by the Baby Boomer generation (which, for the most part of the ride, was young).
- forkLding 7y ago
  Its not that they wouldn't care, its just unintentional blindness to issues that plague young people, likely people of an older age can afford housing while younger people can't and thus is confused what the big fuss is. Or its just for older generations, they are more concerned about older problems or politics from previous times in the 1980s like combatting marijuana or like same-sex marriage while young people have issues stemming that are more relevant to 2000s like internet and social media addiction.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >likely people of an older age can afford housing while younger people can't and thus is confused what the big fuss is Don't worry, the near future "65+ plus" people will hardly be able to afford retirement, much less housing...
    - user5994461 7y ago
      Most of the 60+ plus people I know have long paid their mortgage, on a home bought long ago that was less than a decade of salary. They often have multiple properties and rent to the younger generations. It's not uncommon that they fail to understand why their children can't afford to buy a flat, while they had theirs in their early twenties.
    - b_tterc_p 7y ago
      True, the median of tomorrows old will probably have less than the median of todays old. But the median of tomorrows old will still have more than the median of tomorrow’s youth.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >But the median of tomorrows old will still have more than the median of tomorrow’s youth. Well, they also have several decades of working, investing, and accumulating wealth on them, so why wouldn't they? The question isn't whether "the median of tomorrows old will still have more than the median of tomorrow’s youth" but whether the median of tomorrows old will have more than the the median of tomorrows youth when said youth gets old itself.
- bumby 7y ago
  It would be an interesting experiment on this to see if a U.S. politician would be willing to propose raising the age to collect Social Security in order to keep it solvent for later generations. Maybe I'm too cynical but I doubt older folks would be turning out in droves to support that idea.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    Here, "insolvent" would just mean taxes need to be raised. Which need not necessarily be payroll taxes.
    - bumby 7y ago
      Right, there's lots of ways to solve it because it's a completely human created problem. I guess my larger point was that if we're trying to assess if an older generation would be more willing to sacrifice for a younger generation, it would need need to be a method that disproportionately affects the older generations. Raising the age gets you there, I think raising taxes does the opposite.
      - user5994461 7y ago
        Raising taxes has little effect on the older generation but dramatically hurt the working class. Retirement benefits are barely affected by employment taxes or income taxes. Most of the old wealth come from capital and/or renting properties. That being said, I'm not in the US but I am pretty sure the US is not that different from here.
        bumby 7y ago
        I'm in agreement. That's essentially the point I was making, although the commenter specifically said it didn't have to come from income taxes. With that said, I would assume other forms of taxation like a value-added or consumption tax would disproportionately affect younger citizens to the same effect
  - user5994461 7y ago
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > grandchildren I remember a comment from an estate planner. Old people don't care about their children. They care about their grandkids.
Angostura 7y ago
Only if the majority of the older people are arseholes. As an older person, I'd like to think that this isn't a forgone conclusion. Generally, I see the possibility of a stabilisation or gradual population decline as excellent news.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  I find it difficult to find any baby boomer that doesn't use the phrase "millennial" as disparaging. If being condescending to an entire generation of your world's future doesn't make you an asshole, I'm not sure what does.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > I find it difficult to find any baby boomer that doesn't use the phrase "millennial" as non-disparaging. Outside of the media articles (which seem to be mostly written by Gen Xers) regularly published painting both “Boomers” and “Millenials”, alternately, in disparaging lights, I don't actually see much of that from either side that goes beyond the usual “people a couple generations apart don't understand the conditions the others attitudes and actions are shaped by” that's been true of any similar pair of generations any time since, well, forever.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    I find that the number of the older generations that disparage the younger generations as you say is a small percentage. That said, there is a long tradition of the older generations thinking that the younger generations are in some way degenerate. This has been true for the entirety of recorded history and will probably be true for all future generations. All of the insults currently directed at millenials were equally directed, just as much, at the boomers when they were of that age. And, mark my words, millenials will be saying the same things about the generations that follow them. In this respect, nothing has changed. Which essentially makes it meaningless.
  - PunchTornado 7y ago
    most people I know, which are in their 20s and 30s, use millennial and snowflake in a pejorative way. it's not a baby boomer thing
PunchTornado 7y ago
as opposed to continuous population growth on a limited planet which is wonderful?
- moate 7y ago
  As opposed to a financial and institutional structure that doesn't rely on the young subsidizing the poor choices of previous generations in an eternal game of pass the tab.
aylmao 7y ago
I think this is a very American view of things, because I hear you guys keep getting screwed over by old people's voting. The way I view it is this will be good, because old people have lived long enough to be satisfied with life, and don't need short-term pleasures or have the ambition to build up huge amounts of wealth. They are also wiser. The old people I know live simple lives, tend to be open-minded and look out for the next generations. Then again I'm from a place that puts more value on family and less in oneself or money than the USA, at least from what I can tell.
- moate 7y ago
  Then as a non-US citizen you should be worried about what a financially frantic nation with a history of going to war for sustaining their economics and with more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined would do to places that look to have resources available. The world's largest economy going dramatically to shit isn't just a problem for the world's largest economy, it's a problem for the world. Addendum: Putting focus on your family doesn't exclude you from creating problems for "others" who don't fit your view of virtuous people. Donald Trump comes from a wealthy family who seem to do very well at ensuring their dynasty will be preserved. They take care of their own.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >I think this is a very American view of things, because I hear you guys keep getting screwed over by old people's voting. Well to be fair young people screw us too. They just do it in a way. Young people have some really stupid ideas about how society and world works because their experience in tends to be quite limited. Old people's stupidity tends to be more along the lines of clinging to the cultural norms of the past.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Perhaps once people get old enough, people become despondent with trying to help everyone, and instead just make sure their tribe/family gets as much of the pie as possible.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
fzeroracer 7y ago
Japan is a great microcosm of this effect, where the younger generation has to essentially work themselves to death in order to support the aging population. The politics and workplace environment is skewed towards the older generation which is resulting in (what I see as being) resentment or apathy.
- drivingmenuts 7y ago
  Are they doing that to support an aging population or because they’ve created a social environment that puts work obligations over family? Seems to me that’s an outgrowth of the recovery from WWII, when they had to rebuild an entire economy AND modernize at the same time.
Jupe 7y ago
Except, perhaps, those that have children or grand children?
return1 7y ago
And when they have vested interests in their children, they will choose the worst ways to serve them. I can provide as an example Greece, which is suffering an economic crisis and an even deeper demographic crisis. Despite that, elections are judged largely on what guarantees are given to pensioners. The whole political system has adopted the view that pensions are supposed to feed the whole family (i.e. children too). Thus even though the country needs economic growth, it spends record amounds on pensions https://www.thenationalherald.com/235942/greece-first-in-eu-pension-spending-near-bottom-in-health-care-education/ https://www.thenationalherald.com/235942/greece-first-in-eu-...
bwanab 7y ago
As one in that (>65) bloc, I highly encourage younger people to 1) out vote us and 2) vote us out. I'm not one who believes we've single generationally screwed up the world, but we haven't done a lot of things we could and should have.
coldtea 7y ago
>and non vested interest in the long term outcome of the world Yeah, the Baby Boomers, for example, the most populous young generation, did so much good with their "vested interest in the long term outcome of the world"... (Not to mention slavery, all kinds of bloodshed, WWII, Nuclear-backed Cold War, all the way to climate change, from earlier, but still booming generations).
rdm_blackhole 7y ago
Yeah, but whose fault is it? Governments around the world have been saying to the boomers, don't worry when you retire, we will keep paying your pension no matter what... Governments never plan long term and always use the best case scenarios. They should probably have seen this coming a long time ago. Take a simple example: my grandpa retired at 55 years old with full pension and benefits(In Europe) and passed away this year. He has been getting his pension for more than 30 years paid into his account and adjusted every year to match inflation. He was retired for longer than I have been living. There is no way this system is sustainable in the long term.

This is going to suck, especially for democracies. Large voting blocks of old people with little savings and non vested interest in the long term outcome of the world. Yikes.

e40 7y ago

Yes, this is going to get messy. The old and young fighting over resources. I remember years ago reading a short Sci Fi story posted somewhere. I wish I had saved it. It was in the form of a letter from a father, who had transferred his consciousness to the cloud, to a son who was toiling to pay taxes so the people living in the machine could continue to relax in the afterlife.

stevesearer 7y ago
For some reason I felt the need to google hunt for this book based solely on your description. Is it The Uploaded? ... perhaps not since you said short story "In the near future, the elderly have moved online and now live within the computer network. But that doesn’t stop them interfering in the lives of the living, whose sole real purpose now is to maintain the vast servers which support digital Heaven. For one orphan that just isn't enough – he wants more for himself and his sister than a life slaving away for the dead. It turns out that he's not the only one who wants to reset the world..." https://www.amazon.com/Uploaded-Ferrett-Steinmetz/dp/0857667173 https://www.amazon.com/Uploaded-Ferrett-Steinmetz/dp/0857667...

JohnFen 7y ago

Speaking as one who is not quite old, but can see that status coming in the near future, I don't agree that old people are not invested in the long term outcome of the world. Old people tend to have children, grandchildren, and beyond, and tend to be very concerned with what sort of world they'll be living in. That's a very strong investment.

bumby 7y ago
It's not that people don't care, it's that we're pre-wired to be biased towards the short-term. The relatively abstract problems of the future tend to take a backseat to the more concrete problems of the here-and-now, disproportionately so in regards to risk
- swasheck 7y ago
  > pre-wired to be biased towards the short-term. do you mean toward self-preservation?
  - bumby 7y ago
    No, I meant we are biased towards present value rather than future value. I think some of Daniel Kahneman's work has tried to quantify how much higher value the future proposition needs to be before they are equally weighted preferences. For example, if I give you the choice of $1 today or $1.20 next week, most people take the 'today' choice even though it's objectively worth less. There's a tipping point though when the value of future propositions become more favored. More to the point of the discussion, how much quality of life today will people be willing to sacrifice for an abstract idea of quality of life (particularly for somebody else) in the future?
    - user5994461 7y ago
      It's not a bias. What are the odds that you actually show up next week and remember that you owe me money? Pretty low. Better take the $1 now.
      - bumby 7y ago
        It actually is a bias, I just probably didn't do the concept justice in explaining it. https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/present-bias/ https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclope... I think what you're referring to is more akin to uncertainty risk.
- JohnFen 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jdietrich 7y ago
In a word: Brexit. In two words: climate change. In three words: the housing crisis. The old have a marked tendency to vote against the long-term interests of the young.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  It's not clear to me that those three things are examples of the old being against long-term interests of anybody. First, I don't know if there's a clear age divide on opinions on those things. Perhaps there is, but I haven't seen data on that either way. Subjectively, it doesn't appear to me that this is the case. Second, it may very well be that the stances people are taking on those issues are because they see those stances as being positive in the long term. (I'm not considering "the housing crisis", because I'm not sure what you mean by that in this context). You and I may (and it sounds like we do) disagree with other's assessments on these things, but that doesn't actually speak to motivation.
  - user5994461 7y ago
    There is definitely a clear divide on Brexit. On the young/old axis and the London/countryside axis. For the climate, I think the point is that the younger and future generations will have to live with it, while the oldest will be dead. Not that either generations tried to deny climate change or make it happen.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Well, the "young" of the time voted for the EU when it was proposed back in the 1975 UK referendum and other cases. So there's that. As for climate change that has been the result of half a century of increased consumerism kickstarted in the 50s and spearheaded by the Baby Boomer generation (which, for the most part of the ride, was young).
forkLding 7y ago
Its not that they wouldn't care, its just unintentional blindness to issues that plague young people, likely people of an older age can afford housing while younger people can't and thus is confused what the big fuss is. Or its just for older generations, they are more concerned about older problems or politics from previous times in the 1980s like combatting marijuana or like same-sex marriage while young people have issues stemming that are more relevant to 2000s like internet and social media addiction.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >likely people of an older age can afford housing while younger people can't and thus is confused what the big fuss is Don't worry, the near future "65+ plus" people will hardly be able to afford retirement, much less housing...
  - user5994461 7y ago
    Most of the 60+ plus people I know have long paid their mortgage, on a home bought long ago that was less than a decade of salary. They often have multiple properties and rent to the younger generations. It's not uncommon that they fail to understand why their children can't afford to buy a flat, while they had theirs in their early twenties.
  - b_tterc_p 7y ago
    True, the median of tomorrows old will probably have less than the median of todays old. But the median of tomorrows old will still have more than the median of tomorrow’s youth.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >But the median of tomorrows old will still have more than the median of tomorrow’s youth. Well, they also have several decades of working, investing, and accumulating wealth on them, so why wouldn't they? The question isn't whether "the median of tomorrows old will still have more than the median of tomorrow’s youth" but whether the median of tomorrows old will have more than the the median of tomorrows youth when said youth gets old itself.
bumby 7y ago
It would be an interesting experiment on this to see if a U.S. politician would be willing to propose raising the age to collect Social Security in order to keep it solvent for later generations. Maybe I'm too cynical but I doubt older folks would be turning out in droves to support that idea.
- skybrian 7y ago
  Here, "insolvent" would just mean taxes need to be raised. Which need not necessarily be payroll taxes.
  - bumby 7y ago
    Right, there's lots of ways to solve it because it's a completely human created problem. I guess my larger point was that if we're trying to assess if an older generation would be more willing to sacrifice for a younger generation, it would need need to be a method that disproportionately affects the older generations. Raising the age gets you there, I think raising taxes does the opposite.
    - user5994461 7y ago
      Raising taxes has little effect on the older generation but dramatically hurt the working class. Retirement benefits are barely affected by employment taxes or income taxes. Most of the old wealth come from capital and/or renting properties. That being said, I'm not in the US but I am pretty sure the US is not that different from here.
      - bumby 7y ago
        I'm in agreement. That's essentially the point I was making, although the commenter specifically said it didn't have to come from income taxes. With that said, I would assume other forms of taxation like a value-added or consumption tax would disproportionately affect younger citizens to the same effect
- user5994461 7y ago
Gibbon1 7y ago
> grandchildren I remember a comment from an estate planner. Old people don't care about their children. They care about their grandkids.

Angostura 7y ago

Only if the majority of the older people are arseholes. As an older person, I'd like to think that this isn't a forgone conclusion. Generally, I see the possibility of a stabilisation or gradual population decline as excellent news.

whamlastxmas 7y ago
I find it difficult to find any baby boomer that doesn't use the phrase "millennial" as disparaging. If being condescending to an entire generation of your world's future doesn't make you an asshole, I'm not sure what does.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I find it difficult to find any baby boomer that doesn't use the phrase "millennial" as non-disparaging. Outside of the media articles (which seem to be mostly written by Gen Xers) regularly published painting both “Boomers” and “Millenials”, alternately, in disparaging lights, I don't actually see much of that from either side that goes beyond the usual “people a couple generations apart don't understand the conditions the others attitudes and actions are shaped by” that's been true of any similar pair of generations any time since, well, forever.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  I find that the number of the older generations that disparage the younger generations as you say is a small percentage. That said, there is a long tradition of the older generations thinking that the younger generations are in some way degenerate. This has been true for the entirety of recorded history and will probably be true for all future generations. All of the insults currently directed at millenials were equally directed, just as much, at the boomers when they were of that age. And, mark my words, millenials will be saying the same things about the generations that follow them. In this respect, nothing has changed. Which essentially makes it meaningless.
- PunchTornado 7y ago
  most people I know, which are in their 20s and 30s, use millennial and snowflake in a pejorative way. it's not a baby boomer thing

PunchTornado 7y ago

as opposed to continuous population growth on a limited planet which is wonderful?

moate 7y ago
As opposed to a financial and institutional structure that doesn't rely on the young subsidizing the poor choices of previous generations in an eternal game of pass the tab.

aylmao 7y ago

I think this is a very American view of things, because I hear you guys keep getting screwed over by old people's voting. The way I view it is this will be good, because old people have lived long enough to be satisfied with life, and don't need short-term pleasures or have the ambition to build up huge amounts of wealth. They are also wiser. The old people I know live simple lives, tend to be open-minded and look out for the next generations. Then again I'm from a place that puts more value on family and less in oneself or money than the USA, at least from what I can tell.

moate 7y ago
Then as a non-US citizen you should be worried about what a financially frantic nation with a history of going to war for sustaining their economics and with more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined would do to places that look to have resources available. The world's largest economy going dramatically to shit isn't just a problem for the world's largest economy, it's a problem for the world. Addendum: Putting focus on your family doesn't exclude you from creating problems for "others" who don't fit your view of virtuous people. Donald Trump comes from a wealthy family who seem to do very well at ensuring their dynasty will be preserved. They take care of their own.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>I think this is a very American view of things, because I hear you guys keep getting screwed over by old people's voting. Well to be fair young people screw us too. They just do it in a way. Young people have some really stupid ideas about how society and world works because their experience in tends to be quite limited. Old people's stupidity tends to be more along the lines of clinging to the cultural norms of the past.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Perhaps once people get old enough, people become despondent with trying to help everyone, and instead just make sure their tribe/family gets as much of the pie as possible.
- logfromblammo 7y ago

fzeroracer 7y ago

Japan is a great microcosm of this effect, where the younger generation has to essentially work themselves to death in order to support the aging population. The politics and workplace environment is skewed towards the older generation which is resulting in (what I see as being) resentment or apathy.

drivingmenuts 7y ago
Are they doing that to support an aging population or because they’ve created a social environment that puts work obligations over family? Seems to me that’s an outgrowth of the recovery from WWII, when they had to rebuild an entire economy AND modernize at the same time.

Jupe 7y ago

Except, perhaps, those that have children or grand children?

return1 7y ago

And when they have vested interests in their children, they will choose the worst ways to serve them. I can provide as an example Greece, which is suffering an economic crisis and an even deeper demographic crisis. Despite that, elections are judged largely on what guarantees are given to pensioners. The whole political system has adopted the view that pensions are supposed to feed the whole family (i.e. children too). Thus even though the country needs economic growth, it spends record amounds on pensions https://www.thenationalherald.com/235942/greece-first-in-eu-pension-spending-near-bottom-in-health-care-education/ https://www.thenationalherald.com/235942/greece-first-in-eu-...

bwanab 7y ago

As one in that (>65) bloc, I highly encourage younger people to 1) out vote us and 2) vote us out. I'm not one who believes we've single generationally screwed up the world, but we haven't done a lot of things we could and should have.

coldtea 7y ago

>and non vested interest in the long term outcome of the world Yeah, the Baby Boomers, for example, the most populous young generation, did so much good with their "vested interest in the long term outcome of the world"... (Not to mention slavery, all kinds of bloodshed, WWII, Nuclear-backed Cold War, all the way to climate change, from earlier, but still booming generations).

rdm_blackhole 7y ago

Yeah, but whose fault is it? Governments around the world have been saying to the boomers, don't worry when you retire, we will keep paying your pension no matter what... Governments never plan long term and always use the best case scenarios. They should probably have seen this coming a long time ago. Take a simple example: my grandpa retired at 55 years old with full pension and benefits(In Europe) and passed away this year. He has been getting his pension for more than 30 years paid into his account and adjusted every year to match inflation. He was retired for longer than I have been living. There is no way this system is sustainable in the long term.