6 ms·

This is the thing I don't get. Do you not understand that it's not sustainable? That this generation will quite probably be the only one to ever get away with i

This is the thing I don't get. Do you not understand that it's not sustainable? That this generation will quite probably be the only one to ever get away with it? That the following people who are 20 now will not have these luxuries when they are 65? The sad fact is that expecting to be in a high-flying job your entire career and to only climb is no longer viable. Yes, older people will have to take lesser jobs, but that's what we're all going to have to do. We can't afford to pay for people to have a second childhood when they can still do lots and lots of jobs. It is also worth remembering that today's 65 year olds are nowhere near as run down as those 50 years ago. We've got better diets, better medicine, generally less demanding jobs, etc. And I'm 40 and my 78 year old father only really started detiorating noticeably 3 or 4 years ago and would still be capable of many, many jobs. I appreciate some older people won't be able to, but it's only fair that being unfit for work due to infirmity should be assessed as any other disability and paid for like any other welfare.

lawlessone 7y ago
what if we used just a little of Bezos wealth and automation to pay for it?
- aloisdg 7y ago
  Are you talking about eatin the rich and seizing the means of production?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    What if he does?
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  Even if we used double of his everything it wouldn't be nearly enough. If you are into taking stuff away from other people for your own benefit, I suggest invading/conquering other countries.
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    The US will have spent nearly $6 trillion on the war on terror by the end of fiscal year 2019. That’s probably more than enough to cover quite a few people in their retirement.
    - Kaiyou 7y ago
      No, it's not.
      - dmitriid 7y ago
        There are ~43 million retirees in the US [1] (6 trillion)/(43 million) = ~$140,000 [2] Mean income for retirees aged is $103,000 and below [3] So, the amount of money spent on a single largely meaningless war that the US is solely responsible for could easily increase the quality of life of quite a few people for quite a few years (if you don't dole out $140,000 in its entirety but spread in smaller chunks over the years or invest in infrastructure, medical care etc.) [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/194295/number-of-us-retired-workers-who-receive-social-security/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/194295/number-of-us-reti... [2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(6+trillion)%2F(43+million) https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(6+trillion)%2F(43+mil... [3] https://www.newretirement.com/retirement/average-retirement-income/ https://www.newretirement.com/retirement/average-retirement-...
        Kaiyou 7y ago
        Oh, if you meant to save the money spend over about two decades and use that instead to pay out retirement for one to two years, then sure. However, retirement lasts more than one to two years. One or two decades are more likely.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >If you are into taking stuff away from other people for your own benefit, I suggest invading/conquering other countries. Or, you know, starting a company like Amazon.
zaroth 7y ago
I’d argue it’s working every healthy day of your life is what’s not sustainable. You shouldn’t be paying people to do anything. People can earn their retirement, whether it’s through pension, social security, or personally funded IRA/401k or a reverse mortgage on property accumulated and paid for over the previous decades. 45 years of work should be more than enough economic output for one person to be able to get a “second childhood” as you call it. What the heck are they working for in the first place?
- sharpneli 7y ago
  Speaking from Finnish perspective here. The thing is that the boomer generation did not save their pensions. We have a system where future generations pay. It worked ok back when population grew. Now it doesnt. Basically they voted that their kids will pay for their pensions and then didnt have enough kids. So now we are quite screwed.
- em500 7y ago
  > 45 years of work should be more than enough economic output for one person to be able to get a “second childhood” as you call it. What the heck are they working for in the first place? By simple approximation, assuming a real rate of return between 2% and 6%, you need to consistently save and invest 10% to 30% your working life income consistently for 45 years to fully fund about 20 years of non-work / retirement. The whole point of the pension problem is that most people are not able or willing to do that.
Frondo 7y ago
Of course this is all sustainable. You've seen the charts, right, showing productivity vs wages since the 80s? We enjoyed a second era of industrialization, with huge advances in efficiency and productivity, and again the benefits were all captured by those at the top. If society had been structured for the last 4 decades like it had been the previous two, we'd be talking about lowering the retirement age.
irrational 7y ago
I'm in my mid-40s and I'm already burned out on work. I am desperate to retire. I can't imagine working past retirement age, just because I am still capable to do so.
- madengr 7y ago
  Ditto, but despite having mortgage paid off and healthy 401k, I have 2x kids college expenses coming up over the next 12 years. I’m resigned to working till I drop dead. 63, or whatever Medicaid will be at, is the minimum.
  - cthaeh 7y ago
    As a college student, you really aren't doing your kids any favors by paying for their college. Its not going to teach them the value of money when they have never earned anything themselves and their tuition is magically paid. Taking loans and working in the summer/internships to pay it off, without being reliant upon your parents is the ideal to aim for. After all, I think Warren Buffet said that he plans to give enough to his children so that they could anything, but not enough so that they can do nothing.
    - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
      As someone who paid his own way through college, I disagree entirely. There's nothing heroic about taking out loans. Not having to worry about college expenses allows one to focus on college and all the benefits that college has to offer. I never got to take an internship. Wanna know why? Because I had to ensure that I had enough money for the next semester, and I wasn't going to go from making $10 an hour back to $4.25 just so that I could go be an underling... I couldn't have afforded the next semester. Buffet is giving his kids retirement money, not yacht money. They've all been in the work force for decades. He's still giving them far more than the price of a college education.
      - cthaeh 7y ago
        I guess I am really biased, being in Tech. Internships pay around half of what full times make, which as a college student is an insane amount of money. It's more than enough to graduate debt free.
qwsxyh 7y ago
I sure am glad here on Hacker News people advocate we work until we die. Fucking dystopian shit
- coldtea 7y ago
  Yeah, in the same breath they talk about the marvels of liberating technology, how AI will free us from work, and other BS.
adrianN 7y ago
This generation is likely the only one to have a pleasant retirement because our world is headed for 3 degrees and more of warming. It's unlikely that social security systems will survive the mass migration of climate refugees.
cmurf 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_a_Life_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_a_Life_(Star_Trek:_The_Ne...
coldtea 7y ago
>This is the thing I don't get. Do you not understand that it's not sustainable? There's nothing about it that it's not "sustainable". Pensions aren't and shouldn't be a pyramid scheme (of younger vs older generations etc). Let's consider UBI. A UBI of $1000/month for 300M Americans comes about $3.5 trillion/year. That's around 18% of the US GDP. And that's flat out giving the money. Now reduce that by the current welfare spending which is $1.2 trillion (and which you could replace with the UBI, or perhaps just keep the 0.2 trillion of it for special cases), and you get to $2.5 trillion/year, or ~13% of the GDP. For comparison overall government spending was 38% of GDP in 2017. Of course "free pension" would be far less than that amount, because this UBI amount is calculated for 300M people. Whereas pensioners will be only people > 65 y.o or so -- a much smaller number. We're getting to something like 5% of the GDP or less. And that's assuming everybody is equally entitled to that money. Which people already having wealth need not be, living even less people entitled to that "free pension" -- if you have a million in savings you don't really need that $1000/month, do you? And of course, workers pay (or can be made to pay, with an automatic tax of say 10% month, as most civilized western countries have) for their pensions throughout their careers. So a large amount of pensions can come from that. Not to mention the pension money wont magically disappear -- it'll be reintroduced into the economy (and further taxed etc). With sane housing laws and no crazy lifestyles, people can live just fine on $1000/month. In fact they do just that, even with less, all over the world, including in places with more expensive food and consumer products than the USA. The two things that need to be kept low are rent (which should be: the US has ample space to built on --nobody said pensioners have to live in Miami or NY, and should not be costing more than a few tens of thousands for the kind of constructions that pass for homes there) and healthcare (which in the US is laughably overpaid for what it offers -- I have been asked to pay $200 for perfectly common and safe procedures one can do themselves, and which in other western countries you can have at your average pharmacy for $10).

lawlessone 7y ago

what if we used just a little of Bezos wealth and automation to pay for it?

aloisdg 7y ago
Are you talking about eatin the rich and seizing the means of production?
- coldtea 7y ago
  What if he does?
Kaiyou 7y ago
Even if we used double of his everything it wouldn't be nearly enough. If you are into taking stuff away from other people for your own benefit, I suggest invading/conquering other countries.
- dmitriid 7y ago
  The US will have spent nearly $6 trillion on the war on terror by the end of fiscal year 2019. That’s probably more than enough to cover quite a few people in their retirement.
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    No, it's not.
    - dmitriid 7y ago
      There are ~43 million retirees in the US [1] (6 trillion)/(43 million) = ~$140,000 [2] Mean income for retirees aged is $103,000 and below [3] So, the amount of money spent on a single largely meaningless war that the US is solely responsible for could easily increase the quality of life of quite a few people for quite a few years (if you don't dole out $140,000 in its entirety but spread in smaller chunks over the years or invest in infrastructure, medical care etc.) [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/194295/number-of-us-retired-workers-who-receive-social-security/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/194295/number-of-us-reti... [2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(6+trillion)%2F(43+million) https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(6+trillion)%2F(43+mil... [3] https://www.newretirement.com/retirement/average-retirement-income/ https://www.newretirement.com/retirement/average-retirement-...
      - Kaiyou 7y ago
        Oh, if you meant to save the money spend over about two decades and use that instead to pay out retirement for one to two years, then sure. However, retirement lasts more than one to two years. One or two decades are more likely.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >If you are into taking stuff away from other people for your own benefit, I suggest invading/conquering other countries. Or, you know, starting a company like Amazon.

zaroth 7y ago

I’d argue it’s working every healthy day of your life is what’s not sustainable. You shouldn’t be paying people to do anything. People can earn their retirement, whether it’s through pension, social security, or personally funded IRA/401k or a reverse mortgage on property accumulated and paid for over the previous decades. 45 years of work should be more than enough economic output for one person to be able to get a “second childhood” as you call it. What the heck are they working for in the first place?

sharpneli 7y ago
Speaking from Finnish perspective here. The thing is that the boomer generation did not save their pensions. We have a system where future generations pay. It worked ok back when population grew. Now it doesnt. Basically they voted that their kids will pay for their pensions and then didnt have enough kids. So now we are quite screwed.
em500 7y ago
> 45 years of work should be more than enough economic output for one person to be able to get a “second childhood” as you call it. What the heck are they working for in the first place? By simple approximation, assuming a real rate of return between 2% and 6%, you need to consistently save and invest 10% to 30% your working life income consistently for 45 years to fully fund about 20 years of non-work / retirement. The whole point of the pension problem is that most people are not able or willing to do that.

Frondo 7y ago

Of course this is all sustainable. You've seen the charts, right, showing productivity vs wages since the 80s? We enjoyed a second era of industrialization, with huge advances in efficiency and productivity, and again the benefits were all captured by those at the top. If society had been structured for the last 4 decades like it had been the previous two, we'd be talking about lowering the retirement age.

irrational 7y ago

I'm in my mid-40s and I'm already burned out on work. I am desperate to retire. I can't imagine working past retirement age, just because I am still capable to do so.

madengr 7y ago
Ditto, but despite having mortgage paid off and healthy 401k, I have 2x kids college expenses coming up over the next 12 years. I’m resigned to working till I drop dead. 63, or whatever Medicaid will be at, is the minimum.
- cthaeh 7y ago
  As a college student, you really aren't doing your kids any favors by paying for their college. Its not going to teach them the value of money when they have never earned anything themselves and their tuition is magically paid. Taking loans and working in the summer/internships to pay it off, without being reliant upon your parents is the ideal to aim for. After all, I think Warren Buffet said that he plans to give enough to his children so that they could anything, but not enough so that they can do nothing.
  - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
    As someone who paid his own way through college, I disagree entirely. There's nothing heroic about taking out loans. Not having to worry about college expenses allows one to focus on college and all the benefits that college has to offer. I never got to take an internship. Wanna know why? Because I had to ensure that I had enough money for the next semester, and I wasn't going to go from making $10 an hour back to $4.25 just so that I could go be an underling... I couldn't have afforded the next semester. Buffet is giving his kids retirement money, not yacht money. They've all been in the work force for decades. He's still giving them far more than the price of a college education.
    - cthaeh 7y ago
      I guess I am really biased, being in Tech. Internships pay around half of what full times make, which as a college student is an insane amount of money. It's more than enough to graduate debt free.

qwsxyh 7y ago

I sure am glad here on Hacker News people advocate we work until we die. Fucking dystopian shit

coldtea 7y ago
Yeah, in the same breath they talk about the marvels of liberating technology, how AI will free us from work, and other BS.

adrianN 7y ago

This generation is likely the only one to have a pleasant retirement because our world is headed for 3 degrees and more of warming. It's unlikely that social security systems will survive the mass migration of climate refugees.

cmurf 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_a_Life_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_a_Life_(Star_Trek:_The_Ne...

coldtea 7y ago

>This is the thing I don't get. Do you not understand that it's not sustainable? There's nothing about it that it's not "sustainable". Pensions aren't and shouldn't be a pyramid scheme (of younger vs older generations etc). Let's consider UBI. A UBI of $1000/month for 300M Americans comes about $3.5 trillion/year. That's around 18% of the US GDP. And that's flat out giving the money. Now reduce that by the current welfare spending which is $1.2 trillion (and which you could replace with the UBI, or perhaps just keep the 0.2 trillion of it for special cases), and you get to $2.5 trillion/year, or ~13% of the GDP. For comparison overall government spending was 38% of GDP in 2017. Of course "free pension" would be far less than that amount, because this UBI amount is calculated for 300M people. Whereas pensioners will be only people > 65 y.o or so -- a much smaller number. We're getting to something like 5% of the GDP or less. And that's assuming everybody is equally entitled to that money. Which people already having wealth need not be, living even less people entitled to that "free pension" -- if you have a million in savings you don't really need that $1000/month, do you? And of course, workers pay (or can be made to pay, with an automatic tax of say 10% month, as most civilized western countries have) for their pensions throughout their careers. So a large amount of pensions can come from that. Not to mention the pension money wont magically disappear -- it'll be reintroduced into the economy (and further taxed etc). With sane housing laws and no crazy lifestyles, people can live just fine on $1000/month. In fact they do just that, even with less, all over the world, including in places with more expensive food and consumer products than the USA. The two things that need to be kept low are rent (which should be: the US has ample space to built on --nobody said pensioners have to live in Miami or NY, and should not be costing more than a few tens of thousands for the kind of constructions that pass for homes there) and healthcare (which in the US is laughably overpaid for what it offers -- I have been asked to pay $200 for perfectly common and safe procedures one can do themselves, and which in other western countries you can have at your average pharmacy for $10).