7 ms·

That's a great short term solution, but then what do you do with society's old people? We still haven't yet seen what's about to happen with the destruction of

That's a great short term solution, but then what do you do with society's old people? We still haven't yet seen what's about to happen with the destruction of pensions in the US.

Bombthecat 7y ago
Germany will probably find out soon...
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  How so? Germany's population is aging, but they're also importing immigrants like there's no tomorrow to ballance things out.
  - Bombthecat 7y ago
    It will take two or three generations before they make (enough) money to pay for the "high pensions" of old Germans... And even we get a ton of new people. The old generations are still more.. M
- distances 7y ago
  For someone not familiar with the German situation, do you have some article or other details to clarify?
xkde 7y ago
The same thing as the thousands of years prior to pensions?
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  Societies did one of the following: 1. Had the government or community take care of the elderly. 2. Criminalize poverty and force them to work or be imprisoned. 3. Let them die. Even the Roman Empire had pension for people that served in the military. You can take your pick as to which system you'd prefer, but pensions have quite literally existed for thousands of years in some form.
  - xkde 7y ago
    4. Personal saving / investing. 5. Lean on family (super common, even in several non-American societies today) It’s disingenuous to assert that the alternative to no pension is blood in the streets.
    - behringer 7y ago
      A pension is a personal savings. Back when pensions were actually offered by companies, you'd often choose your company by not just your paycheck, but by the retirement plan they offer. You would literally turn down jobs that might pay better but offer no pension. If that's not saving your money, then what is?
      - xkde 7y ago
        Because pensions aren’t portable. They lock you into a particular organization. 401k, stocks, savings accounts, etc, do not. Pensions (in the private sector, public ones are another ball of wax entirely) do not protect you against inflation. You have no control over what they’re invested in (which in some cases, is the pension manager’s retirement). There are much better options available.
        walshemj 7y ago
        You can move pensions and you can sack the manager and replace them as one of the biggest UK DB ones has done
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      And what happens when the economy goes bust when you're running down your investment in your retirement years? Or if you can't invest or save due to the many rent-seeking behaviors we see nowadays? Do we just let them die because they had the misfortune of bad timing or being take advantage of? For 5: Even in those non-American societies they have recognized that leaning 100% on your family is generally a bad thing for working professionals. Or at least those companies are not willing to pay for their employees to take care of their elderly or disabled family members.
- learc83 7y ago
  Which one? Have a dozen children so that you have plenty of people to take care of you in your old age, or die impoverished?
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Either? Dozen children is hyperbole, but 3 to 5 children, as well as an extended family for support. But it takes a lot of sacrifice to achieve, which no younger person I know of is interested in. One can also plan to off themselves once they're unable to support themselves. I say plan, because I'm sure saying it is easy, but when it comes time to do it, it'll be much more difficult.
    - nsxwolf 7y ago
      It's also a great incentive to not alienate your children.
    - rootusrootus 7y ago
      > But it takes a lot of sacrifice to achieve, which no younger person I know of is interested in I almost involuntarily typed "OK Boomer" in response to that. *I'm Gen X, not a Millenial, but still
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        I’m also in the younger generation, but we are choosing to live in more expensive cities and being further educated and prioritizing high incomes as opposed to starting to have kids at a younger age. There is no value judgment here about the choices, but I would consider it a sacrifice to give up partying in one’s 20s to raise a family capable and willing to support you. Of course, it may also not be a good choice since earning power of those who have children in younger 20s might be greatly reduced.
        fzeroracer 7y ago
        People are prioritizing expensive cities because that's how you get higher income. You get higher income by being educated. And you need higher income to raise kids because raising kids is incredibly expensive especially if you don't have a higher income job's provided healthcare. This has absolutely nothing to do with partying. And if you're choosing to have kids for the purpose of having a support network when you're older, that's kind of a fucked up rationalization for it. At that point, society has failed you somewhere along the way. Even ancient societies had other methods of supporting the elderly in the community or through some form of welfare.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

That's a great short term solution, but then what do you do with society's old people? We still haven't yet seen what's about to happen with the destruction of pensions in the US.

Bombthecat 7y ago

Germany will probably find out soon...

ChuckNorris89 7y ago
How so? Germany's population is aging, but they're also importing immigrants like there's no tomorrow to ballance things out.
- Bombthecat 7y ago
  It will take two or three generations before they make (enough) money to pay for the "high pensions" of old Germans... And even we get a ton of new people. The old generations are still more.. M
distances 7y ago
For someone not familiar with the German situation, do you have some article or other details to clarify?

xkde 7y ago

The same thing as the thousands of years prior to pensions?

fzeroracer 7y ago
Societies did one of the following: 1. Had the government or community take care of the elderly. 2. Criminalize poverty and force them to work or be imprisoned. 3. Let them die. Even the Roman Empire had pension for people that served in the military. You can take your pick as to which system you'd prefer, but pensions have quite literally existed for thousands of years in some form.
- xkde 7y ago
  4. Personal saving / investing. 5. Lean on family (super common, even in several non-American societies today) It’s disingenuous to assert that the alternative to no pension is blood in the streets.
  - behringer 7y ago
    A pension is a personal savings. Back when pensions were actually offered by companies, you'd often choose your company by not just your paycheck, but by the retirement plan they offer. You would literally turn down jobs that might pay better but offer no pension. If that's not saving your money, then what is?
    - xkde 7y ago
      Because pensions aren’t portable. They lock you into a particular organization. 401k, stocks, savings accounts, etc, do not. Pensions (in the private sector, public ones are another ball of wax entirely) do not protect you against inflation. You have no control over what they’re invested in (which in some cases, is the pension manager’s retirement). There are much better options available.
      - walshemj 7y ago
        You can move pensions and you can sack the manager and replace them as one of the biggest UK DB ones has done
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    And what happens when the economy goes bust when you're running down your investment in your retirement years? Or if you can't invest or save due to the many rent-seeking behaviors we see nowadays? Do we just let them die because they had the misfortune of bad timing or being take advantage of? For 5: Even in those non-American societies they have recognized that leaning 100% on your family is generally a bad thing for working professionals. Or at least those companies are not willing to pay for their employees to take care of their elderly or disabled family members.
learc83 7y ago
Which one? Have a dozen children so that you have plenty of people to take care of you in your old age, or die impoverished?
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Either? Dozen children is hyperbole, but 3 to 5 children, as well as an extended family for support. But it takes a lot of sacrifice to achieve, which no younger person I know of is interested in. One can also plan to off themselves once they're unable to support themselves. I say plan, because I'm sure saying it is easy, but when it comes time to do it, it'll be much more difficult.
  - nsxwolf 7y ago
    It's also a great incentive to not alienate your children.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    > But it takes a lot of sacrifice to achieve, which no younger person I know of is interested in I almost involuntarily typed "OK Boomer" in response to that. *I'm Gen X, not a Millenial, but still
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      I’m also in the younger generation, but we are choosing to live in more expensive cities and being further educated and prioritizing high incomes as opposed to starting to have kids at a younger age. There is no value judgment here about the choices, but I would consider it a sacrifice to give up partying in one’s 20s to raise a family capable and willing to support you. Of course, it may also not be a good choice since earning power of those who have children in younger 20s might be greatly reduced.
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        People are prioritizing expensive cities because that's how you get higher income. You get higher income by being educated. And you need higher income to raise kids because raising kids is incredibly expensive especially if you don't have a higher income job's provided healthcare. This has absolutely nothing to do with partying. And if you're choosing to have kids for the purpose of having a support network when you're older, that's kind of a fucked up rationalization for it. At that point, society has failed you somewhere along the way. Even ancient societies had other methods of supporting the elderly in the community or through some form of welfare.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]