4 ms·

If your retirement was predicated on a forever swelling population lifting your boat, then you actually didn't save enough to retire. Secure retirements shouldn

If your retirement was predicated on a forever swelling population lifting your boat, then you actually didn't save enough to retire. Secure retirements shouldn't rely on paygo systems and infinite growth.

scarmig 6y ago
The issue is that large numbers of people, organizations, and governments have assumed a forever swelling population in their retirement plans. So, yes, like any time in history there will be individuals who haven't saved enough to retire. The issue is that a demographic contraction throws the large majority of retirees into crippling poverty, absent government intervention that allocates capital investment and workers' consumption toward retirees' consumption. Obviously a forever swelling population is not model we can or should try to sustain, but reaching some kind of replacement-level equilibrium is sustainable and is much healthier for workers' and retirees' economic health.
- iso1631 6y ago
  Majority of working people live paycheck to paycheck, earning enough to pay for rent, food, and maybe a few beers on a friday night. Any extra money from pay rises goes into spiraling rent costs cause by extra money from pay rises, which goes to those who own the rentable assets. There is more than enough housing to go round. There is more than enough food to go round. There's more than enough beer to go round. Yet there are people working 100 hours a week sweeping floors that can barely pay for it. There have to be better ways to distribute what's being generated (which is almost entirely from those ages 20-65) among the population without disenfranchising increasing numbers of those that actually do the work
iso1631 6y ago
You can have a billion dollars worth of shares in amazon, hell you can have a billion dollars in cash. It isn't going to wipe your ass in a nursing home. Someone young will. If the people who do the work are downtrodden enough why would they bother participating in your scheme?
- qayxc 6y ago
  Someone clearly hasn't seen what a healthy lifestyle can do for you: https://theculturetrip.com/asia/japan/articles/why-japans-okinawa-islands-are-full-of-100-year-olds/ https://theculturetrip.com/asia/japan/articles/why-japans-ok... It's common to equate old age with nursing homes and misery in the West. Other cultures show that this needn't be the case at all and is - for the most part; there's still about 30% genetics involved - dependent on how you chose to spend your days. Less Netflix, Facebook, and convenience food, more exercise and healthy, non-processed food can get you much further than a billion dollars and medical personnel...
  - iso1631 6y ago
    If an 80 year old no longer contributes to society, and all they have is pieces of paper indicating they used to contribute in the past, they are relying on people who do contribute (by fixing toilets, growing food whatever) to accept those pieces of paper. They will only do so if they feel they are getting enough of those pieces of paper, and if they will believe those pieces of paper will work in the future. The health of that 80 year old is only relavent in terms of the amount of resources needed to move from the working class to the non-working class. The healther the aged, the fewer the resources. The higher the working:retired ratio, the fewer the resources. What is to stop the adults under say 50 who have barely any capital at all (401ks, houses, shares, whatever) from saying "screw this, I'm off to $other_country where I don't live hand to mouth and have no future of retirement" A country can not survive when 90% of its population are 80 years old, no matter how healthy or rich those people are, it means for every 10 hours an under-80 works, 9 hours is to produce goods and services for other people.
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      Goods and services do move across borders, though. A single country’s economy doesn’t exist in a sealed bottle. Those pieces of paper can be traded for foreign goods and services. Now if the whole world was 90% elderly you might have a point.
      - 6y ago
sudosysgen 6y ago
Without a population at least being more or less constant, there is essentially no way at all that the average person can retire. Why? Because if we all start saving enough to retire without relying on growth, then that has a deletrious impact on the economy that makes retirement even more difficult. This is because no matter how much paper you have, you still need people to grow food, build houses and run services once you retire. If there are more retirees than working people, you're in deep trouble. The average person simply won't be able to retire, ever.

scarmig 6y ago

The issue is that large numbers of people, organizations, and governments have assumed a forever swelling population in their retirement plans. So, yes, like any time in history there will be individuals who haven't saved enough to retire. The issue is that a demographic contraction throws the large majority of retirees into crippling poverty, absent government intervention that allocates capital investment and workers' consumption toward retirees' consumption. Obviously a forever swelling population is not model we can or should try to sustain, but reaching some kind of replacement-level equilibrium is sustainable and is much healthier for workers' and retirees' economic health.

iso1631 6y ago
Majority of working people live paycheck to paycheck, earning enough to pay for rent, food, and maybe a few beers on a friday night. Any extra money from pay rises goes into spiraling rent costs cause by extra money from pay rises, which goes to those who own the rentable assets. There is more than enough housing to go round. There is more than enough food to go round. There's more than enough beer to go round. Yet there are people working 100 hours a week sweeping floors that can barely pay for it. There have to be better ways to distribute what's being generated (which is almost entirely from those ages 20-65) among the population without disenfranchising increasing numbers of those that actually do the work

iso1631 6y ago

You can have a billion dollars worth of shares in amazon, hell you can have a billion dollars in cash. It isn't going to wipe your ass in a nursing home. Someone young will. If the people who do the work are downtrodden enough why would they bother participating in your scheme?

qayxc 6y ago
Someone clearly hasn't seen what a healthy lifestyle can do for you: https://theculturetrip.com/asia/japan/articles/why-japans-okinawa-islands-are-full-of-100-year-olds/ https://theculturetrip.com/asia/japan/articles/why-japans-ok... It's common to equate old age with nursing homes and misery in the West. Other cultures show that this needn't be the case at all and is - for the most part; there's still about 30% genetics involved - dependent on how you chose to spend your days. Less Netflix, Facebook, and convenience food, more exercise and healthy, non-processed food can get you much further than a billion dollars and medical personnel...
- iso1631 6y ago
  If an 80 year old no longer contributes to society, and all they have is pieces of paper indicating they used to contribute in the past, they are relying on people who do contribute (by fixing toilets, growing food whatever) to accept those pieces of paper. They will only do so if they feel they are getting enough of those pieces of paper, and if they will believe those pieces of paper will work in the future. The health of that 80 year old is only relavent in terms of the amount of resources needed to move from the working class to the non-working class. The healther the aged, the fewer the resources. The higher the working:retired ratio, the fewer the resources. What is to stop the adults under say 50 who have barely any capital at all (401ks, houses, shares, whatever) from saying "screw this, I'm off to $other_country where I don't live hand to mouth and have no future of retirement" A country can not survive when 90% of its population are 80 years old, no matter how healthy or rich those people are, it means for every 10 hours an under-80 works, 9 hours is to produce goods and services for other people.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    Goods and services do move across borders, though. A single country’s economy doesn’t exist in a sealed bottle. Those pieces of paper can be traded for foreign goods and services. Now if the whole world was 90% elderly you might have a point.
    - 6y ago

sudosysgen 6y ago

Without a population at least being more or less constant, there is essentially no way at all that the average person can retire. Why? Because if we all start saving enough to retire without relying on growth, then that has a deletrious impact on the economy that makes retirement even more difficult. This is because no matter how much paper you have, you still need people to grow food, build houses and run services once you retire. If there are more retirees than working people, you're in deep trouble. The average person simply won't be able to retire, ever.