4 ms·

Ask HN: A thought experiment; mandatory age of retirement at 50 vs. UBI

knaq 6y ago
This gets rid of workers, especially experienced workers. Other countries won't do likewise. This gives them an advantage. They pull way ahead in economic power. Because goods and services are traded across borders, the more-restricted economy sinks quickly. To put it another way, if your share of the work is smaller, your share of the benefits will be smaller.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  How many other countries have 350 million and no health care? And crushing national debt? We should also look at the age demographics. What is the ageing population and what is the youth..and the gender division.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gregjor 6y ago
75% of the under-50 workforce is serving lattes and trying to pay off student loans. Mom and dad spend their retirement savings in Florida, can’t support adult children. Your thought experiment is a kinder version of Logan’s Run.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Where's the carousel?
st1x7 6y ago
> mandatory age of retirement This makes so little sense that I have no idea why it's in the question at all and why it's compared to UBI.
- seotut2 6y ago
  This shifts the labour market, making a lot more jobs available and making it much easier to get a job for new people or the jobless. I don't think it would work well though. Ideas such as job guarantees for everyone often come up in UBI conversation so this is a related concept. I think UBI is a much better idea.
  - st1x7 6y ago
    Mandatory retirement means that you're prohibiting people from working. It's such an infringement on personal liberty that it's politically laughable to propose it. Keep in mind that most politicians are over the 50 year age limit themselves. It's just impossible to realistically implement. That's on top of the massively increased cost of the newly retired people, mental health crisis from being prohibited to work for the last 25-40 years of your life, getting rid of the layer of the workforce with most experience and expertise. It's absurdly dumb.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      Ok. So what do we do with the disenchanted youth? Being in a job is not required for mental health. Women all over the world ...millions of them even..find meaning in life being stay at home moms and working moms quit their jobs to find meaning elsewhere. They don’t suffer from ‘mental health crisises’ Employment is not a right. It is an economic transaction. Translating labour to wages is not a given right either without a contract. Every 50+ person would have the opportunity to make a living and the social contract should make way for the next generation to make a living too. Between the ages of 25-50, the working population supports the youth. After 50, the youth will support them. There is no need to fret about massive costs. If anything costs will come down. More people die of stress, hyper tension and heart disease than boredom.
      - st1x7 6y ago
        > There is no need to fret about massive costs. Can you explain this considering that you're adding 15 years of financial support that need to be paid for and also additionally increasing that cost by making it compulsory?

knaq 6y ago

This gets rid of workers, especially experienced workers. Other countries won't do likewise. This gives them an advantage. They pull way ahead in economic power. Because goods and services are traded across borders, the more-restricted economy sinks quickly. To put it another way, if your share of the work is smaller, your share of the benefits will be smaller.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
How many other countries have 350 million and no health care? And crushing national debt? We should also look at the age demographics. What is the ageing population and what is the youth..and the gender division.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gregjor 6y ago

75% of the under-50 workforce is serving lattes and trying to pay off student loans. Mom and dad spend their retirement savings in Florida, can’t support adult children. Your thought experiment is a kinder version of Logan’s Run.

giantg2 6y ago
Where's the carousel?

st1x7 6y ago

> mandatory age of retirement This makes so little sense that I have no idea why it's in the question at all and why it's compared to UBI.

seotut2 6y ago
This shifts the labour market, making a lot more jobs available and making it much easier to get a job for new people or the jobless. I don't think it would work well though. Ideas such as job guarantees for everyone often come up in UBI conversation so this is a related concept. I think UBI is a much better idea.
- st1x7 6y ago
  Mandatory retirement means that you're prohibiting people from working. It's such an infringement on personal liberty that it's politically laughable to propose it. Keep in mind that most politicians are over the 50 year age limit themselves. It's just impossible to realistically implement. That's on top of the massively increased cost of the newly retired people, mental health crisis from being prohibited to work for the last 25-40 years of your life, getting rid of the layer of the workforce with most experience and expertise. It's absurdly dumb.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    Ok. So what do we do with the disenchanted youth? Being in a job is not required for mental health. Women all over the world ...millions of them even..find meaning in life being stay at home moms and working moms quit their jobs to find meaning elsewhere. They don’t suffer from ‘mental health crisises’ Employment is not a right. It is an economic transaction. Translating labour to wages is not a given right either without a contract. Every 50+ person would have the opportunity to make a living and the social contract should make way for the next generation to make a living too. Between the ages of 25-50, the working population supports the youth. After 50, the youth will support them. There is no need to fret about massive costs. If anything costs will come down. More people die of stress, hyper tension and heart disease than boredom.
    - st1x7 6y ago
      > There is no need to fret about massive costs. Can you explain this considering that you're adding 15 years of financial support that need to be paid for and also additionally increasing that cost by making it compulsory?