> There are so many other ways of stabilizing retirement systems. If by "Social Security" you specifically mean the US system, there is this interesting fact: h

> There are so many other ways of stabilizing retirement systems. If by "Social Security" you specifically mean the US system, there is this interesting fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States... "If workers and employers each paid 7.6% (up from today's 6.2%), it would eliminate the financing gap altogether." (Also, the payroll ceiling is ridiculously low, and why does it even exist anyway?) But the ultimate problem isn't lack of money, it's lack of labor. If you have a shrinking labor pool, increasing prices will neutralize any extra money you tuck away. Labor productivity increases may compensate for this to a degree, but that won't happen evenly, and perhaps not happen in some areas retirees particularly need. I'm reminded of this: https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they-make-it-part-i-farmers/ https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they...: > Money also has one problem that grain does not, which is bound up in the way prices work in agricultural societies. The risks the farming family most wants to insulate themselves against, whether caused by war or harvest failure, are risks that involve a contracting food supply. The thing is, as the food supply contracts, the price of food rises and the ability to buy it with money shrinks (often accelerated by food hoarding by the wealthy cities, which are often in a position to back that up with force as the administrative centers of states). Consequently, for the family, money is likely to become useless the moment it is needed most.