4 ms·

> Generally I feel like retirement used to mean "I'm too old and frail to work anymore", until that brief blip between 1950-2010, give or take a decade or two.

> Generally I feel like retirement used to mean "I'm too old and frail to work anymore", until that brief blip between 1950-2010, give or take a decade or two. The question I'd have is why should the welfare state prioritize able-bodied workers just because they hit a fixed chronological age? I can definitely understand social security (which is essentially a welfare program) existing to support those who are too frail, infirm, or sick to work. Which would disproportionately fall upon the aged. But if somebody turns 65 and still capable healthy and capable of working (as many 65 year olds are in this day and age), why is the public budget subsidizing that person's leisure? I also understand the value of retirement as a time in later life to reflect and relax. And if this is valuable to someone they should take the personal initiative to save and invest to fund their retirement. But it doesn't seem like the purview of the welfare state to subsidize this lifestyle. The government doesn't subsidize vacations, gap years, and other types of "reflective leisure time". The purpose of the welfare state is to protect people in the most dire straits, not to make sure everybody's living the most fulfilling life possible. Heck, I can even understand advocating for UBI, which would give everyone a fallback option to not working. But it simply makes no sense that we essentially have UBI for able-bodied workers who are 65, but not those who are 35.

piyh 5y ago
> welfare state prioritize able-bodied workers just because they hit a fixed chronological age? There exists a need to support the old and frail. Chronological age is an easier metric to use than to leave value judgements up to whoever is going to be determining if someone qualifies. It's also money that I as a taxpayer put into the system and will get ~70% of my contributions back. Your welfare state is my government forced retirement plan with negative returns.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Nation state social security systems are not financial investments with returns, they are insurance. What are the returns on your homeowners and auto insurance?
Aunche 5y ago
How can you tell if someone is actually too old and frail to work rather than just pretending, especially with invisible issues like chronic pain? It's easier just to declare a retirement age. >But it simply makes no sense that we essentially have UBI for able-bodied workers who are 65, but not those who are 35. Someone who is 65 most likely has already paid their contributions to society. Compare how Norway and the Gulf states distribute their oil wealth. Norway reinvests it and only hands it out to those of retirement age. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait meanwhile guarantee a job where you don't even have to show up, which basically is the same as UBI. As a result, thesr nations are completely dependent on foreign labor. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-20/workers-paid-to-do-nothing-a-ghost-army-that-haunts-gulf-rulers https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-20/workers-p...
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  > It's easier just to declare a retirement age. I think that's a fair argument. But 65 is probably way too young as a threshold in this day and age. I happen to know a lot of 65-ish Americans, because that's right around my parents' age. And the vast majority of them are still capable of working. Which isn't to say that they're not enjoying retirement. But they most certainly don't need to be retired. I'm happy for them if they can support themselves. But I don't think public finances need to subsidize healthy people's cross-country RV trips.
  - bradlys 5y ago
    But should your life be dedicated to work forever while you’re able bodied? What about having some fun while you’re still able to? Most people in the US don’t even take vacations like those in software do. I don’t think my own parents have left the country in 30 years. The only reason they ever left was due to military service. Otherwise, they could never afford it anyway. UBI is interesting but it’d never scale to the same level as social security benefits. Many people in the US live off of just social security and maybe a tiny bit of retirement funds. If you gave out social security to everyone, we’d have a massive amount of people quitting work (potentially forever). Wouldn’t like be financially sustainable unless we overhaul the entire system and have extremely straight forward taxation without deductions, special treatment, different brackets for different types of income, etc.
retzkek 5y ago
Retirement/social security is the carrot: "work hard until you reach age xx and then you can relax." Some people need a reason to keep going, and society needs those people to keep working for most of their life, or institutions will collapse. Yes, some people enjoy their jobs, or are motivated by moving up to a better job or more pay, but the reality is there are many people for whom these will never be possibilities. They do jobs that are not fun or rewarding, that can be performed by nearly anyone so will never be forced by the market to pay more than minimum wage. It used to be the motivation for these jobs was the stick, but we've progressed, and now offer a carrot instead.

piyh 5y ago

> welfare state prioritize able-bodied workers just because they hit a fixed chronological age? There exists a need to support the old and frail. Chronological age is an easier metric to use than to leave value judgements up to whoever is going to be determining if someone qualifies. It's also money that I as a taxpayer put into the system and will get ~70% of my contributions back. Your welfare state is my government forced retirement plan with negative returns.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Nation state social security systems are not financial investments with returns, they are insurance. What are the returns on your homeowners and auto insurance?

Aunche 5y ago

How can you tell if someone is actually too old and frail to work rather than just pretending, especially with invisible issues like chronic pain? It's easier just to declare a retirement age. >But it simply makes no sense that we essentially have UBI for able-bodied workers who are 65, but not those who are 35. Someone who is 65 most likely has already paid their contributions to society. Compare how Norway and the Gulf states distribute their oil wealth. Norway reinvests it and only hands it out to those of retirement age. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait meanwhile guarantee a job where you don't even have to show up, which basically is the same as UBI. As a result, thesr nations are completely dependent on foreign labor. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-20/workers-paid-to-do-nothing-a-ghost-army-that-haunts-gulf-rulers https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-20/workers-p...

dcolkitt 5y ago
> It's easier just to declare a retirement age. I think that's a fair argument. But 65 is probably way too young as a threshold in this day and age. I happen to know a lot of 65-ish Americans, because that's right around my parents' age. And the vast majority of them are still capable of working. Which isn't to say that they're not enjoying retirement. But they most certainly don't need to be retired. I'm happy for them if they can support themselves. But I don't think public finances need to subsidize healthy people's cross-country RV trips.
- bradlys 5y ago
  But should your life be dedicated to work forever while you’re able bodied? What about having some fun while you’re still able to? Most people in the US don’t even take vacations like those in software do. I don’t think my own parents have left the country in 30 years. The only reason they ever left was due to military service. Otherwise, they could never afford it anyway. UBI is interesting but it’d never scale to the same level as social security benefits. Many people in the US live off of just social security and maybe a tiny bit of retirement funds. If you gave out social security to everyone, we’d have a massive amount of people quitting work (potentially forever). Wouldn’t like be financially sustainable unless we overhaul the entire system and have extremely straight forward taxation without deductions, special treatment, different brackets for different types of income, etc.

retzkek 5y ago

Retirement/social security is the carrot: "work hard until you reach age xx and then you can relax." Some people need a reason to keep going, and society needs those people to keep working for most of their life, or institutions will collapse. Yes, some people enjoy their jobs, or are motivated by moving up to a better job or more pay, but the reality is there are many people for whom these will never be possibilities. They do jobs that are not fun or rewarding, that can be performed by nearly anyone so will never be forced by the market to pay more than minimum wage. It used to be the motivation for these jobs was the stick, but we've progressed, and now offer a carrot instead.