5 ms·

That seems quite a peculiar view, that you pay for retirement by raising children. Many have retirement savings, and so on, that are merely investments on time

That seems quite a peculiar view, that you pay for retirement by raising children. Many have retirement savings, and so on, that are merely investments on time they've worked. That work has also created the opportunities for the next generation to occupy. The idea that there is some obligation to reproduce is a little antique, and very much out of keeping with the environmental impact (an environmental social contract) of increasing population sizes.

neilwilson 5y ago
"The idea that there is some obligation to reproduce is a little antique" You don't have the obligation to reproduce, and the next generation has no obligation to work and produce a surplus to feed you. Instead they can stop work on Tuesday when they have made enough for themselves. Good luck eating your dollars. You can no more save for a retirement in real terms than you can put on a sweater in August to save heat for January. Pensions are always a current production issue - how much of the production is reserved for those not currently involved in its production. If you haven't added to the production capacity of the future, what right do you believe you have to draw from it?
- thephyber 5y ago
  > Good luck eating your dollars I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are doing a terrible job at it and it assumes that people in this hypothetical future do not participate in a similar market to the one that exists today. People work for dollars because they use those dollars for the other things they need. Pension dollars are fungible with all other dollars, so the producer doesn’t know if they stop producing on Tuesday if the pensioners will go hungry or their family will.
  - neilwilson 5y ago
    Who produces those other things in aggregate and why should they do that for somebody who doesn’t produce when the only thing they can buy with it are things they have to make anyway. The capitalism and the dollars are laundering the production process and clouding the issue. A better way of looking at it is that I produce a surplus I’m not permitted to consume to feed my retired parents and grandparents and those people who couldn’t have children. Who is going to do that for me in the future if I don’t replace my effort? Why should they put up with that? Why won’t they change the system so they don’t have to?
    - thephyber 5y ago
      Nothing is clouding the issue. You are fabricating a contrived scenario which doesn’t exist today. The “surplus” is what producers use to pay back the loans they took out to be able to produce as much as they currently do. If they produce no “surplus”, they are trying to build a simple subsistence production which is not feasible in a modern society. No bank will loan them money and they can’t afford to insure against bad weather/crop/prices. They can’t produce large enough yields to benefit from Economies of Scale, so they work long hours using low tech and have small yields which have to compete against the high yields of their industrial-scale neighbors, so they make little return on their hard toil. You are trying to remove free market mechanics without any discernible reason. For the same reason that most farms/ranches today are big industrial operations (at least in the USA where regulations permit it), small subsistence producers can’t make a living and die off unless they can find a brand niche. The same would happen in this hypothetical future where whatever event you think happened would drive subsistence farmers into bankruptcy and lead to consolidation.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  This is the weakest argument for having children, yet for some reason one of the most common. > You should have kids or else you'll die lonely and helpless. So what do you make of the countless parents who are exploited and abused by their children, neglected, ignored, rejected, abandoned, etc? Your whole argument is based on the assumption that children will always love and support their parents. You also ignore the many children who will never be independent for medical reasons, and who do quite the opposite of working and producing to support you. If you want children that's fine, but your antagonistic attitude towards people who exercise their right not to have children isn't very constructive.
xyzzyz 5y ago
> Many have retirement savings, and so on, that are merely investments on time they've worked. That work has also created the opportunities for the next generation to occupy. You can’t eat “investment”. When you finally start using these retirement savings, it will be to buy goods and services that will ultimately be rendered to you by someone else’s children. You’d better hope that by the time your generation is retired, next generation is large and willing enough to support you to the level you expect. Savings are just claim on a share of future production, and if future production is to be reduced in aggregate (and with population falling quicker than economy is growing, it very well might be), your claim will be worth less than you expect. In the end, our generation will be cared for in retirement by our children and grandchildren either way, and everything else is just accounting.

neilwilson 5y ago

"The idea that there is some obligation to reproduce is a little antique" You don't have the obligation to reproduce, and the next generation has no obligation to work and produce a surplus to feed you. Instead they can stop work on Tuesday when they have made enough for themselves. Good luck eating your dollars. You can no more save for a retirement in real terms than you can put on a sweater in August to save heat for January. Pensions are always a current production issue - how much of the production is reserved for those not currently involved in its production. If you haven't added to the production capacity of the future, what right do you believe you have to draw from it?

thephyber 5y ago
> Good luck eating your dollars I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are doing a terrible job at it and it assumes that people in this hypothetical future do not participate in a similar market to the one that exists today. People work for dollars because they use those dollars for the other things they need. Pension dollars are fungible with all other dollars, so the producer doesn’t know if they stop producing on Tuesday if the pensioners will go hungry or their family will.
- neilwilson 5y ago
  Who produces those other things in aggregate and why should they do that for somebody who doesn’t produce when the only thing they can buy with it are things they have to make anyway. The capitalism and the dollars are laundering the production process and clouding the issue. A better way of looking at it is that I produce a surplus I’m not permitted to consume to feed my retired parents and grandparents and those people who couldn’t have children. Who is going to do that for me in the future if I don’t replace my effort? Why should they put up with that? Why won’t they change the system so they don’t have to?
  - thephyber 5y ago
    Nothing is clouding the issue. You are fabricating a contrived scenario which doesn’t exist today. The “surplus” is what producers use to pay back the loans they took out to be able to produce as much as they currently do. If they produce no “surplus”, they are trying to build a simple subsistence production which is not feasible in a modern society. No bank will loan them money and they can’t afford to insure against bad weather/crop/prices. They can’t produce large enough yields to benefit from Economies of Scale, so they work long hours using low tech and have small yields which have to compete against the high yields of their industrial-scale neighbors, so they make little return on their hard toil. You are trying to remove free market mechanics without any discernible reason. For the same reason that most farms/ranches today are big industrial operations (at least in the USA where regulations permit it), small subsistence producers can’t make a living and die off unless they can find a brand niche. The same would happen in this hypothetical future where whatever event you think happened would drive subsistence farmers into bankruptcy and lead to consolidation.
silicon2401 5y ago
This is the weakest argument for having children, yet for some reason one of the most common. > You should have kids or else you'll die lonely and helpless. So what do you make of the countless parents who are exploited and abused by their children, neglected, ignored, rejected, abandoned, etc? Your whole argument is based on the assumption that children will always love and support their parents. You also ignore the many children who will never be independent for medical reasons, and who do quite the opposite of working and producing to support you. If you want children that's fine, but your antagonistic attitude towards people who exercise their right not to have children isn't very constructive.

xyzzyz 5y ago

> Many have retirement savings, and so on, that are merely investments on time they've worked. That work has also created the opportunities for the next generation to occupy. You can’t eat “investment”. When you finally start using these retirement savings, it will be to buy goods and services that will ultimately be rendered to you by someone else’s children. You’d better hope that by the time your generation is retired, next generation is large and willing enough to support you to the level you expect. Savings are just claim on a share of future production, and if future production is to be reduced in aggregate (and with population falling quicker than economy is growing, it very well might be), your claim will be worth less than you expect. In the end, our generation will be cared for in retirement by our children and grandchildren either way, and everything else is just accounting.