5 ms·

You keep using the word "stupid", and I don't think you know what it means. It would be "stupid" to not pay pensions, unless you don't see the risks in leaving

You keep using the word "stupid", and I don't think you know what it means. It would be "stupid" to not pay pensions, unless you don't see the risks in leaving a whole generation in their elderly years with no income whatsoever. Most evident of all, it would be a deadly blow agains the economy itself, especially in developed countries with aging populations.

thehappypm 5y ago
Nobody is proposing to just pull the rug out on pensions. We need to transition to a more sustainable option.
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  Why aren't pensions sustainable? Honest question. At least in the US, there seems to be more than enough money to keep several branches going. The military just got $20 billion extra this year. Foreign aid is around $45 billion a year. It's not that there isn't enough tax money.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    They inevitably fall into the trap of promising that benefits will be paid for in the future. At a national level that is probably okay, at a municipal level it means that people that leave a city get services that they don't pay for, and future residents pay for services they didn't benefit from. It's a terrible alignment.
    - manuelabeledo 5y ago
      You are describing pensions. That's how pensions work, and have been working for decades now. Would creating a national pension system work better?
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        No, I'm making a particular point about public pensions. They should be fully funded during the vesting period or not exist, except maybe at the national level. Note the "paid for" in "paid for in the future".
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    Sustainable implies “don’t need to print money forever”.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
I specified the condition that it is stupid for entities that cannot print money, due to the enormous moral hazard allowing today's taxpayers to soak future taxpayers in unstated debt which evident by looking at almost any US city or state government's finances.
- clairity 5y ago
  you seem to assume that printing money absolves a (nation-)state from future liability. it doesn’t. it’s still a moral hazard either way. you’re still leaving the future with less; it’s only the accounting that changes.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I am aware it devalues the currency, it is the least morally hazardous way though. It is inevitable that the longer people live during their non working years and the more top heavy the population pyramid becomes, that there will be less for future generations’ during their younger years.
    - clairity 5y ago
      the least morally hazardous way is to not take from the future at all. there’s no reason for the top-heavy not to take less into retirement. there’s also plenty of excess wealth to easily avoid stealing from the future while still providing for all the top-heavy now.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        The only way to not take from the future is to kill yourself after you become unable to support yourself.

thehappypm 5y ago

Nobody is proposing to just pull the rug out on pensions. We need to transition to a more sustainable option.

manuelabeledo 5y ago
Why aren't pensions sustainable? Honest question. At least in the US, there seems to be more than enough money to keep several branches going. The military just got $20 billion extra this year. Foreign aid is around $45 billion a year. It's not that there isn't enough tax money.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  They inevitably fall into the trap of promising that benefits will be paid for in the future. At a national level that is probably okay, at a municipal level it means that people that leave a city get services that they don't pay for, and future residents pay for services they didn't benefit from. It's a terrible alignment.
  - manuelabeledo 5y ago
    You are describing pensions. That's how pensions work, and have been working for decades now. Would creating a national pension system work better?
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      No, I'm making a particular point about public pensions. They should be fully funded during the vesting period or not exist, except maybe at the national level. Note the "paid for" in "paid for in the future".
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Sustainable implies “don’t need to print money forever”.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

I specified the condition that it is stupid for entities that cannot print money, due to the enormous moral hazard allowing today's taxpayers to soak future taxpayers in unstated debt which evident by looking at almost any US city or state government's finances.

clairity 5y ago
you seem to assume that printing money absolves a (nation-)state from future liability. it doesn’t. it’s still a moral hazard either way. you’re still leaving the future with less; it’s only the accounting that changes.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I am aware it devalues the currency, it is the least morally hazardous way though. It is inevitable that the longer people live during their non working years and the more top heavy the population pyramid becomes, that there will be less for future generations’ during their younger years.
  - clairity 5y ago
    the least morally hazardous way is to not take from the future at all. there’s no reason for the top-heavy not to take less into retirement. there’s also plenty of excess wealth to easily avoid stealing from the future while still providing for all the top-heavy now.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      The only way to not take from the future is to kill yourself after you become unable to support yourself.