4 ms·

People are coming out of retirement due to cost-of-living crisis

48 points by LinuxBender 4y ago

tippytippytango 4y ago
Too many people decided to ride the wagon at once and it got too heavy. Some will have to get off and help push again.
throwaway6734 4y ago
- dragonsky 4y ago
  Because as we all know, it is the job of all humans to slave away until they can no longer stand. I think as a society we can strive for better than "work till you die". There sees to be a lot of people out there who don't see any objective beyond making a profit, I feel sad for them, and hope that some day they can stop and smell the roses.
  - throwaway6734 4y ago
    Social security should be for those that can't work aka those that can no longer stand, unless there are jobs that would allow them to sit. The social security trust is scheduled to run dry over the next decade and benefits will need to be cut by ~25% because it has been chronically underfunded over the past decades. Note that a majority of the current beneficiaries of SS vote against raising taxes to fund it while also being against cutting benefits.
    - LinuxBender 4y ago
      I paid into it with no choice of my own so I expect to get it back. If I was not expected to get money from it then contributing to SS should have been entirely optional.
      - throwaway6734 4y ago
        Who said anything about not getting money back? Payments in need to be commensurate with payment outs so that the program is sustainable. Current recipients put in a pittance while taking out a ton
        arvinsim 4y ago
        Why would people voluntarily put money there if there is no interest?
        throwaway6734 4y ago
        A reasonable return is fine. That's not the current SS program
    - lkschubert8 4y ago
      Honest question, why? Is it your stance that people should work until they absolutely can't anymore unless they can privately save for retirement?
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      If we cut benefits that drastically, the underfunding problem would disappear. But I don't know why that would be your preferred solution. Let's fund it properly.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    The richest people I know are fully capable and inclined to stop and smell the roses. The trick is to convince people to keep working for the same wages while charging ever-increasing prices and keeping the difference for yourself. Folks will practically kill themselves for the opportunity to make the same real wage as last year!
- idop 4y ago
  Nice try Elon.
- notacoward 4y ago
  OK, first, this is a UK article. Social security is irrelevant. Second, why do you assume all retirees are relying on social security? I'm not. It will certainly be nice if I ever get to collect any, but I'd have to be a fool to count on that in the current political, economic, or demographic situation. Especially when I see how prevalent comments like yours are among future voters. People might have no expectation or intention of ever collecting one penny (in either currency) of public money, and still consider re-entering the workforce because of what the market manipulators have done to their savings.
jelliclesfarm 4y ago
Age of retirement should be 50. If more people don’t retire, how will the young people find jobs? We are educating everyone these days. The youth need jobs to support their families and buy homes and plan for their own retirement.
- hey2022 4y ago
  25 years in the work force, 30 years in retirement? What kind of social service system would be able to support that?
  - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
    In a post scarcity economy, human beings don’t have to be gaslit into working till we die. This is in the realm of possibility within our lifetime.
  - postalrat 4y ago
    Technology
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - poulsbohemian 4y ago
      When I was a 26 year old newly minted manager, I interviewed a guy who was pushing 60 who had retired early due to a stock windfall. Ten+ years later, with the market not doing so well and having overspent, there he was looking for a job. It's easy to think the good times in tech of the past decade will keep going, but these years have been somewhat of an anomaly - sure tech workers overall make pretty good money, but eff-you money is rare.
      - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
        I think the whole point of being able to retire early is not to rely on speculative markets like the stock market, but create a world where energy is free. If energy is freely available, all price supports and controls can be seen for what they truly are…..artificial constructs. Food, medicine, housing, energy and transportation are basic necessities. What do we spend most on? Everything else is tinder to keep the fires of consumption going. Human beings have enormous reserves of potential. None of it has been unlocked because we have been suckered into wage slavery. Work is essential. Everyone has to contribute. TANSTAAFL. But it doesn’t have to be 8 hours/day grind for 40 years of our lives. If you step back and think about it…it’s nuts. And entirely artificial.
mkaic 4y ago
Sort of a side tangent, not 100% certain it belongs in this comment thread but I'll put it here anyways and let the votes decide :P On the one hand, I feel really proud of how far we as a species have come in the past 200 years—we went from almost everyone being farmers to jobs like mine (Python programmer) existing. But I'm not trying to imply that farming is somehow inferior to programming, because it isn't! It just makes me happy that the percentage of humans who are free to pursue careers they actually want is so much higher nowadays than it was in antiquity. But I can't help but hope for more. Right now, if you're privileged, hard working, and lucky, you can work a high-paying job doing something you enjoy for a few decades, then retire comfortably. This is already semi-decent, but it really only applies to a tiny fraction of the worldwide populus. I envision a future where it's no longer necessary to work at all to provide basic necessities for yourself and your family. I imagine a society where privilege and lucky don't determine how much agency you have, how much ability a person has to choose to do good things with their life. Maybe I'm waxing overly prosaic, but this is why I'm working in AI. I firmly believe that AI is the field of study that can get us to this utopia. It may take a decade or a millenia, but I think it's possible — when we can decouple the act of living from the necessity of survival by building adaptible, benevolent machines, we also pave the way for a society where all is provided for everyone. I know some people don't like this vision of the future. They worry about what will happen to humanity if everyone can just "freeload". They believe everyone will just sit around lazily 24/7 and be bums. I understand this viewpoint! And to some extent, I agree with it—there will be large parts of the population who embraces complacency and sedentary life. But the key to me is the ask the ever-relevant question "compared to what?". I would rather have a society of lazy freeloaders than a society where poor people die from starvation on a regular basis. I would rather a third of the population spend their lives in the metaverse than watch non-privileged people slowly work themselves into depression and misery to counteract the classism they've battled their whole life. I'd rather everyone survive, and let them make their own choice whether they thrive or not, than accept our current status quo, where people must either thrive or suffer with slim in-between. Anyways, sorry for the long, off-topic spiel, as well as for the disorganization of its presentation. As always I'm curious to hear others' opinions and am open to having my mind changed.
- CodeSgt 4y ago
timcavel 4y ago

48 points by LinuxBender 4y ago

tippytippytango 4y ago

Too many people decided to ride the wagon at once and it got too heavy. Some will have to get off and help push again.

throwaway6734 4y ago

dragonsky 4y ago
Because as we all know, it is the job of all humans to slave away until they can no longer stand. I think as a society we can strive for better than "work till you die". There sees to be a lot of people out there who don't see any objective beyond making a profit, I feel sad for them, and hope that some day they can stop and smell the roses.
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  Social security should be for those that can't work aka those that can no longer stand, unless there are jobs that would allow them to sit. The social security trust is scheduled to run dry over the next decade and benefits will need to be cut by ~25% because it has been chronically underfunded over the past decades. Note that a majority of the current beneficiaries of SS vote against raising taxes to fund it while also being against cutting benefits.
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    I paid into it with no choice of my own so I expect to get it back. If I was not expected to get money from it then contributing to SS should have been entirely optional.
    - throwaway6734 4y ago
      Who said anything about not getting money back? Payments in need to be commensurate with payment outs so that the program is sustainable. Current recipients put in a pittance while taking out a ton
      - arvinsim 4y ago
        Why would people voluntarily put money there if there is no interest?
        throwaway6734 4y ago
        A reasonable return is fine. That's not the current SS program
  - lkschubert8 4y ago
    Honest question, why? Is it your stance that people should work until they absolutely can't anymore unless they can privately save for retirement?
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    If we cut benefits that drastically, the underfunding problem would disappear. But I don't know why that would be your preferred solution. Let's fund it properly.
- klyrs 4y ago
  The richest people I know are fully capable and inclined to stop and smell the roses. The trick is to convince people to keep working for the same wages while charging ever-increasing prices and keeping the difference for yourself. Folks will practically kill themselves for the opportunity to make the same real wage as last year!
idop 4y ago
Nice try Elon.
notacoward 4y ago
OK, first, this is a UK article. Social security is irrelevant. Second, why do you assume all retirees are relying on social security? I'm not. It will certainly be nice if I ever get to collect any, but I'd have to be a fool to count on that in the current political, economic, or demographic situation. Especially when I see how prevalent comments like yours are among future voters. People might have no expectation or intention of ever collecting one penny (in either currency) of public money, and still consider re-entering the workforce because of what the market manipulators have done to their savings.

jelliclesfarm 4y ago

Age of retirement should be 50. If more people don’t retire, how will the young people find jobs? We are educating everyone these days. The youth need jobs to support their families and buy homes and plan for their own retirement.

hey2022 4y ago
25 years in the work force, 30 years in retirement? What kind of social service system would be able to support that?
- jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  In a post scarcity economy, human beings don’t have to be gaslit into working till we die. This is in the realm of possibility within our lifetime.
- postalrat 4y ago
  Technology
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - poulsbohemian 4y ago
    When I was a 26 year old newly minted manager, I interviewed a guy who was pushing 60 who had retired early due to a stock windfall. Ten+ years later, with the market not doing so well and having overspent, there he was looking for a job. It's easy to think the good times in tech of the past decade will keep going, but these years have been somewhat of an anomaly - sure tech workers overall make pretty good money, but eff-you money is rare.
    - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
      I think the whole point of being able to retire early is not to rely on speculative markets like the stock market, but create a world where energy is free. If energy is freely available, all price supports and controls can be seen for what they truly are…..artificial constructs. Food, medicine, housing, energy and transportation are basic necessities. What do we spend most on? Everything else is tinder to keep the fires of consumption going. Human beings have enormous reserves of potential. None of it has been unlocked because we have been suckered into wage slavery. Work is essential. Everyone has to contribute. TANSTAAFL. But it doesn’t have to be 8 hours/day grind for 40 years of our lives. If you step back and think about it…it’s nuts. And entirely artificial.

mkaic 4y ago

Sort of a side tangent, not 100% certain it belongs in this comment thread but I'll put it here anyways and let the votes decide :P On the one hand, I feel really proud of how far we as a species have come in the past 200 years—we went from almost everyone being farmers to jobs like mine (Python programmer) existing. But I'm not trying to imply that farming is somehow inferior to programming, because it isn't! It just makes me happy that the percentage of humans who are free to pursue careers they actually want is so much higher nowadays than it was in antiquity. But I can't help but hope for more. Right now, if you're privileged, hard working, and lucky, you can work a high-paying job doing something you enjoy for a few decades, then retire comfortably. This is already semi-decent, but it really only applies to a tiny fraction of the worldwide populus. I envision a future where it's no longer necessary to work at all to provide basic necessities for yourself and your family. I imagine a society where privilege and lucky don't determine how much agency you have, how much ability a person has to choose to do good things with their life. Maybe I'm waxing overly prosaic, but this is why I'm working in AI. I firmly believe that AI is the field of study that can get us to this utopia. It may take a decade or a millenia, but I think it's possible — when we can decouple the act of living from the necessity of survival by building adaptible, benevolent machines, we also pave the way for a society where all is provided for everyone. I know some people don't like this vision of the future. They worry about what will happen to humanity if everyone can just "freeload". They believe everyone will just sit around lazily 24/7 and be bums. I understand this viewpoint! And to some extent, I agree with it—there will be large parts of the population who embraces complacency and sedentary life. But the key to me is the ask the ever-relevant question "compared to what?". I would rather have a society of lazy freeloaders than a society where poor people die from starvation on a regular basis. I would rather a third of the population spend their lives in the metaverse than watch non-privileged people slowly work themselves into depression and misery to counteract the classism they've battled their whole life. I'd rather everyone survive, and let them make their own choice whether they thrive or not, than accept our current status quo, where people must either thrive or suffer with slim in-between. Anyways, sorry for the long, off-topic spiel, as well as for the disorganization of its presentation. As always I'm curious to hear others' opinions and am open to having my mind changed.

CodeSgt 4y ago

timcavel 4y ago