5 ms·

> Historically children were the retirement plan They still are. It's just that the retirement plan has been socialized to the level of the nation state. The l

> Historically children were the retirement plan They still are. It's just that the retirement plan has been socialized to the level of the nation state. The labor of the young takes care of the old. This is literally true in the case of social security which is funded by taxing current productive labor. This isn't necessarily bad, because it's the way it's always been. But it is something like a multi-generational ponzi scheme. It can work for a very long time, but eventually, the last generation is left holding the bag with no one to pass it onto.

csomar 4y ago
> This isn't necessarily bad, because it's the way it's always been. I'm not sure this sentence make any sense. The same could be said about slavery. Is slavery not necessarily bad because it's the way it's always been?
- anonporridge 4y ago
  You're right, that sentence is bad. Maybe I should have said it isn't obviously bad or some new, modern evil that we just invented. It's how human social groups that take care of their non productive elderly have always operated.
  - b800h 4y ago
    The futurology trackers have "breakdown of intergenerational solidarity" as a possibility with no given time frame. It really didn't occur to me how implicated the nation state is in this until you pointed out the fact (in retrospect, glaringly obvious) that this function of family life has been subverted by government.
    - anonporridge 4y ago
      Do you mind dropping a link to what you're referencing? I haven't heard of it. But yeah, I do see it as a potential systemic problem. Because the care for the old has become so massively socialized, we also find ourselves in a situation where it becomes individually advantageous to not do the personal sacrifice of having and raising children. Not only is having children a huge financial burden, but it's also a huge time commitment. And when you don't get to primarily benefit from you own children's productivity, that burden isn't as highly rewarded as it has been in the past. I think we're starting to see this break down in many first world countries that don't have a replacement birth rate. I could see the reactions being one of... 1) start penalizing the childfree. There's a long history of this solution going back to as far as ancient Rome, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax. 2) increase the social reward for having and raising children. We already do this to some extent, e.g. the child tax credit. 3) develop non family oriented baby mills. Basically state run institutions that raise (and possibly even incubate with artificial wombs) children at an industrial scale. Brave New World is a classic example of this taken to the extreme. We already do this to some degree with public schools and face increasing calls to expand it with free preschool. If we can figure out how to produce healthy, well adjusted members of society with the greater efficiency of 1 adult "parent" to 30 children, like we do in school, rather than 2 parents to 1-5ish children, then we'll probably do it. Currently, it doesn't appear that we can do that, judging by the outcomes of orphanages.
      - b800h 4y ago
        It appears on here, for example, under the "Wildcards": https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/Just_Imagine_RICS_Strategic_Foresight_2030_report_May_2011.pdf https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/sites/default/...
c22 4y ago
The last generation will have a lot more to worry about than who will take care of them in retirement.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  That's exactly the point. The last generations will have done their jobs supporting their elder predecessors, but won't have anyone to come after them who will take care of them. Left holding the bag.
  - c22 4y ago
    The last generation will be too busy trying to backpedal their way out of existential doom to take care of their elders. Assuming they make it out of the cradle at all.

csomar 4y ago

> This isn't necessarily bad, because it's the way it's always been. I'm not sure this sentence make any sense. The same could be said about slavery. Is slavery not necessarily bad because it's the way it's always been?

anonporridge 4y ago
You're right, that sentence is bad. Maybe I should have said it isn't obviously bad or some new, modern evil that we just invented. It's how human social groups that take care of their non productive elderly have always operated.
- b800h 4y ago
  The futurology trackers have "breakdown of intergenerational solidarity" as a possibility with no given time frame. It really didn't occur to me how implicated the nation state is in this until you pointed out the fact (in retrospect, glaringly obvious) that this function of family life has been subverted by government.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    Do you mind dropping a link to what you're referencing? I haven't heard of it. But yeah, I do see it as a potential systemic problem. Because the care for the old has become so massively socialized, we also find ourselves in a situation where it becomes individually advantageous to not do the personal sacrifice of having and raising children. Not only is having children a huge financial burden, but it's also a huge time commitment. And when you don't get to primarily benefit from you own children's productivity, that burden isn't as highly rewarded as it has been in the past. I think we're starting to see this break down in many first world countries that don't have a replacement birth rate. I could see the reactions being one of... 1) start penalizing the childfree. There's a long history of this solution going back to as far as ancient Rome, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax. 2) increase the social reward for having and raising children. We already do this to some extent, e.g. the child tax credit. 3) develop non family oriented baby mills. Basically state run institutions that raise (and possibly even incubate with artificial wombs) children at an industrial scale. Brave New World is a classic example of this taken to the extreme. We already do this to some degree with public schools and face increasing calls to expand it with free preschool. If we can figure out how to produce healthy, well adjusted members of society with the greater efficiency of 1 adult "parent" to 30 children, like we do in school, rather than 2 parents to 1-5ish children, then we'll probably do it. Currently, it doesn't appear that we can do that, judging by the outcomes of orphanages.
    - b800h 4y ago
      It appears on here, for example, under the "Wildcards": https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/Just_Imagine_RICS_Strategic_Foresight_2030_report_May_2011.pdf https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/sites/default/...

c22 4y ago

The last generation will have a lot more to worry about than who will take care of them in retirement.

anonporridge 4y ago
That's exactly the point. The last generations will have done their jobs supporting their elder predecessors, but won't have anyone to come after them who will take care of them. Left holding the bag.
- c22 4y ago
  The last generation will be too busy trying to backpedal their way out of existential doom to take care of their elders. Assuming they make it out of the cradle at all.