4 ms·

Economically, isn’t that desirable, cruel as it is? Like it or not, people who don’t work are a burden on those who do. I’m not saying kill them as I love my

Economically, isn’t that desirable, cruel as it is? Like it or not, people who don’t work are a burden on those who do. I’m not saying kill them as I love my grandparents, but having everyone die soon after retiring would fix a lot of the challenges.

raspberry1337 4y ago
There's a middle between the two. Boomers that live lavishly and consume high amount of resources in retirement, going on global golf trips every other week, compared to a retiree who mostly stays in his house and takes forest walks and reading books have very different economic marks. Also most healthcare is spent in the last 1-2 years in the life of the individual. I saw the system spend so much resources to keep my miserable demented grandma alive for 2 cruel years after she lost her mind. What was the point? She was just in constant pain, emotional and physical. As a culture it should be honorable to chose when we die, go off on our own accord instead of grudgingly push it to the very end. Its unbecoming. Now the system expects my generation, millennials, to bear the boomer retirement economics on our working backs while we cant even afford our own houses. In Sweden, not only retirees but also the 7% (700 000) refugee immigrants that dont work nor contribute. Yea, that's gonna be a no from me pal.
smolder 4y ago
A workforce that dies younger presumably is a less healthy workforce with fewer useful years of work per person. So, it's not necessarily economically desirable.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Also, the old can take care of the really young, freeing up the young to do other stuff, from working double shifts to fighting wars.
p1esk 4y ago
It’s not that simple. We have to consider why in some countries men live 10 years less than the norm for the most of the developed world and how those underlying causes affect the economy.

raspberry1337 4y ago

There's a middle between the two. Boomers that live lavishly and consume high amount of resources in retirement, going on global golf trips every other week, compared to a retiree who mostly stays in his house and takes forest walks and reading books have very different economic marks. Also most healthcare is spent in the last 1-2 years in the life of the individual. I saw the system spend so much resources to keep my miserable demented grandma alive for 2 cruel years after she lost her mind. What was the point? She was just in constant pain, emotional and physical. As a culture it should be honorable to chose when we die, go off on our own accord instead of grudgingly push it to the very end. Its unbecoming. Now the system expects my generation, millennials, to bear the boomer retirement economics on our working backs while we cant even afford our own houses. In Sweden, not only retirees but also the 7% (700 000) refugee immigrants that dont work nor contribute. Yea, that's gonna be a no from me pal.

smolder 4y ago

A workforce that dies younger presumably is a less healthy workforce with fewer useful years of work per person. So, it's not necessarily economically desirable.

hef19898 4y ago
Also, the old can take care of the really young, freeing up the young to do other stuff, from working double shifts to fighting wars.

p1esk 4y ago

It’s not that simple. We have to consider why in some countries men live 10 years less than the norm for the most of the developed world and how those underlying causes affect the economy.