3 ms·

Really, if you are already in a position where you can comfortably retire at your late 50s and early 60s, maybe the more responsible thing to do would be to ret

Really, if you are already in a position where you can comfortably retire at your late 50s and early 60s, maybe the more responsible thing to do would be to retire, to give an opportunity to younger folks. Rich boomers should try finding meaning in activities where they don't fuck every other generation that came after them. If you really want to work, maybe you could do some non-profit stuff.

aww_dang 4y ago
I'm not an employee or a boomer, but I do take exception with this zero-sum view. Productivity creates more opportunities. These people are not taking away a slice of the pie from young people. Instead they are creating a larger pie for everyone.
- criddell 4y ago
  I have relatives who work for a police department. There are some people who have put in their 30 years (or whatever it is) and are entitled to collect most of their salary for the rest of their lives once they retire. But they don’t want to retire, so they continue to work basically for free. If they retired, somebody new would be hired to take their position. For jobs like that, it’s a zero-sum game.
  - aww_dang 4y ago
    Public or government managed positions are a bit of an exception. For the sake of illustration, I'll make an attempt. Of course this is strictly hypothetical. The increased public safety from your experienced relative could create other opportunities in the city, such as a thriving retail sector. Whereas without that standard of public safety, shoplifting or other petty criminal activity might drive retailers away. You can claim that the overall demand for police officers would be one less in this scenario. However the demand for retail employment and the demand for those goods sold by retail shops might increase. Therefore, the overall size of the pie has increased. We can extrapolate a few levels from this point. A growing retail sector might necessitate further public or private security roles. Of course as with any example, there are probably several approaches to produce gotcha counter arguments. This is only meant to illustrate the larger point and not argue the specifics of the example.
  - layer8 4y ago
    If they effectively work for free, it's the employers fault they don't hire someone in addition. It's not like there isn't enough useful work to do.
    - criddell 4y ago
      I don’t think I explained it well. The employee is working for free from their perspective, not the county’s. The employee could retire and collect 100% pension or they can continue to work and collect around the same amount of money as salary. If they don’t retire, then the budget hasn’t been freed up to hire the new person.
      - layer8 4y ago
        It’s different budgets, but it’s the same amount of tax money either way, so arguably it shouldn’t make a difference from the employer’s side as well. The budgets just would need to be organized differently.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  This is assuming that more opportunities are being created in certain roles... Unfortunately there aren't being more house representatives, senators, etc. Professorships are increasingly rare. While you can argue that, roundaboutly, boomer executives and boomer equity owners (e.g. partners in law offices) can invest in more companies that will create new executive rooms and new partnership positions, the reality is we are actually seeing more and more corporate mergers which means less positions for upwards mobility.
  - aww_dang 4y ago
    Perhaps your views are better resolved by asking: Which is the objective we seek, full employment regardless of productivity concerns or productive allocations of finite resources? I'd suggest that productive allocations increase our living standards, which is the goal of employment itself. Full employment for the sake of employment trends towards make-work, drudgery, high costs and low quality.
sockaddr 4y ago
This is a remarkably low quality comment. I normally don’t see stuff so crude on HN. Are you lost?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
m3kw9 4y ago
I didn’t down vote you but everyone deserves a chance even if you are “well off” because if you are still able but decide to shut down just because you have this zero sum game mentality, it’s worse as a whole
- all2 4y ago
  This is the outcome of the clash between equality vs. equity. Equality doesn't mean equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is equity, which is a communist lie. It seems like a lot of folks bought into the idea that we can somehow achieve equity in society. Unfortunately, the pursuit of equity leads to totalitarianism of one sort or another.
dpkirchner 4y ago
I sort of agree. This reminds me of the article the other day asking more people to consider teaching, especially as an adjunct. The pay is absurdly low but as one commenter put it, they're probably hoping to find someone retired that doesn't really need the salary.

aww_dang 4y ago

I'm not an employee or a boomer, but I do take exception with this zero-sum view. Productivity creates more opportunities. These people are not taking away a slice of the pie from young people. Instead they are creating a larger pie for everyone.

criddell 4y ago
I have relatives who work for a police department. There are some people who have put in their 30 years (or whatever it is) and are entitled to collect most of their salary for the rest of their lives once they retire. But they don’t want to retire, so they continue to work basically for free. If they retired, somebody new would be hired to take their position. For jobs like that, it’s a zero-sum game.
- aww_dang 4y ago
  Public or government managed positions are a bit of an exception. For the sake of illustration, I'll make an attempt. Of course this is strictly hypothetical. The increased public safety from your experienced relative could create other opportunities in the city, such as a thriving retail sector. Whereas without that standard of public safety, shoplifting or other petty criminal activity might drive retailers away. You can claim that the overall demand for police officers would be one less in this scenario. However the demand for retail employment and the demand for those goods sold by retail shops might increase. Therefore, the overall size of the pie has increased. We can extrapolate a few levels from this point. A growing retail sector might necessitate further public or private security roles. Of course as with any example, there are probably several approaches to produce gotcha counter arguments. This is only meant to illustrate the larger point and not argue the specifics of the example.
- layer8 4y ago
  If they effectively work for free, it's the employers fault they don't hire someone in addition. It's not like there isn't enough useful work to do.
  - criddell 4y ago
    I don’t think I explained it well. The employee is working for free from their perspective, not the county’s. The employee could retire and collect 100% pension or they can continue to work and collect around the same amount of money as salary. If they don’t retire, then the budget hasn’t been freed up to hire the new person.
    - layer8 4y ago
      It’s different budgets, but it’s the same amount of tax money either way, so arguably it shouldn’t make a difference from the employer’s side as well. The budgets just would need to be organized differently.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
This is assuming that more opportunities are being created in certain roles... Unfortunately there aren't being more house representatives, senators, etc. Professorships are increasingly rare. While you can argue that, roundaboutly, boomer executives and boomer equity owners (e.g. partners in law offices) can invest in more companies that will create new executive rooms and new partnership positions, the reality is we are actually seeing more and more corporate mergers which means less positions for upwards mobility.
- aww_dang 4y ago
  Perhaps your views are better resolved by asking: Which is the objective we seek, full employment regardless of productivity concerns or productive allocations of finite resources? I'd suggest that productive allocations increase our living standards, which is the goal of employment itself. Full employment for the sake of employment trends towards make-work, drudgery, high costs and low quality.

sockaddr 4y ago

This is a remarkably low quality comment. I normally don’t see stuff so crude on HN. Are you lost?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

m3kw9 4y ago

I didn’t down vote you but everyone deserves a chance even if you are “well off” because if you are still able but decide to shut down just because you have this zero sum game mentality, it’s worse as a whole

all2 4y ago
This is the outcome of the clash between equality vs. equity. Equality doesn't mean equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is equity, which is a communist lie. It seems like a lot of folks bought into the idea that we can somehow achieve equity in society. Unfortunately, the pursuit of equity leads to totalitarianism of one sort or another.

dpkirchner 4y ago

I sort of agree. This reminds me of the article the other day asking more people to consider teaching, especially as an adjunct. The pay is absurdly low but as one commenter put it, they're probably hoping to find someone retired that doesn't really need the salary.