6 ms·

> This is my schizo catastrophizing You misspelled psychopathic. Drastically increasing the retirement age only makes sense to us keyboard jockeys who rarely

> This is my schizo catastrophizing You misspelled psychopathic. Drastically increasing the retirement age only makes sense to us keyboard jockeys who rarely even see physical labor up close. Data shows that people in physical jobs start to break down physically in their mid 40s. It's silly to think that these people are going to work until they are 75. > Another solution is that we kill all old people I mean, let's be frank. We're talking about killing poor old people. Have you looked at Congress lately? We need to ask, is our economic system here to serve the human species, or was the human species put on on this planet to serve our (current) economic system? Since modern capitalism has only existed since the Dutch East India Company, I think the answer is obvious.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
>Data shows that people in physical jobs start to break down physically in their mid 40s. It's silly to think that these people are going to work until they are 75. I do wonder how this squares with the fact that the average age in the skilled trades is 55, and 57 in farming. I know those jobs are more physically demanding, but I always doubt the extent to which blue collar jobs 'ruin your body'. In my experience, the wise old farts in the trades are in much better health than their compatriots in sedentary roles in the office. There's just more opportunities for young bucks to hurt themselves in the trades if they aren't careful and follow proper safety procedures.
giantg2 3y ago
"It's silly to think that these people are going to work until they are 75." That's how it worked for my grandparent's generation, and likely most others before that. So not really that silly (but still sad). It'd be great to adjust the work so it's not as destructive. I don't think adjusting to earlier retirement isn't really an option based on history (retirement is a recent thing). Yeah, modern capatism may not be great for society in general. But how does it compare with the prior models, like monarchy? Or even things like socialism? Seems like corruption and human nature ruins even the best theoretical systems.
- jewayne 3y ago
  If you actually look at it, the number of people who were actually able to carry on at a physical job until 75 was always small. That's why people had large families, after all -- they were your retirement plan.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    Do you have a source for a number on that? It seems like most of the people in my grandparent's generation worked physical jobs and continued into their 70s. I can see that prior generations maybe took on less physical roles as the next generation took on the more physical farm roles. Still today, we see that Amish tend to have a large number of men working in physical roles at least into their 60s and often times longer.
    - jewayne 3y ago
      > my grandparent's generation But what about the other 3 grandparents? Sorry, after you did it twice I couldn't help myself.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    I would bet people had large families due to lack of available birth control lack of women’s economic independence. At least my grandmothers and great grandmother I asked did not mention retirement when I asked them why they had the number of kids they did.
- jplusequalt 3y ago
  The quality that disgusts me the most about society is mass apathy. It's so incredibly upsetting that the majority agree that our current systems aren't working and will only get worse with time, but most people just ... accept this? Now, I'm no different than most people. I am extremely apathetic about our situation as well. However, it's still soul sucking to realize I'm contributing to the path we're on while feeling like there is nothing I can do. Feels bad :/
  - 3y ago
zeroCalories 3y ago
> Drastically increasing the retirement age only makes sense to us keyboard jockeys who rarely even see physical labor up close. Data shows that people in physical jobs start to break down physically in their mid 40s. It's silly to think that these people are going to work until they are 75. They won't have a choice. The smaller the proportion of workers, the fewer resources we have to spread around. We can tax people up to 100% of all the wealth not needed for them to survive, but if communist experiments in the 20th century are any indication, that will only decrease economic prosperity. > I mean, let's be frank. We're talking about killing poor old people. Have you looked at Congress lately? No, realistically we're not killing anyone because old people are the most powerful voting block. Their power will only increase as the population ages. More likely we're going to force young people to carry out debt. > We need to ask, is our economic system here to serve the human species, or was the human species put on on this planet to serve our (current) economic system? Since modern capitalism has only existed since the Dutch East India Company, I think the answer is obvious. This would be a problem in any economic system. But I want to put it back to you: should young people work to serve the economic system of old people? Should we force young people into servitude by spending money on their behalf? This wasn't a big problem when there weren't many old people, but with an aging population we're demanding a lot more from them.
- jewayne 3y ago
  The problem is neither old people nor young people. The problem is the people who have amassed extraordinary amounts of wealth and truly think that it ALL rightfully belongs to them -- the social security / pensions of retired people and also the wages of working people. We're not crushing young people with social security taxes. We're crushing them with wages that can't pay their bills, with or without social security taxes deducted.
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    > The problem is neither old people nor young people. The problem is the people who have amassed extraordinary amounts of wealth and truly think that it ALL rightfully belongs to them There are limits to how much you can redistribute. People will simply stop producing taxable income. > We're not crushing young people with social security taxes. We're crushing them with wages that can't pay their bills, with or without social security taxes deducted. Never said we were. But if the population continues to age like we see in places like Japan, we will very quickly find ourselves with huge social security bills.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago

>Data shows that people in physical jobs start to break down physically in their mid 40s. It's silly to think that these people are going to work until they are 75. I do wonder how this squares with the fact that the average age in the skilled trades is 55, and 57 in farming. I know those jobs are more physically demanding, but I always doubt the extent to which blue collar jobs 'ruin your body'. In my experience, the wise old farts in the trades are in much better health than their compatriots in sedentary roles in the office. There's just more opportunities for young bucks to hurt themselves in the trades if they aren't careful and follow proper safety procedures.

giantg2 3y ago

"It's silly to think that these people are going to work until they are 75." That's how it worked for my grandparent's generation, and likely most others before that. So not really that silly (but still sad). It'd be great to adjust the work so it's not as destructive. I don't think adjusting to earlier retirement isn't really an option based on history (retirement is a recent thing). Yeah, modern capatism may not be great for society in general. But how does it compare with the prior models, like monarchy? Or even things like socialism? Seems like corruption and human nature ruins even the best theoretical systems.

jewayne 3y ago
If you actually look at it, the number of people who were actually able to carry on at a physical job until 75 was always small. That's why people had large families, after all -- they were your retirement plan.
- giantg2 3y ago
  Do you have a source for a number on that? It seems like most of the people in my grandparent's generation worked physical jobs and continued into their 70s. I can see that prior generations maybe took on less physical roles as the next generation took on the more physical farm roles. Still today, we see that Amish tend to have a large number of men working in physical roles at least into their 60s and often times longer.
  - jewayne 3y ago
    > my grandparent's generation But what about the other 3 grandparents? Sorry, after you did it twice I couldn't help myself.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I would bet people had large families due to lack of available birth control lack of women’s economic independence. At least my grandmothers and great grandmother I asked did not mention retirement when I asked them why they had the number of kids they did.
jplusequalt 3y ago
The quality that disgusts me the most about society is mass apathy. It's so incredibly upsetting that the majority agree that our current systems aren't working and will only get worse with time, but most people just ... accept this? Now, I'm no different than most people. I am extremely apathetic about our situation as well. However, it's still soul sucking to realize I'm contributing to the path we're on while feeling like there is nothing I can do. Feels bad :/
- 3y ago

zeroCalories 3y ago

> Drastically increasing the retirement age only makes sense to us keyboard jockeys who rarely even see physical labor up close. Data shows that people in physical jobs start to break down physically in their mid 40s. It's silly to think that these people are going to work until they are 75. They won't have a choice. The smaller the proportion of workers, the fewer resources we have to spread around. We can tax people up to 100% of all the wealth not needed for them to survive, but if communist experiments in the 20th century are any indication, that will only decrease economic prosperity. > I mean, let's be frank. We're talking about killing poor old people. Have you looked at Congress lately? No, realistically we're not killing anyone because old people are the most powerful voting block. Their power will only increase as the population ages. More likely we're going to force young people to carry out debt. > We need to ask, is our economic system here to serve the human species, or was the human species put on on this planet to serve our (current) economic system? Since modern capitalism has only existed since the Dutch East India Company, I think the answer is obvious. This would be a problem in any economic system. But I want to put it back to you: should young people work to serve the economic system of old people? Should we force young people into servitude by spending money on their behalf? This wasn't a big problem when there weren't many old people, but with an aging population we're demanding a lot more from them.

jewayne 3y ago
The problem is neither old people nor young people. The problem is the people who have amassed extraordinary amounts of wealth and truly think that it ALL rightfully belongs to them -- the social security / pensions of retired people and also the wages of working people. We're not crushing young people with social security taxes. We're crushing them with wages that can't pay their bills, with or without social security taxes deducted.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  > The problem is neither old people nor young people. The problem is the people who have amassed extraordinary amounts of wealth and truly think that it ALL rightfully belongs to them There are limits to how much you can redistribute. People will simply stop producing taxable income. > We're not crushing young people with social security taxes. We're crushing them with wages that can't pay their bills, with or without social security taxes deducted. Never said we were. But if the population continues to age like we see in places like Japan, we will very quickly find ourselves with huge social security bills.