13 ms·

1 - People should be able to retire. 2 - Their retirement should be financed by 401ks and the like. 3 - Stock Markets can go down as well as up. You can't ha

1 - People should be able to retire. 2 - Their retirement should be financed by 401ks and the like. 3 - Stock Markets can go down as well as up. You can't have all three, so the government will always ensure that the stock market goes up long term.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
Or you can elect a government that fundamentally doesn't agree with #1.
- jfthoi 3y ago
  I'm unsure if you're being facetious so I'll take your comment at face value. Government isn't a static thing - especially one that is elected by the people (for the people). Sooner or later members within said government will also consider retirement. So even if you can elect a government that disagrees with #1, you won't be able to hold it for too long.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    "People ought to be able to retire" ... I assume that you mean the idea that people who have worked most of their lives should be able to stop working something in the age range of 60-70, and then enjoy at least a moderately comfortable life until death. If that assumption is correct, this is a relatively new idea, at least in the sense that government has any active responsibility for it. I can absolutely guarantee you that there are currently elected members of the US Republican Party, and similar political parties in other countries, who do not agree with the concept that government has any role to play in this. Don't work hard enough during your life? Your problem. Don't save/invest appropriately ? Your problem. 100 or 150 years ago, the idea that there would ever be a US government that would take notable steps to try to ensure a moderately comfortable life during retirement would have seemed like a pipe dream. It remains something upon that some political ideologies do not agree with.
    - danans 3y ago
      > Don't save/invest appropriately? You missed one: "inherit"
    - stbenjam 3y ago
      100 years ago it was definitely on the radar the US government should support retirement. Social security started in 1935.
- pixl97 3y ago
  As long as old people keep voting in much larger numbers than young people.... how do you expect that to occur?
wolverine876 3y ago
Or governments could insure retirement income.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  It's called social security and it's enormously expensive and borderline unaffordable... And not even enough to retire on comfortably
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Yet it works so well that the public overwhelmingly supports it. > borderline unaffordable It's funded by your own income; it's a compulsory savings plan.
    - missedthecue 3y ago
      No, I mean societally it's unaffordable. The government will eventually need to raise taxes significantly or begin means testing it. The current system is mathematically unsustainable
      - the_gastropod 3y ago
        The current system is mathematically unsustainable pretty much by the design of a certain political faction interested in demonstrating the incompetence of government. Removing the income cap—currently around $160k—on the social security tax would do a great deal to make social security sustainable (and more equitable).
        wolverine876 3y ago
        Think how many problems could be solved by removing (democratically) that faction: Social security, climate change, immigration (to a significant extent), education, et al
        dh2022 3y ago
sandworm101 3y ago
>> 1 - People should be able to retire. Why? Retirement is a very recent phenomena. The idea of someone earning enough during their working life to then fund several decades of non-working life is a very modern thing, maybe only the last sixty years or so. Only a very rarified few were ever wealthy enough to actively stop working prior to becoming physically unable to work. And then, for most all of human history, those too old to work lived out their remaining few years being taken care of by their children. I'm would not casually assume any "right" to the modern concept of retirement.
- LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
  You could apply this argument to so many modern workforce changes, for example, the 40-hour 5-day workweek. Throughout history, most workers have not had the kind of rights that they do today. I think we all deserve to make progress on things like retirement instead of making arguments like this. Sure, retirement hasn’t always been a guarantee, but can we agree that this isn’t a good thing? We never question the desire to innovate in how to make money, but we’re often very quick to dismiss the idea that we can also dream to innovate society in a way that’s decoupled from profit, which is sad.
  - bumby 3y ago
    While I agree that most of society should be the beneficiary of productivity gains, I’m not sure retirement is still a net positive. It seems like a lot of health and well-being is related to being a valuable member of society and fortunately or unfortunately, for many, work provides that function.
    - LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
      > and fortunately or unfortunately, for many, work provides that function. I agree with this, but the problem is that there is no guarantee of work being available to everyone. With the rise of AI and hyper-specialization of work, that problem is only going to get worse.
grogers 3y ago
With the excessive debt (which is not slowing down) the government is planting the seeds for high inflation in the long term. This historically has been very bad for equities (in real terms).
- munksbeer 3y ago
  Bad for equities, in real terms, over what time frame? Things tend to revert to the mean.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

Or you can elect a government that fundamentally doesn't agree with #1.

jfthoi 3y ago
I'm unsure if you're being facetious so I'll take your comment at face value. Government isn't a static thing - especially one that is elected by the people (for the people). Sooner or later members within said government will also consider retirement. So even if you can elect a government that disagrees with #1, you won't be able to hold it for too long.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  "People ought to be able to retire" ... I assume that you mean the idea that people who have worked most of their lives should be able to stop working something in the age range of 60-70, and then enjoy at least a moderately comfortable life until death. If that assumption is correct, this is a relatively new idea, at least in the sense that government has any active responsibility for it. I can absolutely guarantee you that there are currently elected members of the US Republican Party, and similar political parties in other countries, who do not agree with the concept that government has any role to play in this. Don't work hard enough during your life? Your problem. Don't save/invest appropriately ? Your problem. 100 or 150 years ago, the idea that there would ever be a US government that would take notable steps to try to ensure a moderately comfortable life during retirement would have seemed like a pipe dream. It remains something upon that some political ideologies do not agree with.
  - danans 3y ago
    > Don't save/invest appropriately? You missed one: "inherit"
  - stbenjam 3y ago
    100 years ago it was definitely on the radar the US government should support retirement. Social security started in 1935.
pixl97 3y ago
As long as old people keep voting in much larger numbers than young people.... how do you expect that to occur?

wolverine876 3y ago

Or governments could insure retirement income.

missedthecue 3y ago
It's called social security and it's enormously expensive and borderline unaffordable... And not even enough to retire on comfortably
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Yet it works so well that the public overwhelmingly supports it. > borderline unaffordable It's funded by your own income; it's a compulsory savings plan.
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    No, I mean societally it's unaffordable. The government will eventually need to raise taxes significantly or begin means testing it. The current system is mathematically unsustainable
    - the_gastropod 3y ago
      The current system is mathematically unsustainable pretty much by the design of a certain political faction interested in demonstrating the incompetence of government. Removing the income cap—currently around $160k—on the social security tax would do a great deal to make social security sustainable (and more equitable).
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Think how many problems could be solved by removing (democratically) that faction: Social security, climate change, immigration (to a significant extent), education, et al
      - dh2022 3y ago

sandworm101 3y ago

>> 1 - People should be able to retire. Why? Retirement is a very recent phenomena. The idea of someone earning enough during their working life to then fund several decades of non-working life is a very modern thing, maybe only the last sixty years or so. Only a very rarified few were ever wealthy enough to actively stop working prior to becoming physically unable to work. And then, for most all of human history, those too old to work lived out their remaining few years being taken care of by their children. I'm would not casually assume any "right" to the modern concept of retirement.

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
You could apply this argument to so many modern workforce changes, for example, the 40-hour 5-day workweek. Throughout history, most workers have not had the kind of rights that they do today. I think we all deserve to make progress on things like retirement instead of making arguments like this. Sure, retirement hasn’t always been a guarantee, but can we agree that this isn’t a good thing? We never question the desire to innovate in how to make money, but we’re often very quick to dismiss the idea that we can also dream to innovate society in a way that’s decoupled from profit, which is sad.
- bumby 3y ago
  While I agree that most of society should be the beneficiary of productivity gains, I’m not sure retirement is still a net positive. It seems like a lot of health and well-being is related to being a valuable member of society and fortunately or unfortunately, for many, work provides that function.
  - LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
    > and fortunately or unfortunately, for many, work provides that function. I agree with this, but the problem is that there is no guarantee of work being available to everyone. With the rise of AI and hyper-specialization of work, that problem is only going to get worse.

grogers 3y ago

With the excessive debt (which is not slowing down) the government is planting the seeds for high inflation in the long term. This historically has been very bad for equities (in real terms).

munksbeer 3y ago
Bad for equities, in real terms, over what time frame? Things tend to revert to the mean.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]