3 ms·

Just to add some context: The largest budget positions of social security (by far) are supplements to the public retirement system. As of now about 25% of the

Just to add some context: The largest budget positions of social security (by far) are supplements to the public retirement system. As of now about 25% of the federal budget go towards retired people [1] (in addition to all mandatory "taxes" paid by working people). The vast majority of the money is not spent on charity but is part of the societal deal that younger people support the elders. So the payments retirees get are the result of them paying into the system for 30 - 40 years. The shrinking numbers of younger working people and the beginning retirement of baby boomers make this system unsustainable and politically very hard to change. Something will give sooner or later but god knows what that will be. [1] https://www.bundeshaushalt.de/DE/Bundeshaushalt-digital/bundeshaushalt-digital.html https://www.bundeshaushalt.de/DE/Bundeshaushalt-digital/bund...

lotsofpulp 2y ago
> So the payments retirees get are the result of them paying into the system for 30 - 40 years. On a societal level, it is more accurate to frame this as “the purchasing power the retirees get are the result of the dynamics of political power in the society”. This is clearer because regardless of what any entity pays into whatever, a change in political power in the future can always change “the deal”. Also, there are a few ways for deals to change. One is that payments promised in the future can nominally satisfy the original deal, but the purchasing power of those payments (which is really what people want) can be eroded, namely by government policy. So you can pay into the system all you want, but you might not be able to but what you expected you were going to be able to buy. Another way is that if you are promised benefits, such as healthcare, then the quantity/quality of healthcare can be reduced. Longer wait times, less qualified personnel, less quality control in medicines coming from factories that are not being inspected as often, etc.
- arlcode 2y ago
  That is certainly true. In addition the individual worker has been promised "you pay now and get security later" which makes it very hard to argue against. Your stereotypical grandma isn't suited to be framed as a "drain on society" and she isn't typically getting rich of it. It's the sheer amount of grandmas that is bringing the system to it's knees. Much lying happened back in the day when it became apparent that birth rates would result in a lower standard of living for old people who worked all of their adult live. Rather than let the system fail gradually or seek to reform it in general, politicians took the easy way out and started supplemanting it from the general budget and have been ever since.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    >Rather than let the system fail gradually or seek to reform it in general, politicians took the easy way out and started supplemanting it from the general budget and have been ever since. I don’t blame the politicians, as it is impossible to get elected on a platform of reducing the biggest voting bloc’s (perceived) quality of life. It’s just a structural weakness in democracy due to the way humans are, papered over by growth due to high fertility rates in previous generations and the resulting momentum that I think started petering out somewhere in the 1990s.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

> So the payments retirees get are the result of them paying into the system for 30 - 40 years. On a societal level, it is more accurate to frame this as “the purchasing power the retirees get are the result of the dynamics of political power in the society”. This is clearer because regardless of what any entity pays into whatever, a change in political power in the future can always change “the deal”. Also, there are a few ways for deals to change. One is that payments promised in the future can nominally satisfy the original deal, but the purchasing power of those payments (which is really what people want) can be eroded, namely by government policy. So you can pay into the system all you want, but you might not be able to but what you expected you were going to be able to buy. Another way is that if you are promised benefits, such as healthcare, then the quantity/quality of healthcare can be reduced. Longer wait times, less qualified personnel, less quality control in medicines coming from factories that are not being inspected as often, etc.

arlcode 2y ago
That is certainly true. In addition the individual worker has been promised "you pay now and get security later" which makes it very hard to argue against. Your stereotypical grandma isn't suited to be framed as a "drain on society" and she isn't typically getting rich of it. It's the sheer amount of grandmas that is bringing the system to it's knees. Much lying happened back in the day when it became apparent that birth rates would result in a lower standard of living for old people who worked all of their adult live. Rather than let the system fail gradually or seek to reform it in general, politicians took the easy way out and started supplemanting it from the general budget and have been ever since.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  >Rather than let the system fail gradually or seek to reform it in general, politicians took the easy way out and started supplemanting it from the general budget and have been ever since. I don’t blame the politicians, as it is impossible to get elected on a platform of reducing the biggest voting bloc’s (perceived) quality of life. It’s just a structural weakness in democracy due to the way humans are, papered over by growth due to high fertility rates in previous generations and the resulting momentum that I think started petering out somewhere in the 1990s.