4 ms·

There are three fundamentally contradictory paradigms. 1. human lifespan has doubled in last 100 years. Lifespan is still increasing but healthspan isn’t at th

by nojvek 2y ago

There are three fundamentally contradictory paradigms. 1. human lifespan has doubled in last 100 years. Lifespan is still increasing but healthspan isn’t at the same rate. This means in the later years, we are spending a fortune on healthcare costs to extend lifespan a few more months. 2. Retirement age is fixed-ish in most countries. With rising lifespans, this means more years are spent draining on retirement income. 3. Lower birth rates means fewer people working to pay for retirees. Something has to give. If we have fewer longer living people, then we need them to work more years. Ideally retirement age is (average lifespan - 20 years) and is adjusted every few years. It is a tough pill to swallow. Keeping the status quo means current generation will pay for boomers but by the time they retire, the pot runs out. In US they say, social security will be drained by 2035 if nothing changes.

LUmBULtERA 2y ago
>In US they say, social security will be drained by 2035 if nothing changes. Who is "they"? This wording implies social security will be at $0. My social security statements say that at my retirement age (a bit over that) that social security is funded something like 76%. Not nothing.
ath3nd 2y ago
> Something has to give. If we have fewer longer living people, then we need them to work more years. That's only on the premise that these young people are paying for my pension, which is a falsehood. I am the one who has paid for my pension. It's not my problem that the government/pension fund ran away with my money in the hope that some future shmuck will put more in their pyramid scheme, and then they can guarantee my payoff. That model is obviously not sustainable with people living longer and people having less children. You know which model is sustainable? The model where I pay each month for my pension, and instead of these money fully disappearing immediately to pay for somebody else's pension, the government/pension fund is required to keep a certain % liquidity on that money, so that I am not dependent on any future generations entering the work force. Banks work like that, by law they are guaranteed to have a certain % of everybody's deposits in terms of liquidity, I don't see why pension funds don't emulate this. The government and the pension funds should be, however, transparent whether they can change to a sustainable model or not, and that change shouldn't come in terms of draining more money from younger generation's taxes, nor by raising the retirement age. It should only come from the govt/pension funds speculating less with our money, because it's their responsibility to make it right, and not ours.
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  It's not really about the money, that's just the mechanism of exchange. The root of the problem is a growing retired population depending on a shrinking group of workers to provide the goods and services they need.

by nojvek 2y ago

LUmBULtERA 2y ago

>In US they say, social security will be drained by 2035 if nothing changes. Who is "they"? This wording implies social security will be at $0. My social security statements say that at my retirement age (a bit over that) that social security is funded something like 76%. Not nothing.

ath3nd 2y ago

> Something has to give. If we have fewer longer living people, then we need them to work more years. That's only on the premise that these young people are paying for my pension, which is a falsehood. I am the one who has paid for my pension. It's not my problem that the government/pension fund ran away with my money in the hope that some future shmuck will put more in their pyramid scheme, and then they can guarantee my payoff. That model is obviously not sustainable with people living longer and people having less children. You know which model is sustainable? The model where I pay each month for my pension, and instead of these money fully disappearing immediately to pay for somebody else's pension, the government/pension fund is required to keep a certain % liquidity on that money, so that I am not dependent on any future generations entering the work force. Banks work like that, by law they are guaranteed to have a certain % of everybody's deposits in terms of liquidity, I don't see why pension funds don't emulate this. The government and the pension funds should be, however, transparent whether they can change to a sustainable model or not, and that change shouldn't come in terms of draining more money from younger generation's taxes, nor by raising the retirement age. It should only come from the govt/pension funds speculating less with our money, because it's their responsibility to make it right, and not ours.

tonyedgecombe 2y ago
It's not really about the money, that's just the mechanism of exchange. The root of the problem is a growing retired population depending on a shrinking group of workers to provide the goods and services they need.