5 ms·

You too will be old one day if you are lucky.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
An appeal to emotion does not negate the physical constraints of nature. One can see an issue with a society with 80 non workers and 20 workers trying to compete in the world. The fact that limits exist is obvious, so the question of what that limit should be is all that is important. While I am sure it is much easier to say than do, I do hope that I have the fortitude to take myself out though once I become too much of a resource sink for my descendants.
- worthless-trash 2y ago
  As a point. It does not need to just be 80 old people in this equation. Welfare, unemployment and theft all play a part in this equation.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Yes, that is why I wrote workers and non workers.
    - worthless-trash 2y ago
      I had incorrectly assumed you were referring to older ppl as non workers.
- malicka 2y ago
  Luckily, society broadly creates more than enough wealth and resources to provide for you, even when you are disabled or elderly. In modern society, if you are a “sink,” it is solely because the system is designed to make you that way – perhaps the wealthiest among us are able to pay a bit less on taxes, in exchange for your caretaker not getting monetary support. For example. I reckon gutting social security would be very profitable to some. The government’s job is to be useful, and supporting those who can’t support themselves – like the elderly and disabled – is very literally the most noble and useful thing it can do.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    >Luckily, society broadly creates more than enough wealth and resources to provide for you, even when you are disabled or elderly. I see no evidence to indicate this. Societies do not exist in a vacuum, they either need to import resources, or they need to defend against invaders. Therefore, the more resources that go to the non productive, the less resources there are for importing and/or defense. Importing also includes quality of life for young, productive people, as they usually aspire for material goods rather than living life solely for the purpose of servicing the non productive. Having large portions of society not be productive for decades, even requiring large amounts of manual, highly educated labor to sustain them, may very well cause discord and decrease global standing. Demographics and the shape of population histograms affect inputs and outputs. The simple evidence of my claims is the continual decrease of Social Security benefits. A simple monetary wealth transfer, easily comparable over time periods, is unsustainable due to increased longevity and lower total fertility rates, resulting in multiple cuts to Social Security benefits. It is common knowledge that people paying Social Security taxes now will receive less benefits. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/nra.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/nra.html Even the UK has quite the political conundrum with needing to get rid of their "triple lock" pensions, but not having the political will to do it.
    - malicka 2y ago
      > I see no evidence to indicate this. Societies do not exist in a vacuum, they either need to import resources, or they need to defend against invaders. Therefore, the more resources that go to the non productive, the less resources there are for importing and/or defense. We are not nearly in such a resource-counting phase: We produce more than enough food to feed every single person in the US several times over: we have enough empty homes to ensure every person is housed; we have enough of much everything. Thanks to innovations that have happened under Capitalism, we are less resource-constrained in this regard than ever in human history. We have great excesses that are wasted, sometimes to our detriment, and sometimes comedically (ex., the practice of burning tonnes of corn by farmers in attempt to keep prices higher). That Social Security is unsustainable is not due to a lack of physical resources nor manpower, but capital. Money. There is currently a cap on taxable income, for Social Security. For the first $168 000, you pay the Social Security tax; for income beyond that point, you do not. If we lifted or even abolished the cap, Social Security would be more than above water, and no cuts whatsoever would be necessary.
- theGnuMe 2y ago
  >physical constraints of nature. Medicare and Social Security are not physical constraints of nature. Get real.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Medicare and Social Security are nothing without the people who change bedpans and people who pick fruits and vegetables and keep clean water and electricity flowing.
    - theGnuMe 2y ago
      That is true. They place an aggregate demand creating jobs which is GDP.

An appeal to emotion does not negate the physical constraints of nature. One can see an issue with a society with 80 non workers and 20 workers trying to compete in the world. The fact that limits exist is obvious, so the question of what that limit should be is all that is important. While I am sure it is much easier to say than do, I do hope that I have the fortitude to take myself out though once I become too much of a resource sink for my descendants.

worthless-trash 2y ago
As a point. It does not need to just be 80 old people in this equation. Welfare, unemployment and theft all play a part in this equation.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Yes, that is why I wrote workers and non workers.
  - worthless-trash 2y ago
    I had incorrectly assumed you were referring to older ppl as non workers.
malicka 2y ago
Luckily, society broadly creates more than enough wealth and resources to provide for you, even when you are disabled or elderly. In modern society, if you are a “sink,” it is solely because the system is designed to make you that way – perhaps the wealthiest among us are able to pay a bit less on taxes, in exchange for your caretaker not getting monetary support. For example. I reckon gutting social security would be very profitable to some. The government’s job is to be useful, and supporting those who can’t support themselves – like the elderly and disabled – is very literally the most noble and useful thing it can do.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  >Luckily, society broadly creates more than enough wealth and resources to provide for you, even when you are disabled or elderly. I see no evidence to indicate this. Societies do not exist in a vacuum, they either need to import resources, or they need to defend against invaders. Therefore, the more resources that go to the non productive, the less resources there are for importing and/or defense. Importing also includes quality of life for young, productive people, as they usually aspire for material goods rather than living life solely for the purpose of servicing the non productive. Having large portions of society not be productive for decades, even requiring large amounts of manual, highly educated labor to sustain them, may very well cause discord and decrease global standing. Demographics and the shape of population histograms affect inputs and outputs. The simple evidence of my claims is the continual decrease of Social Security benefits. A simple monetary wealth transfer, easily comparable over time periods, is unsustainable due to increased longevity and lower total fertility rates, resulting in multiple cuts to Social Security benefits. It is common knowledge that people paying Social Security taxes now will receive less benefits. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/nra.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/nra.html Even the UK has quite the political conundrum with needing to get rid of their "triple lock" pensions, but not having the political will to do it.
  - malicka 2y ago
    > I see no evidence to indicate this. Societies do not exist in a vacuum, they either need to import resources, or they need to defend against invaders. Therefore, the more resources that go to the non productive, the less resources there are for importing and/or defense. We are not nearly in such a resource-counting phase: We produce more than enough food to feed every single person in the US several times over: we have enough empty homes to ensure every person is housed; we have enough of much everything. Thanks to innovations that have happened under Capitalism, we are less resource-constrained in this regard than ever in human history. We have great excesses that are wasted, sometimes to our detriment, and sometimes comedically (ex., the practice of burning tonnes of corn by farmers in attempt to keep prices higher). That Social Security is unsustainable is not due to a lack of physical resources nor manpower, but capital. Money. There is currently a cap on taxable income, for Social Security. For the first $168 000, you pay the Social Security tax; for income beyond that point, you do not. If we lifted or even abolished the cap, Social Security would be more than above water, and no cuts whatsoever would be necessary.
theGnuMe 2y ago
>physical constraints of nature. Medicare and Social Security are not physical constraints of nature. Get real.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Medicare and Social Security are nothing without the people who change bedpans and people who pick fruits and vegetables and keep clean water and electricity flowing.
  - theGnuMe 2y ago
    That is true. They place an aggregate demand creating jobs which is GDP.