15 ms·

Back when it was first introduced, it was based on life expectancy and few were expected to live beyond retirement age. [1] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/bus

by gessha 1y ago

Back when it was first introduced, it was based on life expectancy and few were expected to live beyond retirement age. [1] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/how-retirement-was-invented/381802/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/how-ret...

toomuchtodo 1y ago
Turns out retirement is just an illusion to convince you to give your best years for the system.
- jstummbillig 1y ago
  No need to do any that, if you don't like the idea and have something else that works for you. But most people are somewhat mid and really don't.
- tomp 1y ago
  You're just repeating anarchists' talking points. None of them considers that "the system" gives them food, water and energy, and that procurement of these in the absence of system means literally toiling from birth until death.
  - taneq 1y ago
    This is the my response too. There are plenty of valid criticisms of our modern society, but nothing’s stopping you wandering off into the forest to forage for berries. We don’t, because even with all its flaws, living in civilisation is infinitely easier.
- dralley 1y ago
  Humans need a constant supply of resources and shelter to survive. There is no "system" which avoids this inconvenient fact. In the absence of any "system" at all, you would still need to constantly work for survival - and in fact you'd just die as soon as you were no longer able to do so due to illness or injury much less old age. In other words if there were no "system" there would be no such concept as "retirement" in the first place. We all wish that we could spend our best years doing whatever we want. That doesn't mathematically work out, though. European social safety nets are pretty damn generous all things considered. Plenty of vacation days, especially compared to the US. It's not like it's impossible to use those well during your "best years".
  - tredre3 1y ago
    The "system" would fall apart if people didn't work for at least half their lives, true, but it is absolutely not true that we need people to work until they're 70.
    - dralley 1y ago
      Not with current population growth curves being what they are.
      - broken-kebab 1y ago
        Yes, Western societies are coming to rude awakening: birthrate matters for everyone. Social support for elderly cannot be built on pension funds when there's not enough young hands in economy
      - FranzFerdiNaN 1y ago
        Planned immigration can easily solve this. But we rather crash and burn and work till we are 70+ than let “those people” in.
        account42 1y ago
        In practice, immigration adds a lot of welfare receivers so ends up doing the opposite. It's not a coincidence that we are seeing supposed multiple advanced civilization talking about increasing the retirement age at a time of unprecedented levels of immigration.
    - incompatible 1y ago
      I haven't worked for a long time. If others were like me, I suppose the system that exists now would fall apart, but really, I don't consume a lot.
      - SoftTalker 1y ago
        Right, but you need food every day and shelter and clothes. Someone’s paying for that, if not you yourself.
- cryptonector 1y ago
  It's not to convince you of anything. You can't retire if you don't have savings or children to support you. Even if you have savings and/or children to support you, you can't retire if your society didn't make enough children so that your savings can have some value. Social security was always a ponzi scheme that doesn't work in the long run as fertility rates _necessarily_ drop to or below (really, always below) replacement rate. Even without social security, if you want to retire, and to have along retirement, then you need your society to have near replacement rate fertility. Or insanely high productivity. I guess you can look forward to AI rendering most jobs obsolete, and hope that humans can -as always before- create new jobs that can't be easily automated.
  - ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago
    Denmark has nice a nice page for fertility rates: https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/borgere/befolkning/fertilitet https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/borgere/befolkning/fer... I think GDP is somewhat disconnected from that rate though. https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/oekonomi/nationalregnskab/noegletal-for-nationalregnskabet-bnp https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/oekonomi/nationalregns...
  - imtringued 1y ago
    The problem isn't that it's a ponzi scheme. It's that humans have to be replaced the same way anything with a finite lifespan (e.g. cars, buildings) has to be replaced. In theory your children are your pension deposit. People who don't have children should get a significantly reduced pension or they must provably support the children of a family that has more than two children per woman. The problem with modern society is that you need children at the end of your life. Agricultural subsistence requires children very early. It's a scheduling mismatch that causes people to delay having children all the way until they are no longer fertile.
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago
  Countries should be extremely focused on financial literacy education from an early age
- 8bitsrule 1y ago
  >just an illusion It's true. And we're all living the best years we're got left ... starting -now-. It's sad that so many people wait -so long- (when they may not even make it). So whatever it costs, when we can afford it, we must -take the time- to live them -now-. The wheels will keep turning without us for a while. That time will never be lost.
- rayiner 1y ago
  What "system?" If you don't work, you don't eat. That's always been the rule.
- soco 1y ago
  Wait until you find out about how the best years went before having any pension systems.
refurb 1y ago
Paywall. But life expectancy at birth is not the same as life expectancy after hitting working age. In 1900, if you made it to 10, on average you’d die at 63, meaning plenty lived well into their 70’s. http://www.jbending.org.uk/stats3.htm http://www.jbending.org.uk/stats3.htm
Affric 1y ago
Sure but the real problem is that we don’t know how to deal with bad quality of life for those suffering the effects of senescence and we have a society that is only just starting to come to grips with the perils of the sedentary lifestyle while allocating a lot of resources to people who haven’t done the work to live a good life past 60. And we make it hard for younger adults to make time for this. Don’t work yourself half dead by the age of 30 and you will never have secure housing in any major city (where incomes are highest). A huge part of it is cars. Most people over 70 shouldn’t be driving but we have had these people who have been driving everywhere for 55 years. They lose all ability to function independently in their community. Give me sitting in a cafe living in an apartment with stairs and no car in Lisbon or Athens or similar any day of the week once I am old. Better than the old folks home.

by gessha 1y ago

toomuchtodo 1y ago

Turns out retirement is just an illusion to convince you to give your best years for the system.

jstummbillig 1y ago
No need to do any that, if you don't like the idea and have something else that works for you. But most people are somewhat mid and really don't.
tomp 1y ago
You're just repeating anarchists' talking points. None of them considers that "the system" gives them food, water and energy, and that procurement of these in the absence of system means literally toiling from birth until death.
- taneq 1y ago
  This is the my response too. There are plenty of valid criticisms of our modern society, but nothing’s stopping you wandering off into the forest to forage for berries. We don’t, because even with all its flaws, living in civilisation is infinitely easier.
dralley 1y ago
Humans need a constant supply of resources and shelter to survive. There is no "system" which avoids this inconvenient fact. In the absence of any "system" at all, you would still need to constantly work for survival - and in fact you'd just die as soon as you were no longer able to do so due to illness or injury much less old age. In other words if there were no "system" there would be no such concept as "retirement" in the first place. We all wish that we could spend our best years doing whatever we want. That doesn't mathematically work out, though. European social safety nets are pretty damn generous all things considered. Plenty of vacation days, especially compared to the US. It's not like it's impossible to use those well during your "best years".
- tredre3 1y ago
  The "system" would fall apart if people didn't work for at least half their lives, true, but it is absolutely not true that we need people to work until they're 70.
  - dralley 1y ago
    Not with current population growth curves being what they are.
    - broken-kebab 1y ago
      Yes, Western societies are coming to rude awakening: birthrate matters for everyone. Social support for elderly cannot be built on pension funds when there's not enough young hands in economy
    - FranzFerdiNaN 1y ago
      Planned immigration can easily solve this. But we rather crash and burn and work till we are 70+ than let “those people” in.
      - account42 1y ago
        In practice, immigration adds a lot of welfare receivers so ends up doing the opposite. It's not a coincidence that we are seeing supposed multiple advanced civilization talking about increasing the retirement age at a time of unprecedented levels of immigration.
  - incompatible 1y ago
    I haven't worked for a long time. If others were like me, I suppose the system that exists now would fall apart, but really, I don't consume a lot.
    - SoftTalker 1y ago
      Right, but you need food every day and shelter and clothes. Someone’s paying for that, if not you yourself.
cryptonector 1y ago
It's not to convince you of anything. You can't retire if you don't have savings or children to support you. Even if you have savings and/or children to support you, you can't retire if your society didn't make enough children so that your savings can have some value. Social security was always a ponzi scheme that doesn't work in the long run as fertility rates _necessarily_ drop to or below (really, always below) replacement rate. Even without social security, if you want to retire, and to have along retirement, then you need your society to have near replacement rate fertility. Or insanely high productivity. I guess you can look forward to AI rendering most jobs obsolete, and hope that humans can -as always before- create new jobs that can't be easily automated.
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago
  Denmark has nice a nice page for fertility rates: https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/borgere/befolkning/fertilitet https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/borgere/befolkning/fer... I think GDP is somewhat disconnected from that rate though. https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/oekonomi/nationalregnskab/noegletal-for-nationalregnskabet-bnp https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/oekonomi/nationalregns...
- imtringued 1y ago
  The problem isn't that it's a ponzi scheme. It's that humans have to be replaced the same way anything with a finite lifespan (e.g. cars, buildings) has to be replaced. In theory your children are your pension deposit. People who don't have children should get a significantly reduced pension or they must provably support the children of a family that has more than two children per woman. The problem with modern society is that you need children at the end of your life. Agricultural subsistence requires children very early. It's a scheduling mismatch that causes people to delay having children all the way until they are no longer fertile.
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago
Countries should be extremely focused on financial literacy education from an early age
8bitsrule 1y ago
>just an illusion It's true. And we're all living the best years we're got left ... starting -now-. It's sad that so many people wait -so long- (when they may not even make it). So whatever it costs, when we can afford it, we must -take the time- to live them -now-. The wheels will keep turning without us for a while. That time will never be lost.
rayiner 1y ago
What "system?" If you don't work, you don't eat. That's always been the rule.
soco 1y ago
Wait until you find out about how the best years went before having any pension systems.

refurb 1y ago

Paywall. But life expectancy at birth is not the same as life expectancy after hitting working age. In 1900, if you made it to 10, on average you’d die at 63, meaning plenty lived well into their 70’s. http://www.jbending.org.uk/stats3.htm http://www.jbending.org.uk/stats3.htm

Affric 1y ago

Sure but the real problem is that we don’t know how to deal with bad quality of life for those suffering the effects of senescence and we have a society that is only just starting to come to grips with the perils of the sedentary lifestyle while allocating a lot of resources to people who haven’t done the work to live a good life past 60. And we make it hard for younger adults to make time for this. Don’t work yourself half dead by the age of 30 and you will never have secure housing in any major city (where incomes are highest). A huge part of it is cars. Most people over 70 shouldn’t be driving but we have had these people who have been driving everywhere for 55 years. They lose all ability to function independently in their community. Give me sitting in a cafe living in an apartment with stairs and no car in Lisbon or Athens or similar any day of the week once I am old. Better than the old folks home.