3 ms·
I think what they missed is that people typically work for much longer than they are retired. If the periods were of equal length, I think the Ponzi scheme thi
by pfannkuchen 1y ago
I think what they missed is that people typically work for much longer than they are retired.
If the periods were of equal length, I think the Ponzi scheme thing would be true.
As is its sort of a modified fractionated ponzi.
- broken-kebab 1y agoPonzi, or no Ponzi, it's still an illusion: let's assume that we all generate enough money saved in those funds during our productive years to sustain ourselves in senior periods, even counting in the almighty inflation. The problem is it's not money you need when old, and frail, you want somebody doing work for that money. So the whole scheme still requires enough young workers entering the market, and them be willing to perpetuate it. Which is kinda not guaranteed if each gen is smaller then the previous one.
- timschmidt 1y ago> Ponzi, or no Ponzi, it's still an illusion What do you think money is? > you want somebody doing work This is one reason why the robotics work going on right now is so exciting. Without the demand for elder care, it wouldn't attract as much investment or development.
- imtringued 1y ago>What do you think money is? Money is basically a coupon for labor. If there are no vending machines (read young workers) for labor coupons, then you won't get labor, no matter how many coupons you accumulate. Holding money does not teleport people into the future. (= the store of value myth)
- celeritascelery 1y agoSeniors are also really expensive. By some estimates you spend half of your lifetime healthcare cost in the last five years of your life. It typically takes multiple working people to support a single senior on government benefits.
- tomp 1y agoDo they? 0-25 education, 25-67 work, 67-82 pension, it's almost equivalent (42 working, 40 not working)
- timschmidt 1y agoEducation isn't work?