5 ms·

> I think if you've put in 40-45 years for the man, you should be allowed to have some good 10 years for yourself. Travel, play golf, cross a continent in a cam

> I think if you've put in 40-45 years for the man, you should be allowed to have some good 10 years for yourself. Travel, play golf, cross a continent in a camper or climb a mountain. Not unless you've raised 2 more workers to pick up the shovel while you're playing golf. You could, of course, rely on your neighbor's kids through taxes and pensions but when your neighbor thinks the same it becomes problematic. On the plus side, if you did raise kids, you may negotiate your retirement with them even if the averaged government system stops working.

FranzFerdiNaN 1y ago
Just let two immigrants in to replace me. Much cheaper and easier than raising kids.
- jdkee 1y ago
  Ethnic replacement.
- xlii 1y ago
  I see this twofold: what happens if net outcome is negative. Who would pay for it? The same argument could be made for children, but a counterpoint could be made that given family history outcome is more stable than with unknown immigrant. On the other hand, there is VERY interesting idea: personal immigration responsibility. Just as „mail bride” look for immigrants you’d be willing to sponsor in exchange for retirement. Probably there are 5 million problems but would put personal stake for sponsor. Limit to 2 per person and people would do a lot of research as their retirement would depend on it. The country might also gain because I’d expect that people would look for high-value individuals that would maximize their chance for well being. Finally, this could be used to revive drying out regions: bind this to a country/state/administrative region and that could help shaping it in the future.
- sheepscreek 1y ago
  It’s a profoundly sad trend. Our obsession with nuclear families and individualism has led us to a point where raising a family has become financially impossible and unimaginable. The immigration fix is analogous to quantitative easing. The problems are systemic, and turning a blind eye to them won’t make them disappear. Honestly, we need to rethink capitalism. By promoting shareholder returns over the wellbeing of employees, companies are destroying the social fabric necessary for a healthy civilization. Of course, the rise in costs and the widening wealth gap are equally to blame. This situation compels both parents to work, sometimes even holding multiple jobs, leaving them with insufficient time to raise children. This cycle continues until the next generation has no chance of affording their own home (or even a rental). How on earth are they supposed to raise a family?
- alexey-salmin 1y ago
  That's a great plan. Also make sure to deny citizenship to them and their kids, otherwise they'll eventually vote to stop paying your pensions. The glory of apartheid states of the past awaits us.
- rayiner 1y ago
  It would be hard to distill the fallacy of human fungibility into a purer form than this. If you’re say Danish, the kids you raise will be Danish. The immigrants won’t be Danish, they’ll be like the people from their country of origin: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran.... And as a result, they won’t be nearly as economically productive as Danes, ironically undermining the whole point of immigration: https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-turned-against-immigration https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-t... The tremendous contribution that Danes can make to the world is to have and raise more Danish children!
  - SarahC_ 1y ago
    Far right talking points! They'll be as Danish and any other Danes, just choosing to live life as they see fit. >"And as a result, they won’t be nearly as economically productive as Danes, ", how does someone with a different religion, or choice for music make them less economically productive? Are you suggesting they don't know white collar skills? Or are less intelligent due to were they were born?
    - alexey-salmin 1y ago
      It's as if culture and religion matters, what an insane idea...
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - nicbou 1y ago
    What makes Danish children productive is not their Danish blood, it's the culture and infrastructure that they operate in. The children of any nation would be equally capable. As an immigrant myself, I find the second article silly. You import people according to your own criteria, and they arrive pre-raised and pre-educated. A larger proportion of them will leave the country before retirement age. It's a hell of a deal for a country, and that's why it's everyone's solution. Immigrants are a much bigger drain on the country they are leaving.
arghwhat 1y ago
1. Denmark has a special retirement system for people who started work life earlier than normal, allowing them to indeed retire after some 45-48 years of work. All these rules are broken though. 2. These ages only affect a minimal government pension, and a massive tax saving on cashing out a specific, government approved retirement investment. If you wait to start receiving payments on that till retirement age, you avoid paying income tax of it. You can start earlier with worse taxation, or use regular investment types altogether. The overcomplicated tax system and its incentives are quite broken though. 3. Danish politicians still have a retirement age of 60 and a massive retirement package, so they can't deem retirement age and available funds to be that important...
mcv 1y ago
But if you don't have kids, it's easier to save money to fund your own retirement. Kids are expensive.
- anonporridge 1y ago
  The point just flew over your head. Yes, you could do this, but it's parasitic behavior that depends on your ability to extract value from the labor of other people's kids. If everyone does this, then there are no kids to take over the work to keep things running and money doesn't do anything anymore because the economy stops working.
  - mcv 1y ago
    > The point just flew over your head. It did not. I'm just pointing out reality. Kids are expensive, and it's probably easier to save for retirement if you don't have any. Don't get me wrong: I love my kids and wouldn't trade them for anything, and I have no problem working more and harder for them, but we don't live in the age where retirement depends on having kids anymore. Maybe you meant to propose to change that, so only people with kids have a right to a government pension, which is certainly an interesting idea, but also doubly painful for people who wanted kids but were unable to have any.
    - anonporridge 1y ago
      You're still missing the point. Not having kids yourself but still having a retirement of any kind is a privilege that only exists if most people still have kids, so that their kids become workers who will provide the goods and services you need to keep living in retirement. Government pension doesn't magically continue to work if everyone chooses the individually optimal solution of not having kids and consequently having a much easier time saving more money for retirement. If everyone executed this strategy, all that extra money you saved would become worthless, because there would be no one to give you goods and services in exchange for it.
      - mcv 1y ago

FranzFerdiNaN 1y ago

Just let two immigrants in to replace me. Much cheaper and easier than raising kids.

jdkee 1y ago
Ethnic replacement.
xlii 1y ago
I see this twofold: what happens if net outcome is negative. Who would pay for it? The same argument could be made for children, but a counterpoint could be made that given family history outcome is more stable than with unknown immigrant. On the other hand, there is VERY interesting idea: personal immigration responsibility. Just as „mail bride” look for immigrants you’d be willing to sponsor in exchange for retirement. Probably there are 5 million problems but would put personal stake for sponsor. Limit to 2 per person and people would do a lot of research as their retirement would depend on it. The country might also gain because I’d expect that people would look for high-value individuals that would maximize their chance for well being. Finally, this could be used to revive drying out regions: bind this to a country/state/administrative region and that could help shaping it in the future.
sheepscreek 1y ago
It’s a profoundly sad trend. Our obsession with nuclear families and individualism has led us to a point where raising a family has become financially impossible and unimaginable. The immigration fix is analogous to quantitative easing. The problems are systemic, and turning a blind eye to them won’t make them disappear. Honestly, we need to rethink capitalism. By promoting shareholder returns over the wellbeing of employees, companies are destroying the social fabric necessary for a healthy civilization. Of course, the rise in costs and the widening wealth gap are equally to blame. This situation compels both parents to work, sometimes even holding multiple jobs, leaving them with insufficient time to raise children. This cycle continues until the next generation has no chance of affording their own home (or even a rental). How on earth are they supposed to raise a family?
alexey-salmin 1y ago
That's a great plan. Also make sure to deny citizenship to them and their kids, otherwise they'll eventually vote to stop paying your pensions. The glory of apartheid states of the past awaits us.
rayiner 1y ago
It would be hard to distill the fallacy of human fungibility into a purer form than this. If you’re say Danish, the kids you raise will be Danish. The immigrants won’t be Danish, they’ll be like the people from their country of origin: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran.... And as a result, they won’t be nearly as economically productive as Danes, ironically undermining the whole point of immigration: https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-turned-against-immigration https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-t... The tremendous contribution that Danes can make to the world is to have and raise more Danish children!
- SarahC_ 1y ago
  Far right talking points! They'll be as Danish and any other Danes, just choosing to live life as they see fit. >"And as a result, they won’t be nearly as economically productive as Danes, ", how does someone with a different religion, or choice for music make them less economically productive? Are you suggesting they don't know white collar skills? Or are less intelligent due to were they were born?
  - alexey-salmin 1y ago
    It's as if culture and religion matters, what an insane idea...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- nicbou 1y ago
  What makes Danish children productive is not their Danish blood, it's the culture and infrastructure that they operate in. The children of any nation would be equally capable. As an immigrant myself, I find the second article silly. You import people according to your own criteria, and they arrive pre-raised and pre-educated. A larger proportion of them will leave the country before retirement age. It's a hell of a deal for a country, and that's why it's everyone's solution. Immigrants are a much bigger drain on the country they are leaving.

arghwhat 1y ago

1. Denmark has a special retirement system for people who started work life earlier than normal, allowing them to indeed retire after some 45-48 years of work. All these rules are broken though. 2. These ages only affect a minimal government pension, and a massive tax saving on cashing out a specific, government approved retirement investment. If you wait to start receiving payments on that till retirement age, you avoid paying income tax of it. You can start earlier with worse taxation, or use regular investment types altogether. The overcomplicated tax system and its incentives are quite broken though. 3. Danish politicians still have a retirement age of 60 and a massive retirement package, so they can't deem retirement age and available funds to be that important...

mcv 1y ago

But if you don't have kids, it's easier to save money to fund your own retirement. Kids are expensive.

anonporridge 1y ago
The point just flew over your head. Yes, you could do this, but it's parasitic behavior that depends on your ability to extract value from the labor of other people's kids. If everyone does this, then there are no kids to take over the work to keep things running and money doesn't do anything anymore because the economy stops working.
- mcv 1y ago
  > The point just flew over your head. It did not. I'm just pointing out reality. Kids are expensive, and it's probably easier to save for retirement if you don't have any. Don't get me wrong: I love my kids and wouldn't trade them for anything, and I have no problem working more and harder for them, but we don't live in the age where retirement depends on having kids anymore. Maybe you meant to propose to change that, so only people with kids have a right to a government pension, which is certainly an interesting idea, but also doubly painful for people who wanted kids but were unable to have any.
  - anonporridge 1y ago
    You're still missing the point. Not having kids yourself but still having a retirement of any kind is a privilege that only exists if most people still have kids, so that their kids become workers who will provide the goods and services you need to keep living in retirement. Government pension doesn't magically continue to work if everyone chooses the individually optimal solution of not having kids and consequently having a much easier time saving more money for retirement. If everyone executed this strategy, all that extra money you saved would become worthless, because there would be no one to give you goods and services in exchange for it.
    - mcv 1y ago