Top
Best
New

Posted by brandonb 16 hours ago

Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029(eco3min.fr)
87 points | 152 commentspage 2
arjie 14 hours ago|
I think it’s time to bite the bullet and raise the retirement^W elder benefits eligibility age and peg it to life expectancy at birth minus 15 years or some structure like that. It’s fine that my generation will have to eat the loss - having paid for the past one but not benefiting as much from the coming ones. Some generation has to, and better us than them.

As we get better at healthcare and life, we should expect to be productive and care for ourselves for longer. I hope that as I age I remain in favour of succeeding generations over my own self. Plant the tree whose shade we won’t see etc.

Buttons840 14 hours ago||
> peg it to life expectancy at birth minus 15 years

That would lower the retirement age for me. I was born in the mid-80s.

I know that was just a suggestion. We could go with something like "life expectancy at birth minus 5 years", which would raise the retirement age for me, but we're basically just admitting that retirement isn't a thing anymore if we do that. Hopefully the wealthiest nation on Earth can do better.

I think, whatever we do, we should recognize that the current retired generation holds more wealth than any other generation. If we want more kids in our society, maybe we need to get some of that wealth into the hands of people who can have more kids.

arjie 13 hours ago||
Ahhh I’m a terrible communicator I meant “the current value of the reported metric life expectancy at birth”.
subarctic 14 hours ago|||
What even is retirement age and what practical impact would changing it have on society? People can retire or keep working at whatever age they want as long as they can afford to
rwmj 14 hours ago|||
Retirement age is usually tied to various benefits. In the UK it's the age at which you can collect the state pension (currently around £12K per year, if you worked for 30-35 years). Changing the retirement age therefore affects the state's finances, quite dramatically in fact: https://obr.uk/box/the-fiscal-impact-of-increases-in-the-sta...
swat535 9 hours ago||
Denmark is already considering raising the retirement age to 70: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44088957

This is the natural consequence of declining birth rates.. it's either that or immigration right now.

Encouraging people to have more children requires drastic changes in society which is difficult to implement.

telesilla 14 hours ago||||
In some countries you can reach retirement age, get a pension and keep working. So you profit more. It's complicated as maybe you've paid to your pension since 18yrs of age and you should get some money back, but many pensions aren't based on those actual savings but on tax payers actively funding that pension. Is double dipping ok then?
unsnap_biceps 14 hours ago||
That's not what double dipping means.

In this case, I presume they're taxed on their continued employment and so they're still paying into the pension they're receiving benefits on? I don't see a problem if that's the case. They contributed to the pension with an agreed payment date and followed the process correctly. I can understand how you feel that it's unfair, but I really don't see a problem unless they stop paying into the pension or stop paying taxes on their continued employment.

telesilla 14 hours ago||
The double-dipping unfairness is mostly perceived when there is high unemployment in youth, and we're allowing, via tax rules, for retirement aged persons to have decent returns on their work. They get a living-rate pension AND a job.

Like others note, UBI is a fair solution. Let's have everyone, regardless of age, be able to have a baseline. Then allow extra income form those who enjoy, or value, additional work and income.

arjie 14 hours ago|||
Ah this is not a universal term. I see. I will edit. I meant “age of eligibility for elder age benefits and pensions”. E.g. social security eligibility age, state pension age, etc.
JoshTriplett 14 hours ago||
We should establish UBI and universal health care, not tied to age, and then the concept of "retirement age" can go away.
Ekaros 20 minutes ago|||
I am starting to consider that health care should absolutely be tied to age. Rationing limited resource based on most fair criteria seems only reasonable action to do.
arjie 14 hours ago|||
I suppose we could pay everyone about $1.2k/mo and that would exhaust the entire current federal budget but that would eliminate the 60% or so of the federal budget dedicated to the aggregate of all social welfare programs. The tax increases required would be substantial to keep Medicare, Social Security, Health services, Education, and so on.

Without more productive capacity the extra $1.2k/mo would cause enormous inflation. Just a question of what the country is optimizing for, I suppose, but I think people would be unhappy with the result.

JoshTriplett 12 hours ago||
> that would eliminate the 60% or so of the federal budget dedicated to the aggregate of all social welfare programs

The combination of UBI and healthcare largely should. UBI serves as a better alternative to most such programs (and has much less administrative overhead).

Also, any form of UBI will likely result in substantial spending increases (trickle-up economics is well-established as actually working, incremental dollars handed to the average person are typically spent, not saved), as well as reducing structural friction in the labor market (people can change jobs more easily).

> Without more productive capacity

UBI will also likely result in more businesses/entrepreneurship, R&D, and other substantial improvements to productive capacity. Studies generally show that UBI does not cause people to substantially leave the job market.

Eddy_Viscosity2 14 hours ago||
Sounds like the who age verification debate will just solve itself. Just wait until there aren't any more children and then we don't need to worry about protecting them.
throw-the-towel 14 hours ago|
You jest, but I'd think it really is the opposite. Hard to care too much for a child if you've got five spare ones.
eigencoder 14 hours ago||
Do you have children? Because I've never heard a parent think that way
xboxnolifes 12 hours ago||
I think it's a little brash, but I do think that if we could accurately measure "care" that people with 1 child care statistically slightly more for them than those with 5 might care about any individual one. Not that they don't care, but that the one with 1 would worry more. Like how families with 1 daughter and multiple boys might dot on the only daughter a bit more.
skapadia 14 hours ago||
This will have significant consequences for the military.
jandrewrogers 14 hours ago||
Autonomous and semi-autonomous systems address that.
arjie 14 hours ago|||
It will be interesting to see how South Korea holds its borders 5 generations from now. That population will have shrunk substantially. Perhaps a robotic workforce and a drone military will finally deliver luxury capitalism to them. Or they will simply lose their control of their borders.

Countries with larger populations will see these guys commit civilizational suicide with enough time to recover one can hope. We won’t be funding USAID when the majority of Americans are drawing from Medicare though.

colechristensen 14 hours ago||
In that they'll have to act like a competitive employer?
peterfirefly 15 hours ago||
It'll be fine, Nick will pay for it.
bsimpson 14 hours ago||
It's so frustrating that Social Security reform became the "are you a good progressive?" litmus test in the early 00s. We've had our wages tithed for our whole lives - money that would be actually worth something in retirement if invested - to go into a Ponzi scheme that will go bust before we're retirement age. You could see it coming decades away, and political infighting ensured nothing would be done about it until the discourse tired and started arguing about pronouns instead.
throwway120385 14 hours ago|
We could actually hold our elected officials accountable for gutting Social Security instead. Then we wouldn't have to add "stock exchange expert" to our ever-growing list of job titles.
scoofy 13 hours ago||
Western society is limping forward with a "yes, but me first" mentality.

We absolutely need an abundance agenda if we want people to have children. Reject the zero-sum investment thesis of NIMBY protectionism. Invest in density, efficiency, and antitrust. This is one of the most openly obvious self-owns in history. It's genuinely absurd.

We are all in this together. Make financial security easy for young people and we'll actually get children.

arcrevenant 13 hours ago|
You’re like we need an abundance

Of stack and packs lol

> We are all in this together.

When’s the last time I heard that one

slaw 14 hours ago||
Median age in Africa is 19.5 years.

Africa doubled it's population in the last 28 years.

matchbok3 14 hours ago||
Our expanding economies and improving quality of life depend on young people and a growing population. So it brings up an interesting question.

In 20 years, will countries start to compete for young people? Tax breaks, benefits, etc. Will some countries thrive while others die off completely? The proportion of young people will be a huge issue regarding military strength, innovation, etc.

Could get very ugly.

missedthecue 14 hours ago||
Yes, but the inverse implication of countries heavily competing is that young people will be severely restricted from leaving as well. An incredibly underrated future possibility is that it becomes much harder to get a passport.
lnsru 14 hours ago||
That’s very idealistic opinion. The reality is that for example German government does everything for retirees and their votes. Young people as a minority are successfully ignored.
Razengan 12 hours ago||
So what?

Improving healthcare and medicine should be one of the core goals of civilization, so eventually we should have healthcare good enough to enable "practical immortality": No "aging" and no deaths save in extreme cases or physical accidents/violence.

In an ideal future, the majority of humans SHOULD be all over 100 years old! and hale and healthy as a 30 year old.

The problem is not "how long most people have been alive", maybe the problem is our unwillingness to reassess social assumptions established >2000 years ago:

That everyone has to "work", everyone has to "earn", everyone has to constantly "buy", and that everyone has to constantly pump out babies so they can also keep doing the same...

blini-kot 14 hours ago|
...in the US
More comments...