251–260 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll be supporting all the old people through Social Security/Medicare anyway.
I'd rather not live in a dystopic high-tech, low-life society where the elderly and destitute are tossed aside. But, as I walk down the street, I see homeless people sleeping just outside the entrance of Snapchat HQ (latest valuation @ ~$25 billion). Frak it, bring on the Guilted Age!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't judge people who didn't or couldn't save enough for retirement and are living on SS and Medicare exclusively. I like Socialist safety nets of those sorts, and am happy to pay into them. One day I will be old and sick too. We all will be, except those who die early. I judge you if you didn't hold your government representatives accountable for excessive discretionary spending, which was borrowed out of Social…
Well, I hope you don't judge people for an accounting fiction. Any treasury bonds held by the federal government (for example, by the Social Security) is money the government owes to itself and has no real-world effect. The only part that matters is treasuries held by private investors. Less government spending in the past would mean lower government debt (owned by private investors) today. That's only real effect. Y…
> Any treasury bonds held by the federal government (for example, by the Social Security) is money the government owes to itself and has no real-world effect.
That is 100% correct. Which is the point. Those bonds are not a meaningful asset for Social Security; they have "no real-world effect" because they're an IOU payable by the same entity who offered it.
But the promises Social Security made do have a real world impact, and those promises will need to be redeemed. But Social Security doesn't have any assets of the type you say "matter".
And that's a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well said. Critics rarely consider the potential personal benefit of SS in the future. Now, it's not a perfect system, but it has its upsides. Critics definitely consider the personal benefit. The problem is that they don't trust that it'll actually be there, or that it's a system that actually can work as it has been designed. For example, in the 80 years that it's been in effect, the OASDI tax rate has increased…
Good points and very interesting, thanks. Once again, getting the state involved just makes things messy. Let people be responsible for their own well-being as they age. Without safety nets, people tend to be much more cautious and thoughtful when spending. Plus, people who are fit to raise smart and healthy children will also be more apt to do so, which is a must for any society!
Wealth inequality being what it is, yes, the wealthy can afford to chip in for the well-being of the rest of us. Or rather, we can afford to redistribute our wealth claims as a society in this way.
Why not? Wealth is a logical fiction we've invented, as to who has what monetary claims we enforce, and we can bend this fiction to our goals (including, as stated, the moral imperative to provide comfortable old age for all, regardless of personal means).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good points and very interesting, thanks. Once again, getting the state involved just makes things messy. Let people be responsible for their own well-being as they age. Without safety nets, people tend to be much more cautious and thoughtful when spending. Plus, people who are fit to raise smart and healthy children will also be more apt to do so, which is a must for any society!
Nah, screw that. We all deserve comfortable retirements, and we should fund it as a society. Wealth inequality being what it is, yes, the wealthy can afford to chip in for the well-being of the rest of us. Or rather, we can afford to redistribute our wealth claims as a society in this way. Why not? Wealth is a logical fiction we've invented, as to who has what monetary claims we enforce, and we can bend this fiction…
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/11/24/the-stunning-effe...
"Researchers at the CBPP used the Census Bureau's definition of poverty, which in 2015 meant $11,367 or less for an elderly individual, $14,342 or lower for an elderly couple, and $24,257 or less for the average family of four, and compared poverty rates for the elderly (ages 65 and up), adults (ages 18-64), and children (under age 18) with and without Social Security benefits.
The findings showed that Social Security benefits have kept nearly 22.1 million Americans out of poverty, with a reduction in poverty rates observed in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. As you might have rightly imagined, the bulk of those being kept out of poverty are elderly Americans, which comprise about two-thirds of all enrollees to begin with. However, children and adults younger than 65 benefited, too.
In total, 15.07 million elderly folks, 5.94 million adults, and 1.08 million children are all lifted above the poverty rate thanks to monthly Social Security payments. For all ages, Social Security reduces the estimated poverty rate in American 7 full percentage points to 13.5% from an estimated 20.5%. But the biggest effect is seen on seniors.
https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/419987/ss-elderly-pov...
As you can see above, without Social Security income, just over four in 10 seniors would be living at or below the poverty rate. With Social Security income, just 8.8% of seniors are living in poverty. We'd obviously like to see that figure fall to 0%, but for such a vulnerable group of individuals who may not have other forms of income beyond Social Security, this data would imply that the program is doing its job."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Houses getting bigger due to regulatory changes (as opposed to buyer preference) is a perspective I had not considered. Interesting! Thanks!
Say's law was the most counterintuitive concept I was exposed to in undergrad econ classes. After consideration it does make sense but runs counter to an entrepreneurial view of the world where products are created to serve a need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
30 year olds are buying larger houses because typically those are the only options. It comes down to NIMBY local regulation enacted by the boomers with their FU I got mine attitude. Municipalities enforce size restrictions, ie you can't build too small, in order to ensure there isn't housing poor folk can afford. They enact parcel size restrictions which means a piece of land that could have 20 homes on it can only f…
My uncle lives in an area where a new house must be on a minimum sized lot of 1 acre. A nearby area requires 5 acres for a new house! I'd never heard of those kinds of restrictions before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree entirely that work is the best way to feel needed, and that feeling needed is necessary. I work because I have to, not because I care about working. If I didn't have to work, I wouldn't. I would spend time on personal projects and enjoying my life with my friends. Relationships are far better than work for "feeling needed". To be honest though, I don't care about being needed. I don't need to exist. I like…
> I like when my existence is appreciated by someone else, but my happiness and mental wellbeing is not predicated on that. You might believe that but a lot of history and medical studies on retirees says otherwise. http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20130813-the-dark-side-of-t... https://hbr.org/2016/10/youre-likely-to-live-longer-if-you-r... http://www.reviewjournal.com/life/transition-retirement-can-...
> There are a number of reasons why health declines after retirement, said Dave, but, mental and social stimulation are a large factor. For many people, work is where they are the most social and do the most physical activity. When that core social network is removed, health declines.
Specifically, this.
> For many people, work is where they are the most social and do the most physical activity. When that core social network is removed, health declines.
By that notion, are all young Remote workers -- think 99% of the Wordpress core team -- declining in health and dying? I'm not buying this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point. Those lazy bums can just sit in furnished rooms and sell apples in the street.
Um, what? (No seriously, wtf? Is this a reference to something?)
Pre social security, it was common for the elderly to end up like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economic growth is not 0. So, really it says that 1/2 the population is flat our worse off. Further, a rising tide lifts all boats is a complitly false analogy, and anyone using that phrase to talk about the economy is lying.
>Economic growth is not 0. The numbers are in real USD, not nominal. So in reality, it's a huge fallacy to say that we're so much worse off that in the 1970s. We're almost exactly the same as the 1970s . The main difference to point out here is that the 1970s 30-year-olds made much more real USD than their parents' generation, while 30-year-olds today are making almost exactly the same. Just because income isn't grow…
Remember, if 1/2 your costs double then it does not matter how much the rest of your costs decrease. AKA the inverse of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
Compound that with the percentage of income 30 year olds spend on housing, education, health care and child care compared to their parents and we have a recipe for disaster.
The cherry on top is that our parents generation, who made more and had access to cheaper house, education, healthcare, etc., still barely saved for retirement. Unless, god forbid, your parents drop dead early, we are going to be stuck supporting them for a long time.
Could you imagine working your whole life and end up with not even a shelter to pass on to the person "replacing" you?
I never plan to have a kid, but if I did I would feel obligated to give them a head start in this shit life. They wouldn't be fucking renting or taking out loans that's for sure.
