Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The World Economic Forum predicts a USD 400 trillion pensions shortfall by 2050

weforum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 86 posts

Re: The World Economic Forum predicts a USD 400 trillion pensions shortfall by 2050

#41

Post by petra »

slv77 wrote: post #25
petra wrote: post #9

I don't get something: if the point is to assure pensioners a pretty similar life quality to the one they have today, with shouldn't be that by 2050 it would be easy and cheap ? How does that go into the calculations , if att all ?

Effectively your arguing that productivity growth will effectively bail us out of our high levels of debt and pension obligations (which are another form of debt) and there are more than a few that have argued the same. The challenge is that productivity gains have been slowing. Computers and the internet are now fairly mature technologies and aren't driving the productivity gains we saw in the 80's and 90's. Also as…

I free with the point you made, but: Productivity growth is maybe a too abstract concept and that creates confusion .

For example, some claim that the reason we don't see Productivity growth across the econmy is that because people(across all age groups) take the money saved from sectors with growing productivity(say, manufactured goods) and use that in sectors with stagnant productivity , say restaurants, plays ,spas , etc.

As for the shift towards nursing care - yes, it is true today, but one could imagine(and some are building) all kinds of technologies that reduce that need and it's expense.For example, if there was a really affordable and good: custom meal delivery, transportation , telehealth and medical adherence , fall prevention, some arrangement that prevents loneliness, and some better medical treatments and tools to age related diseases , and many of today's drugs will be off-patent[1] - it's possible that elderly treatment cost, at today's quality levels would go down significantly.

[1]Of course ,new treatments should be too available to seniors, and that raises the question of ever growing health care costs ,which is a big issue itself.

Re: The World Economic Forum predicts a USD 400 trillion pensions shortfall by 2050

#42

Post by RobertoG »

pixl97 wrote: post #35
RobertoG wrote: post #3

I get how an excess of pensioners (not enough workers) in an economy can be a problem. I get how an excess of unemployed people (people without a job) can be a problem. What I don't get is how both can be a problem at the same time.

Because you're ignoring problem 3. Not enough work. Modern economies run into issues with lots of investment in bubbles that don't increase productivity. Housing booms that rapidly increase the cost of housing don't increase productivity. Investing in ever riskier twisted financial exploitations does not increase productivity. Having huge amounts of taxable income filtered out of the country robs a country from futur…

OK, but now I don't get how 'not enough work' (I suppose you mean jobs) is a problem.

I get how not enough real resources (not enough food, not enough housing, not enough infrastructure, not enough knowledge) is a problem but 'not enough work' doesn't sound like a hard problem.

Re: The World Economic Forum predicts a USD 400 trillion pensions shortfall by 2050

#43

Post by RobertoG »

arjie wrote: post #37
RobertoG wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I though that the problem with pensioners was that there was not enough young workers for maintain them, am I wrong? excess of pensioners => not enough workers unemployed people => excess of workers

Yeah, but the number of jobs is independent of either of these numbers. You could have no jobs and lots of pensioners. Then everyone wants to work but can't and those who once were working have retired.

OK, so, there are not jobs because the economy doesn't need them.

So, the economy is producing the same with less jobs.

So, where is the problem for covering the needs of the pensioners?

Re: The World Economic Forum predicts a USD 400 trillion pensions shortfall by 2050

#44

Post by mikeash »

anovikov wrote: post #40
blindwatchmaker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of solutions for budget shortfalls seem to be focused on increasing burdens and reducing services for the lower classes. Maybe some of these shortfalls could be made up for by bringing the tax rates on the wealthy and corporations back up to pre-Reagan era levels, and also recouping some of the trillions in tax avoidance money hiding in offshore shelters? This seems more preferable to me than nickle and diming…

Well, people are supposed to fund their own pensions. This is not a tool of redistribution. If they life longer, it is logical they have to either retire later, get lower pensions, or contribute more, or all of the above.

Or get paid more.

Re: The World Economic Forum predicts a USD 400 trillion pensions shortfall by 2050

#45

Post by twoquestions »

onion2k wrote: post #15
anovikov wrote: post #4

How can a shortfall happen, technically? I mean, why not just print enough money to inflate it, to cut real values of pensions to make ends of the system meet? After all pensioners aren't likely to riot.

After all pensioners aren't likely to riot. I would highly recommend reading The Road To Serfdom ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom ). It details precisely why a right wing government needs to invest in welfare and social care for this exact reason; when a government fails the poor (or the poor's parents I imagine) they have a tendency to rise up and kill all the rich people.

> It details precisely why a right wing government needs to invest in welfare and social care

I was gobsmacked when I read this, as most of the Hayekians I know argue to let the poor/weak fend for themselves, as it would be better to let the weak perish than to steal from the strong to protect them. I may actually have to read it now!

Also, I feel it's unreasonable for those without property to respect property rights if they gain no benefit from doing so (other than not being a victim of State violence).

Re: The World Economic Forum predicts a USD 400 trillion pensions shortfall by 2050

#46

Post by gulbanana »

anovikov wrote: post #40
blindwatchmaker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of solutions for budget shortfalls seem to be focused on increasing burdens and reducing services for the lower classes. Maybe some of these shortfalls could be made up for by bringing the tax rates on the wealthy and corporations back up to pre-Reagan era levels, and also recouping some of the trillions in tax avoidance money hiding in offshore shelters? This seems more preferable to me than nickle and diming…

Well, people are supposed to fund their own pensions. This is not a tool of redistribution. If they life longer, it is logical they have to either retire later, get lower pensions, or contribute more, or all of the above.

Why are they "supposed to" do that? It's in the interest of society as a whole to make sure that everyone is looked after in their old age.

Re: The World Economic Forum predicts a USD 400 trillion pensions shortfall by 2050

#47

Post by intrasight »

slv77 wrote: post #25
petra wrote: post #9

I don't get something: if the point is to assure pensioners a pretty similar life quality to the one they have today, with shouldn't be that by 2050 it would be easy and cheap ? How does that go into the calculations , if att all ?

Effectively your arguing that productivity growth will effectively bail us out of our high levels of debt and pension obligations (which are another form of debt) and there are more than a few that have argued the same. The challenge is that productivity gains have been slowing. Computers and the internet are now fairly mature technologies and aren't driving the productivity gains we saw in the 80's and 90's. Also as…

> those that cannot

Cannot TODAY. Clearly senior care is ripe for tech distruption. It'll be a trillion dollar industry in a generation.

Re: The World Economic Forum predicts a USD 400 trillion pensions shortfall by 2050

#48

Post by throwaway91111 »

gulbanana wrote: post #46
anovikov wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, people are supposed to fund their own pensions. This is not a tool of redistribution. If they life longer, it is logical they have to either retire later, get lower pensions, or contribute more, or all of the above.

Why are they "supposed to" do that? It's in the interest of society as a whole to make sure that everyone is looked after in their old age.

And you really think a pension is the best way to provide for the elderly? Please.

Re: The World Economic Forum predicts a USD 400 trillion pensions shortfall by 2050

#49

Post by verelo »

gulbanana wrote: post #46
anovikov wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, people are supposed to fund their own pensions. This is not a tool of redistribution. If they life longer, it is logical they have to either retire later, get lower pensions, or contribute more, or all of the above.

Why are they "supposed to" do that? It's in the interest of society as a whole to make sure that everyone is looked after in their old age.

The US has to pick model for right or wrong. Saying it's in everyone's best interests to look after people is totally true, but it's not really the design of the US social system. The US is free market, in a free market you look after yourself and in return are a little less regulated and/or taxed. Both work, but yeah...in the current model, it anticipates people looking after their own retirement plans.

In my opinion, most people are incapable of planning for their future. I've probably done a great job in comparison to others, but I often wonder if it's going to be enough.

Re: The World Economic Forum predicts a USD 400 trillion pensions shortfall by 2050

#50

Post by lr4444lr »

gulbanana wrote: post #46
anovikov wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, people are supposed to fund their own pensions. This is not a tool of redistribution. If they life longer, it is logical they have to either retire later, get lower pensions, or contribute more, or all of the above.

Why are they "supposed to" do that? It's in the interest of society as a whole to make sure that everyone is looked after in their old age.

Because their union negotiates benefits on behalf of only their members, not society at large. That's not meant to imply general social security is bad or should be done away with. But these funds are public charter corporations that operate on behalf of a single labor group of voluntary association by its members.
Post reply on HN