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

Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 147 posts

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#131

Post by microtherion »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #114
microtherion wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some historical perspective: My understanding is that when Social Security was created, the average life expectancy was 67. While this is true, I think it's a misleading statistic. The relevant figure, it seems to me, is not life expectancy at birth, but life expectancy at age 65 (because the latter determines social security outlay). In the 1930s, a 65 year old could expect to live for about 12 more years, while in…

I will note that my framing comes directly from something I saw somewhere. So my understanding is that it was intended a certain way. There's a great book called How to lie with statistics. It makes a lot of excellent points about how framing the same data differently can support different conclusions. So, some thoughts: Law makers who passed it may not have realized the average 65 year old would live another 12 year…

Law makers who passed it may not have realized the average 65 year old would live another 12 years.

Interesting theory, but that mistake should have become evident by the late 1940s and led to a lot of debate, and I am not aware that there was one.

Six years longer may not sound like much, but it's 50 percent longer.

And labor productivity has more than doubled during that time, so society should be in a vastly better position to afford social security.

I think it's important to see past the framing of economic inevitability and realize that there is simply a well organized political movement that does not WANT there to be retirement security for the general population, and because that's not really a popular political goal, the framing is instead that social security is unaffordable.

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#132

Post by microtherion »

Asooka wrote: post #122
microtherion wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some historical perspective: My understanding is that when Social Security was created, the average life expectancy was 67. While this is true, I think it's a misleading statistic. The relevant figure, it seems to me, is not life expectancy at birth, but life expectancy at age 65 (because the latter determines social security outlay). In the 1930s, a 65 year old could expect to live for about 12 more years, while in…

Yes, but a lot more working-age adults today make it to 65 than 100 years ago, which is a relevant statistic. Previously you could count on a bigger portion of workers dying before reaching retirement, so you had a smaller pool of retirees to take care of. Today practically every worker makes it to retirement age.

I don't have the exact actuarial data (nor the expertise to convert into numbers), but eyeballing figure 5 here: https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Body.html

It appears that in 1950, a 20 year old had about a 73% chance of living to 65. In 2000, that likelihood was about 83%. A nice improvement, to be sure, but not an enormous increase.

(My point being that if somebody dies before ever paying into SS, they make no difference to the accounting one way or the other, and a lot of the change in life expectancy was indeed based on reducing mortality at younger ages).

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#133

Post by EADGBE »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #104
simonsarris wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the life expectancy at birth was 67 because of lots of early deaths. Life expectancy at 65 has only increased by 2 or 3 years: https://www.seniorliving.org/history/1900-2000-changes-life-... Once you're old, you've kinda "made it" as far as life expectancy numbers go. I think someone who is 70 in 1935 would be considered just as "old aged" as someone 70 today. In fact someone who made it to 70 in the early 1900…

The article you linked to doesn't seem to fit with your claims and I don't believe your claim is accurate. Everything I have seen indicates we are seeing a lot more people live into their 80s and beyond. I'm not going to try to prove that. My understanding is that is common knowledge.

(This isn't entirely a reply to you, my apologies)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNLE00INUSA graphs out life expectancy for the US since 1960. I couldn't find a source where it went back to 1935 as well.

According to the World Bank, we're averaging about 78 right now. So, with the same assumptions made in 1935, we should be working until we're about 76; a full 11 more years of contributions before withdrawal. Some will live longer, some won't make it. Life sucks. (Aside: who will actively employ septuagenarians?)

Combine that same thought with the idea of the maximum taxable limit ($128,400) and the "demise of SS" would probably be a lot less of a real threat. Then again, in its inception, it only taxed from the first $3,000[1] wage earned (~$55,000 in today's money).

[1] https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02.html

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#135

Post by bdcravens »

jlelonm wrote: post #112
bdcravens wrote: post #38

Work hasn't failed us. Consumerism has. Stop buying brands. Stop buying Starbucks. Stop eating out. Stop buying the newest phone. Don't buy a fancy Macbook if you don't have a use case for one. Stop buying too much car. Stop trading resources for lifestyle. A 25 year old who only puts $300 into a reasonable retirement fund each month will have over $1M at retirement age.

What's a reasonable retirement fund to you? (asking out of ignorance, not sarcasm or anything)

Varies - how much will you spend in retirement and what do you expect for a return? You need to factor in inflation, since $1 today buys more today than it will when you retire.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/investing/retirement-calculator is a good calculator for this. (though I'm not a fan of its spending assumptions - if in retirement you have paid for houses and cars you definitely will be spending far less than today)

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#136

Post by sharkmerry »

naveen99 wrote: post #78
sharkmerry wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

seems like you created a strawman you created and are arguing against that. >> and know that the inability to save for the vast majority of people is just bullshit. Its an inability to sacrifice and “suffer” in a consumerist society. How do you know this? median income (50th %) in US is 37k before taxes. The average rent is 1k, so 33% of pretax is going to housing but its definitely lazy people? >> I’ve been so poor…

Where are you getting 37k ? First hit on google for usa median income is 59k https://amp.businessinsider.com/us-census-median-income-2017...

got it from here. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4109731-united-states-incom... Looked for income by percentile for individuals. The examples of waste above that "everyone" does, didnt seem to apply to families, more than individuals so I focused on that instead of household

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#137

Post by sharkmerry »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #118
naveen99 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting 37k ? First hit on google for usa median income is 59k https://amp.businessinsider.com/us-census-median-income-2017...

It depends exactly what you are measuring the income for. 59k is per household while the median per person 15 or older is about 31k[1]. Median wage for full-time workers is about 45k[2]. Not sure where they are getting 37k from. Maybe income per person for some narrower age range. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N [2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

50 percentile for individuals. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4109731-united-states-incom...

it was a very quick google, so i could've been misled

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#138

Post by ryandrake »

randomdata wrote: post #126
AstralStorm wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're very physically fit, rural work will break you in old age. Good luck retiring to a farm. Even better luck getting health care there.

Does one need to be more physically fit to be a developer in a rural area (I know of several places hiring) as opposed to the big city? In fact, the data suggests that city dwellers are statistically more fit as they are more likely to walk everywhere, while rural people are more likely to drive to their desk job. Agricultural work can be available in rural areas, but even in the most agriculturally productive areas,…

There are far fewer development (or other white collar, low physical effort) opportunities in rural areas. If remote work ever gains significant traction, this would be a viable way to save housing expense.

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#139

Post by randomdata »

ryandrake wrote: post #138
randomdata wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does one need to be more physically fit to be a developer in a rural area (I know of several places hiring) as opposed to the big city? In fact, the data suggests that city dwellers are statistically more fit as they are more likely to walk everywhere, while rural people are more likely to drive to their desk job. Agricultural work can be available in rural areas, but even in the most agriculturally productive areas,…

There are far fewer development (or other white collar, low physical effort) opportunities in rural areas. If remote work ever gains significant traction, this would be a viable way to save housing expense.

> There are far fewer development (or other white collar, low physical effort) opportunities in rural areas.

In my foolish youth I once tried to maintain two development jobs at the same time. That turned out to be a really big mistake. With that in hindsight, I really have to question why people are worried about how much opportunity there is. Maybe you are better than me and can handle two jobs without issue, but three? How many jobs do you really need? One available opportunity is all I will ever need again.

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#140

Post by DoreenMichele »

microtherion wrote: post #131
DoreenMichele wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will note that my framing comes directly from something I saw somewhere. So my understanding is that it was intended a certain way. There's a great book called How to lie with statistics. It makes a lot of excellent points about how framing the same data differently can support different conclusions. So, some thoughts: Law makers who passed it may not have realized the average 65 year old would live another 12 year…

Law makers who passed it may not have realized the average 65 year old would live another 12 years. Interesting theory, but that mistake should have become evident by the late 1940s and led to a lot of debate, and I am not aware that there was one. Six years longer may not sound like much, but it's 50 percent longer. And labor productivity has more than doubled during that time, so society should be in a vastly bette…

Interesting theory, but that mistake should have become evident by the late 1940s and led to a lot of debate, and I am not aware that there was one.

I've just woke up and replying is probably a mistake simply because I just woke up. But I have seen no evidence that people routinely rethink such things when it becomes obvious that the original logic was flawed and I've seen tons of evidence that the original logic gets wholly forgotten and, now that the thing exists, it frequently just grows larger thanks to some variation of entropy.

People can't even remember why Liberal Arts got called that to begin with and I get told that's just my weird ass and utterly unfounded opinion and then I have to go looking for a source to cite to show that what I'm saying is historical fact and the actual origin story.

I read a well documented book on the history of minimum wage law in the US. It is unfortunate that I can't recall the name and can't find it again in spite of looking because it asserted that it was passed to eliminate the racist practice of paying blacks half as much as whites in the deep south because these days everyone seems to think minimum wage is some sort of racist policy that keeps people of color oppressed somehow. I can't find my source to try to show otherwise.

In the 5+ years I had a corporate job, some practice changed but the term used remained the same such that new people found it baffling. Older employees had trouble explaining it.

Everything I have ever experienced in my life indicates people are truly terrible at remembering why decisions got made that way to begin with, even in their own life. They date someone for X reason, X reason stops being relevant but now they are married and leaving isn't easy. Unless they are so utterly miserable that dismantling their life sounds better than continuing to live with this person, they stay.

And the beat goes on.

Post reply on HN