The Economist magazine pension issue
blogs.law.harvard.edu
The Economist magazine pension issue
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: The Economist magazine pension issue
#2I like this blog (other entries of which have been posted here before), but I find it a bit misleading that it shows up on HN as coming from "harvard.edu" -- which I assume to be Harvard's official web portal. (Clicking through reveals it to be a posting on blogs.law.harvard.edu, which provides free blog webspace to anyone with a Harvard-affiliated email address.)
Am I just being too picky?
Re: The Economist magazine pension issue
#3The first paragraph describes a common structure of the articles in The Economist, which goes a long way towards explaining why it is so satisfying to read.
Re: The Economist magazine pension issue
#4I like this blog (other entries of which have been posted here before), but I find it a bit misleading that it shows up on HN as coming from "harvard.edu" -- which I assume to be Harvard's official web portal. (Clicking through reveals it to be a posting on blogs.law.harvard.edu, which provides free blog webspace to anyone with a Harvard-affiliated email address.) Am I just being too picky?
blogs.law.harvard.edu also belongs to harvard.edu, so what's the problem? Many universities give blog space (and email accounts) to alumni, as a way to keep them engaged (and hit them up for donations...).
Re: The Economist magazine pension issue
#5I wonder if at some point some sections of society will voluntarily move to less efficient methods of production to generate employment - aka resurrecting the self sufficient village.
Re: The Economist magazine pension issue
#6I think the article may be attempting to show how dire the situation is. Or that the fix may lie in some form of equality of pensions throughout the work force, still a hard thing to fix.
With unemployment at such a high level today, increasing the retirement age would keep all of the baby boomers employed, rather than leaving the work force. It does not look good any way you look at it.
Re: The Economist magazine pension issue
#7If economic growth averages 2% for the next 35 years America will be twice as rich as it is now. We can provide for old folks now, just like we did 35 years ago, and we can definitely do it 35 years from now. This is just another rich dude complaining about the proles.
Re: The Economist magazine pension issue
#8If economic growth averages 2% for the next 35 years America will be twice as rich as it is now. We can provide for old folks now, just like we did 35 years ago, and we can definitely do it 35 years from now. This is just another rich dude complaining about the proles.
No account for inflation? No account for the rising costs in healthcare, and diminishing returns on that "investment"? No account for the fact that 35 years ago the proportion of economic active people to retired ones was completely different?
If you are going to dismiss a (very middle class, by social standards) dude, at least you should do a little bit more than hand-waving.
Re: The Economist magazine pension issue
#9If economic growth averages 2% for the next 35 years America will be twice as rich as it is now. We can provide for old folks now, just like we did 35 years ago, and we can definitely do it 35 years from now. This is just another rich dude complaining about the proles.
No account for inflation? No account for the rising costs in healthcare, and diminishing returns on that "investment"? No account for the fact that 35 years ago the proportion of economic active people to retired ones was completely different? If you are going to dismiss a (very middle class, by social standards) dude, at least you should do a little bit more than hand-waving.
We might be forced to stop spending such absurd amounts of money on the military, and we may also be forced to restructure our healthcare system to something resembling sane and efficient, but the parent's got a point.
Re: The Economist magazine pension issue
#10I wonder if at some point some sections of society will voluntarily move to less efficient methods of production to generate employment - aka resurrecting the self sufficient village.
If that does occur I'd take it as a sign of some serious problems with social order. More efficient production should see gains for everyone, but a look at the last thirty years suggests otherwise.