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

America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

governance.fyi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 488 posts

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#121

Post by sigbottle »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #78
bluGill wrote: post #22

You know who they didn't interview: those who regret saving so much. Many of those people are dead and so the regret is something we can only apply on assumption that they would. I've known a few people who unexpectedly died before they hit retirement age. I've know a few people who retired and died suddenly. The vast majority of people in a "first world" country have an expected lifespan of about 80 - but there is a…

> Once the above is taken care of though, you can't take it with you (at least in most religions) so spend it. Save enough, but not too much. I get it to a certain extent, don't live in poverty if you don't have too, but I am a major saver. I rarely buy new things if an old thing is working fine. If I die early at least my family will will be set. Really the social safety nets in the US are basically non-existent so…

I save out of a combination of buying into minimalism as a kid (though obviously it's nuanced) but also out of laziness, lol.

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#122

Post by gruez »

zozbot234 wrote: post #92
gruez wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It makes no sense for that value to be captured for all future time by a single owner, that just encourages pointless speculation and makes it harder to allocate real estate towards its highest and most valuable use. How do 99 year leases fix the problem? Do people actually get kicked out at 99 years, or does the government renew it for a nominal fee?

If the lease gets renewed at market value then there's no point in speculating about what that land might be worth in the farther future. It's a key difference from a system where all of the future value must be captured at once by a single owner.

Doesn't that just turn into a property tax of 1% per year, without a massive tax bill every 99 years? 99 years is long enough that there's going to be at least 2 owners, which means all sorts of strategizing required on how to plan for the renewal of the lease.

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#123

Post by stackbutterflow »

foxyv wrote: post #23
ecshafer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CPF sounds pretty clever. It covers a major individual cost and need (retirement, medical, housing) instead of just throwing it into a tax. It makes the government money. This sounds like a win win kind of policy.

Why does the government get to decide when we retire?

This question cannot be asked in good faith on a user board. It requires an 800 pages book on politics, history, philosophy, economics to be properly answerered and it would barely scratch the surface.

You might as well ask similar questions about most basic laws and concepts behind how western societies work.

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#124

Post by Aurornis »

cm2012 wrote: post #66
ww520 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a win win policy. The citizens lose massive amount of their money to government on the bond yield delta. It preys on people not knowing the effect of long term compound interest. Edit: in fact interest delta is how banks make their huge profits except the government here does it by force.

The average person does not make meaningful interest or investment income, its not practical to on individual small salaries.

In this case the citizens are forced to save, but the interest they're given is less than what they would have earned by saving the same amount on their own.

Also, the average person in the United States does have meaningful investments toward retirement age.

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#125

Post by jcranmer »

foxyv wrote: post #23
ecshafer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CPF sounds pretty clever. It covers a major individual cost and need (retirement, medical, housing) instead of just throwing it into a tax. It makes the government money. This sounds like a win win kind of policy.

Why does the government get to decide when we retire?

The government doesn't decide when you retire. The government decides when it is willing to pay you to be retired.

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#126

Post by ericmcer »

bluGill wrote: post #22

You know who they didn't interview: those who regret saving so much. Many of those people are dead and so the regret is something we can only apply on assumption that they would. I've known a few people who unexpectedly died before they hit retirement age. I've know a few people who retired and died suddenly. The vast majority of people in a "first world" country have an expected lifespan of about 80 - but there is a…

You just get taken in by life though, it isn't even about saving for some idealized retirement to me. As you age and your parents get old and you have kids and a spouse you just live less and less for yourself. You have to adopt a mental state where you feel gratification in sacrificing for others, if you constantly regret the things you can't do because people depend on you, you will drive yourself nuts. That sort of "I am a reliable provider and helper" mentality lends itself to obsessively building up a "safety net" because you can feel good about how stable and safe you make your loved ones.

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#127

Post by janalsncm »

Numeracy questions are on page 20 here https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/WR...

People who score well on probability numeracy are likely better educated and better paid and have more in automatic savings plans. So if someone is maxing out their 401k they don’t feel they need to save more.

The article shows that in the US there is a 25 point gap between high and low income on savings regret, and a 14 point gap between high and low numeracy scores.

In Singapore where savings are more automatic numeracy is a more powerful predictor.

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#128

Post by aprdm »

glimshe wrote: post #115
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s almost impossible for an upper middle class couple to retire in the US before their 65 unless they have some type of government provided or private company provided health insurance like teachers, police officers, military etc. It’s about $25K a year for a decent plan which is doable. But you have to hope that Republicans - and yes this is a political issue - don’t successfully kill the ACA and make it impossibl…

The FIRE community and my own personal situation prove you very, very wrong. It's absolutely possible for a upper middle class family to retire in their 50s, even in their 40s, if they live frugally.

"Live frugally" , "FIRE" , "work in tech"

All incompatible with 99% of the upper class, neither do they want to eat ramen to retire early.

You're also one medical disaster away from being "very very wrong"

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#129

Post by jcranmer »

foxyv wrote: post #105
philwelch wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government doesn’t set the retirement age. You can retire whenever you want. There are no laws against a 50 year old retiring and living off his own savings, nor against a 70 year old continuing to work. There is a minimum age to collect old age benefits from the government. The justification for that should be obvious.

The choice between working and starving to death is not a choice. If your savings have been taken by the government, then you don't have a choice. The justification is to force people to work until they are too old to do so. Then steal whatever they have left with medical bills and price hikes on necessities.

> The justification is to force people to work until they are too old to do so.

Actually, the justification is to prevent old people from having to work. Retirement didn't really exist until the creation of pension systems in the late 19th century, and the modern social security system was a poverty alleviation measure introduced in the 1930s. Hell, social security was initially resented by older workers because of the cover it gave employers for firing them for being too old.

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#130

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

glimshe wrote: post #115
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s almost impossible for an upper middle class couple to retire in the US before their 65 unless they have some type of government provided or private company provided health insurance like teachers, police officers, military etc. It’s about $25K a year for a decent plan which is doable. But you have to hope that Republicans - and yes this is a political issue - don’t successfully kill the ACA and make it impossibl…

The FIRE community and my own personal situation prove you very, very wrong. It's absolutely possible for a upper middle class family to retire in their 50s, even in their 40s, if they live frugally.

And health insurance as soon as the ACA is gutted and you have a pre existing condition? Sure I could retire to Costa Rica or Panama. One of those are a plan B and we will be in CR for six weeks and we are both learning Spanish - I am. decent at it.

I bet you also your idea of upper middle class is not statistically valid.

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

Post reply on HN