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

211–220 of 488 posts

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

#211

Post by bluGill »

lelanthran wrote: post #203
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 can't take it with you (at least in most religions) so spend it. I don't understand this PoV at all. I can't take it with me, sure, but I'm happy anyway if I leave it behind to my kids. This PoV that you need to spend, spend, spend to get the most value for your money is very primitive - my kids will do better if I die before touching my nest egg, and if I don't at least I'll have a longer runway to live withou…

Why are you working to earn that money - take unpaid time off to spend with the kids.

i get what you are saying, but leaving money to the kids isn't the answer. (Other than collage money)

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

#212

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

gruez wrote: post #85
zozbot234 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99 year leases make complete sense. Much of the value of a 'house' in an urban area like Singapore is actually in the land, and the value is being created by the community on a day-to-day basis. 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.

> 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?

The overwhelming majority of homes in Singapore are HDB flats built by the government. These are torn down and new, taller buildings fitting more people built in their place. It's called the Selective En-Block Redevelopment Scheme, or SERS[1]. People sell their flats to the government and are given new flats in other neighbourhoods, while their old homes are torn down and new ones rebuilt. So, yes, in some way, they are 'kicked out'.

[1]: https://www.hdb.gov.sg/residential/living-in-an-hdb-flat/ser...

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

#213

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

scottyah wrote: post #206
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what happens when the Republican Party gut the ACA and you have a pre-existing condition. Do you know what life was like trying to get insurance with a pre-existing condition before 2012?

Then they can just skip insurance. Most people don't need it, especially if they already have a lot of money (which is what FIRE means)

Obviously said by someone who is young and never had or knew anyone that had an expensive medical procedure like a friend who is 45 who I have known since 2003 and is a cancer survivor and now has to have open heart surgery

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

#214

Post by scottyah »

mothballed wrote: post #190
paulddraper wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the qualifier. And heart surgery is ~$60k. [1] That's [1] https://cost.sidecarhealth.com/ts/heart-bypass-surgery-cost-...

It cost $30k for a loved one just to go to the hospital when their heart "felt weird" but absolutely nothing turned out to be wrong and all they did was run a couple quick scans and tests. I do agree with the overall idea of what you're saying that usually the premiums are way more than what you could get care for if you just saved the money, but the numbers on the website seem very wrong. I realize it's a total anec…

That's the pricing when you have insurance. It is cheaper if you don't.

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

#215

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

InkCanon wrote: post #116
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Singaporeans have a decent idea, and given their quality of lives, they have no problems with the trade-offs. If they do, they leave. And many go back, because the trade-offs in the West are even worse. > Despite the iron mathematical law that these houses must depreciate their lease value SERS means that houses slated to be torn down are resold back to the government at near-market rates excluding the effect…

I think whether houses should be sold on a 99 year lease vs property is a large and separate question. The vast misunderstanding of it still remains - the idea that a house is owned, not rented. Selective properties might be bought back. But the fundamental invariant of this whole situation is that all 99 year leases will worth 0 eventually. Any rise in prices now only increases the eventual depreciation. And add on…

> 99 year leases will worth 0 eventually.

That's not how it works. The flats aren't valued for their space in the sky; they are valued for the land they are attached to, and their proximity and connections to other communities and infrastructure. I've already said that flats slated for SERS are bought back by the government at market rates well in advance of their leases expiring.

> The vast misunderstanding of it still remains - the idea that a house is owned, not rented.

What you seem to greatly misunderstand is that land in Singapore is at an extreme premium, the likes of which is hitherto unseen anywhere else. With this context in hand, the idea of traditional 'home ownership' is fundamentally flawed in the first place, because unlike much larger countries, there isn't a large suburban or rural zone in which a new city can just be sprouted up. 750 square kilometres is all you have, and if you have to recycle existing land to maximise its use, so be it, and if it means 99-year leases, then that is the cost.

Given average human lifespans, the Western concept of a 'freehold' doesn't really make that much sense anyway, unless you want monarchies, oligarchies, or corporate dynasties monopolising prime land and settling into an even more predatory outright rental economy, which is already seen in most large cities elsewhere.

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

#216

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

scottyah wrote: post #209
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, my then fiance/now wife and I canceled our wedding we had planned, and went to the courthouse and got married six months earlier so I could get on her insurance. Also, just so happen I did end up in the hospital three weeks later because something happened that affected my breathing for an entire year. And how do you “go back to work” if the entire reason you need to go back to work is that you have a health cond…

You do know you can have a wedding even if you're already on-paper married? The ceremony really has nothing to do with the legal act.

So wouldn’t it go against everything that FIRE stood for to spend money on a wedding after you lost your job?

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

#217

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

Retric wrote: post #210
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you plan for a potential quarter million dollar medical bills over a couple of years?

Good insurance is one aspect including long term disability coverage if you haven’t retired. That’s the thing medical expenses when young are unlikely enough insurance is a viable strategy. Long term it’s worthwhile to move to a country with a less expensive medical system. You can move basically anywhere in retirement and be better off.

Again like I have been saying, good insurance is predicated on the open market and ACA being around and not being killed by Republicans. Even if they don’t outright kill it, they are trying to put in a “death spiral” where only sick people use it and insurance companies don’t want to participate.

LTC not discriminating against pre-existing conditions is also post ACA.

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

#218

Post by scottyah »

foxyv wrote: post #51
ecshafer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government decides when we can retire and they help us out. You can stop working today if you want, Government shouldn't pay you for it for no reason. Your duty as a citizen is to work and build your nation, eventually the government pays back that service with benefits.

This isn't something the government gives you. It is something they have confiscated and held on to. > Your duty as a citizen is to work and build your nation What about the duty of the trust fund babies and idle wealthy? What about the duty of the capital owners? Why is the retirement age going up instead of down as productivity increases?

because lifespans are increasing much more, people are outliving what they used to and are using a lot more money in retirement than they used to. Old people used to sit in houses and watch grandkids, now they're flying to foreign countries for fun.

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

#219

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

everforward wrote: post #199
alistairSH wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not all that different than US Social Security. SS has a much lower required contribution/tax rate, but the overall scheme seems similar (lower than market returns, etc) and naming (despite SS actually being called a tax, many residents think of it as a required personal retirement savings account).

SS is different mostly in that you’re not really loaning money to the government. The money coming in today mostly goes right back out as payments. There’s also an upper limit on SS taxable income. I forget what it is, but basically the entirety of the top quintile isn’t paying SS on their entire income. I want to say it’s like 90k, but it’s been a while since I looked.

The top social security taxable income hasn’t been as low as $90K since around 2005. It’s currently $184500. 93% of income earners earn less than that

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

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

#220

Post by scottyah »

throwway120385 wrote: post #145
goolz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These days I wonder about that duty I have. It sure felt obligatory some time ago. I thought of myself as a patriot and that the rule of law was something we we should be proud of. A country whose own anthem spoke of "liberty and justice for all". The current trajectory makes my question a lot of things, including this whole "government pays back that service with benefits" as it will be some time before I ever see a…

A lot of that here in the US is because we've lost the will to participate in the systems that establish these things. We leave that to other people, and those other people represent our interests poorly. The people in a democracy take a really long time to effect change. It can be a life's work for some people. But the premise is that if we can find common ground we can eventually see some of our ideas take shape. T…

After a bit it just comes down to motivation. Who wants to win more: 1. Someone who has everyone's best interests at heart so is unwilling to really run against anyone and is trying to balance out support for multiple conflicting groups all while learning the landscape and job or 2. Someone who knows they can use the position to get tens of millions of dollars, and are supported by a few large groups similarly motivated? This is how you get people like Va Lecia Adams Kellum and Karen Bass.
Post reply on HN