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

221–230 of 488 posts

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

#221

Post by joe_mamba »

erichocean wrote: post #208
joe_mamba wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By definition, outsiders don't have to pay into the system They absolutely do pay into the system when they move to and work in Vienna. By outsiders in this context I meant foreign workers. I assumed that was clear from the context of the discussion.

> I meant foreign workers So did I. Being foreign, they can work at home and not pay into a system they have no part of. Problem solved.

When you move to live and work in Vienna you become part of the system since you pay income + other taxes, just like the locals, except unlike the locals, you don't get social housing.

Unless of course ... your comment was just an anti immigration dogwhsitle from the start, in which case you should just said THAT instead, and not waste people's time with cumbersome allegories masquerading as arguments.

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

#222

Post by jandrewrogers »

aprdm wrote: post #128
glimshe wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

I know several people with normie jobs (not tech related or government) and normie lifestyles that saved up enough money to never need to work again by 50 while still maintaining their lifestyle. Most still work because they have no idea what to do with their time even though they don’t need to work anymore.

You can easily derive that this is possible from the median household finance statistics published by BLS, never mind the upper class. It isn’t that hard if you care to do it.

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

#223

Post by philwelch »

robocat wrote: post #184
philwelch wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money can be passed down to your children and grandchildren though.

You won't be able to in the future unless you are very wealthy. Countries cannot afford the benefits and healthcare promised to retirees. So governments are getting more grabby. That pattern seems to be occurring in many countries. New Zealand example: when you are in nursing or elderly care you must spend all your savings and sell your home. The retirement age also needs to increase - one fund suggested to 70+ https…

I have no intention of spending my childrens' inheritance selfishly extending my own life, and I'm grateful to live somewhere I still have that choice. The people of New Zealand and the Netherlands have my sympathy and I hope they one day have the same freedom of choice.

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

#224

Post by philwelch »

bombcar wrote: post #205
carlosjobim wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do it before you die if you want to do that. They're not much helped by you sitting on it until you die.

That's one of the biggest takeaways - if you're an average American with average retirement, you will die in your 70s and 80s and your children will inherit ... just before their retirement, likely. So instead of waiting to die, give it earlier when it helps more; or give to grandchildren.

Of course, but it's best to do both if possible.

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

#225

Post by scottyah »

foxyv wrote: post #163
carlosjobim wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "we" and has never been. Anybody who talks to you about "we" or "us" or your "duty" is just seeking to exploit you, hoping that you're dumb enough to fall for it.

There is in fact a we. It's just not based on race, religion, ethnicity, language, gender, or sexuality. "We" are the ones who create and work for a living instead of living off the backs of others. "They" are immensely wealthy oligarchs that exploit us using their ownership of land, buildings, communication networks and machines we need to survive.

I live off your back yet am nowhere close to immensely wealthy. I know it's en-vogue to hate on shiny billionaires but reality is a lot less glamorous. It's just lazy gov workers not getting much done, then hiring more people to try to cover their work. By the millions.

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

#226

Post by Retric »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #217
Retric wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In a hypothetical universe with different laws people would make different decisions, like abandoning the US. But you’re asking about medical conditions which rarely apply and laws that don’t exist. That’s not a failing of FIRE for the vast majority of people.

Further FIRE doesn’t mean crap if you get something serious and die at 23, that’s just the reality of human existence.

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

#227

Post by greedo »

mothballed wrote: post #170
greedo wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you accept cancer as a death sentence, you're an idiot. I had cancer at age 41. If I left it untreated, sure I'd be dead, probably by age 43. But I'm not an idiot, I had good health insurance, I was treated, and now that health event is over twenty years in the past. Had I self-funded with a (non-existent) nest egg, I would still be in debt over $600k. Instead, my insurance had to deal with that...

600k once in 40 years is cheap compared to the total cost of insurance, especially when you consider the compound interest you could have made on premiums not paid, plus with the freedom to get cancer care cheaper someplace privately outside the US. Your insurance company got the last laugh by a long shot. A typical family on insurance would pay $600,000 (between their take-home and the reduced wages paid by employer…

My annual premium for insurance was roughly $2400/year. Since then, it's gone to about $6k per annum. Even compounded at whatever the S&P500 returns for a 40 year interval, I'm pretty sure I'm ahead of the game. If you think I've lost $600K by having work provided insurance, we're not dealing with the same level of reality.

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

#228

Post by greedo »

paulddraper wrote: post #189
greedo wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you accept cancer as a death sentence, you're an idiot. I had cancer at age 41. If I left it untreated, sure I'd be dead, probably by age 43. But I'm not an idiot, I had good health insurance, I was treated, and now that health event is over twenty years in the past. Had I self-funded with a (non-existent) nest egg, I would still be in debt over $600k. Instead, my insurance had to deal with that...

While I won’t argue insurance wasn’t overall beneficial in your case… There is no way that $600,000 is the cash price for cancer treatment (especially 20 years ago, but also today). The average cost of cancer treatment is $150k [1], and lower with cash price + shopping. [1] https://treatcancer.com/blog/cost-of-cancer/

I stopped cataloging the invoices after it hit $1.6M. Granted that's what the providers would bill my insurance, and we all know those are funny numbers, and while I'm sure that a concentrated effort to negotiate cheaper cash prices might have been productive, there's still the fact that I would have had to have $600k or so readily available. HYSA yields were pretty low for most of this time period, and if I had kept that kind of money in a stock portfolio, taxes would have killed me.

And it's beside the point. 99% of Americans can't afford to build a $600k nest egg just to cover medical expenses. THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR!

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

#229

Post by greedo »

paulddraper wrote: post #189
greedo wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you accept cancer as a death sentence, you're an idiot. I had cancer at age 41. If I left it untreated, sure I'd be dead, probably by age 43. But I'm not an idiot, I had good health insurance, I was treated, and now that health event is over twenty years in the past. Had I self-funded with a (non-existent) nest egg, I would still be in debt over $600k. Instead, my insurance had to deal with that...

While I won’t argue insurance wasn’t overall beneficial in your case… There is no way that $600,000 is the cash price for cancer treatment (especially 20 years ago, but also today). The average cost of cancer treatment is $150k [1], and lower with cash price + shopping. [1] https://treatcancer.com/blog/cost-of-cancer/

Also, I wonder if this is skewed by more affordable treatments for things like basal cell carcinoma or prostate cancer that doesn't require surgical intervention. In my case, I had full on chemo, rad treatment, surgery, and more chemo. Wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, but I'm sure as hell glad I had good insurance. Dealing with the medical side was traumatic enough, I don't think I or anyone in my family had the bandwidth to deal with negotiating cash deals with multiple providers.

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

#230

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

foxyv wrote: post #101
coldtea wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't (you can retire early), but it does decide part of what you will need to be saving and how. And the reason it decides that, apart from "because it can", is because many societies have seen what happens when it's left to individuals to take care of this, and they fuck it up in massive numbers, and the outcome of that then fucks up society.

It is really easy to "Fuck it up" when greedy assholes jack up the price of necessities like food, shelter, and medical care. 66% of bankruptcies are due to medical costs. We should just socialize necessities like food, shelter, and medical care so there is no chance of "Fucking it up." That would cover the possibility of disability as well. It sounds to me like we have built a system to exploit people as much as pos…

Yes let’s have “5 Year Plans” with centralized control instead of the free market, what could possibly go wrong? If only we had a large country that tried that and failed miserably to see what could go wrong.
Post reply on HN