Live data from Hacker News

Denmark to raise retirement age to 70

telegraph.co.uk

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Denmark to raise retirement age to 70

#921
post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think if you've put in 40-45 years for the man, you should be allowed to have some good 10 years for yourself. Travel, play golf, cross a continent in a camper or climb a mountain. Not unless you've raised 2 more workers to pick up the shovel while you're playing golf. You could, of course, rely on your neighbor's kids through taxes and pensions but when your neighbor thinks the same it becomes problematic. On th…

But if you don't have kids, it's easier to save money to fund your own retirement. Kids are expensive.

That's why the current system is so screwed up, it has the incentives backwards.

Re: Denmark to raise retirement age to 70

#922

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be hard to distill the fallacy of human fungibility into a purer form than this. If you’re say Danish, the kids you raise will be Danish. The immigrants won’t be Danish, they’ll be like the people from their country of origin: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran... . And as a result, they won’t be nearly as economically productive as Danes, ironically undermining the whole point of i…

You’ve mentioned before that you were from a third world country. (Bangladesh, was it? A 90% Muslim nation?) Yet I assume you believe yourself to be a net positive contributor to your country of immigration? That your children will help the native culture instead of hindering it? Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

Immigration is about the movement of large numbers of people. It makes no sense to think about immigration in terms of individual immigrants. 1 Bangladeshi immigrant could be anybody. 270,000 Bangladeshi immigrants (as we have in the U.S. today) is a group you can analyze statistically and draw conclusions about.

As to Bangladeshi Americans generally, they’re probably a net negative economic contributor. Their median household income is 15% lower than for white americans, and the real gap is probably even larger because they’re concentrated in high-income states (New York, California).

Though the situation in the U.S. likely isn’t as bad as the one in Denmark or the UK. The anchor population of Bangladeshis in the U.S. are people like my family who came over on H1, which is a very small (only 65,000 annually), unusual population (e.g., my grandfather studied medicine in London).[1] Family reunification dilutes the pool a lot in the U.S. But the pool is far more skilled and employable than the Bangladeshi immigrant pool in say the U.K. In the UK, only 58% of working age Bangladeshis are employed, and the poverty rate is 46%. Bangladeshi immigration to the UK isn’t a “great deal”—it’s reparations for colonialism.

[1] In the U.S., our priors about immigration from the subcontinent are based on immigrants from the 1970s-1990s, i.e. a small number of highly educated people who were already somewhat assimilated into Anglo culture from British colonial influence. Pre-H1B, they also tended to move to random places around the U.S. rather than concentrating in ethnic enclaves, which forced a greater degree of assimilation. So you think about guys like Ro Khanna, who grew up as like the only Indian kid in Newton, PA. That doesn’t reflect the kids growing up in Little Bangladesh in Queens today.

Re: Denmark to raise retirement age to 70

#923
post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In almost no country those taxes work like a normal pension. They are an as is fund where people pay now for those pensions now. You do not save for your own retirement, you pay for the retirement of the current generation.

Yes, and with an aging population the bill gets ever more expensive so people have to work longer to cover it. I don’t like it either but can well imagine I’ll be working until 70, if I last that long.

[deleted]

Re: Denmark to raise retirement age to 70

#927
post #632

On the one hand, we will all be replaced by AI, so jobs are lost. On the other hand, we have to work till we die or the system will crumble. Thus, the system will crumble, it’s just about who will end up with the hot potato.

If AI takes most jobs, the system won't crumble. If anything, the system will probably work much better. It's the transition period that I am worried about, when large percentages of the population are jobless, but safety nets aren't yet in place.

So the system will not crumble after it crumbles in transition.

Re: Denmark to raise retirement age to 70

#928
post #911

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point just flew over your head. Yes, you could do this, but it's parasitic behavior that depends on your ability to extract value from the labor of other people's kids. If everyone does this, then there are no kids to take over the work to keep things running and money doesn't do anything anymore because the economy stops working.

> The point just flew over your head. It did not. I'm just pointing out reality. Kids are expensive, and it's probably easier to save for retirement if you don't have any. Don't get me wrong: I love my kids and wouldn't trade them for anything, and I have no problem working more and harder for them, but we don't live in the age where retirement depends on having kids anymore. Maybe you meant to propose to change that…

You're still missing the point.

Not having kids yourself but still having a retirement of any kind is a privilege that only exists if most people still have kids, so that their kids become workers who will provide the goods and services you need to keep living in retirement.

Government pension doesn't magically continue to work if everyone chooses the individually optimal solution of not having kids and consequently having a much easier time saving more money for retirement. If everyone executed this strategy, all that extra money you saved would become worthless, because there would be no one to give you goods and services in exchange for it.

Re: Denmark to raise retirement age to 70

#929
post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

short term, there are only bad options. Long term: incentivize to have more kids. this will solve the problem in ~25 - 30 years. but that's too late for most voters and politicians today... there should be a term for that? how about democracies demographics dilemma?

Hopeless measures. Nothing can persuade a couple to f... for kids, except if you force a medieval-like state based on religion and women oppression. Only such states historically guarantee >2 kids per couple, unfortunately.

If a progressive state can only exist as long as somewhere else oppressed woman keep supplying human material then it's not that progressive after all.

Re: Denmark to raise retirement age to 70

#930

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's only one issue I can think of with your idea that someone who is 75 now leads a life as you're describing. The generation they belong to are predicted to live to what 80-85 years? Whilst we (assuming you're in your 40's now) are predicted to get to what 90-95 on average? Average lifespans are increasing, and on top of that the mobility of someone who's 75 now, won't be the same of someone who's 75 in another…

With an aging population and increasingly long work lives, individual stressors will increase and societal capacity for healthcare (and overall prosperity) will dwindle. Baby boomers, having lived through some of the most incredible growth in human history, will perhaps turn out to be an anomalous blip in the life expectancy stats. Also, people age differently. There's a difference between living and being alive. Not…

> "societal capacity for healthcare (and overall prosperity) will dwindle"

This is not a complete discussion without the elephant in the room - diet and lifestyle are making us sick and much of that is a choice of how we design our world. most Americans and Britons are overweight or obese, and the Coca Cola company and Nestle and all the rest are doing everything they can to encourage their product sales, and society is not doing much to counter it. [smoking deaths halved in the UK between 1990 and 2021 [0]]

America and the UK are car-centric, the CDC says less than half of Americans meet the guidelines for physical exercise[1] and UK Gov says 1 in 3 men and 1 in 2 women are not active enough for good health[2]. People say that if the health benefits of exercise could be bottled up and sold, it would be one of the most potent drugs known, and we're designing places and lives which get rid of it as a regular part of life, and make it harder to add in. UK Gov link says "can help to prevent and manage over 20 chronic conditions and diseases, including some cancers, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and depression". There's millions of people with type 2 diabetes, which is reversible for many people with low-carb eating and fasting and exercise. The Lancet[4] paper saying 4.5 million people were diagnosed with liver disease in the USA in 2021 and alcohol is responsible for almost 60% of cirrhosis cases.

Then there's cities which build car-dependent suburbs, so they can get money today from new build taxes, but set themselves up for large maintenance bills paying for the sprawling roads and water/sewer/electric infrastructure with such a sparse tax base. This is bankrupting cities in North America, which are having to allow more sprawling suburbs today to pay for yesterday's suburb's maintenance in a pyramid style.

Then there's big box stores[3] which sued state governments to stop taxing them as functioning businesses on the grounds that they build their buildings so shoddily they are completely worthless to sell to anyone else or use for anything else, and should be taxed like an empty valueless building. Walmart pays employees so little that many of them need food stamps (SNAP) and those get used at Walmart which then moves the money out of state. Big box stores make cities poorer.

When cities and states say there's no money for pensions, care homes, social services, health services, public transport, it's they're busy mismanaging it and spending it all on subsidising wealty car-dependent suburbanites and 'prestigious' big box store developments. Not to mention health insurance middlemen denying treatments and taking money from the sick and wasting the time of healthcare professionals tying them up in paperwork.

If things were better, with more long-term thinking, people would be healthier and need less support for that reason, things would be closer and easier for people to walk/use public transport to get there so they could remain independent longer in declining health, healthcare would be a lesser demand on society, and there would be more money available to fund it. Then add the 'missing-middle' of American housing so people who have aged and their kids have left could downsize to a smaller home in the same area with the same community, and they would have a more manageable home and more of their money for healthcare.

This is like writing a bubble sort and then declaring that sorting is too expensive so we just can't have sorting in the future.

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/smoking

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/exercise.htm

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/physical-activity...

[3] https://thecounter.org/how-dark-stores-loophole-helps-retail...

[4] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2468-1...

Post reply on HN