
The End of Retirement - jimsojim
http://harpers.org/archive/2014/08/the-end-of-retirement/
======
mdorazio
This editorial is unfortunately about 95% dramatic story and 5% meaningful
numbers. What it doesn't talk about in detail is the savings rate for the baby
boomers pre-retirement age, which is the largest factor in the current "we
can't retire" saga. Pre-2008, most boomers were basically saving nothing [1]
and somehow expecting things to just work out when they got older. As a
result, I'm not nearly as sympathetic as this article wants me to be.

Another issue it leaves unaddressed is what the proliferation of older
Americans remaining in the job market is doing to job availability for younger
Americans. Tech is obviously insulated, but in many other industries it is
becoming very difficult to advance into the executive ranks because the
current executives are staying in well past their retirement age.

[1]
[http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-20/millennials-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-20/millennials-
are-lousy-savers-but-baby-boomers-were-worse)

~~~
ThomPete
Thats true in a strictly logical sense of course. But perhaps we need to dig
one step deeper and ask why they didn't do that. My guess is that it's not
entirely as simple as it might sound.

~~~
mdorazio
I'm all for digging deeper, but I'm not convinced you're going to find a
satisfying answer. I try not to hop on the boomer hate train too much, but
it's hard to look at what they were handed and not be angry. In the 60s and
70s, a college degree in anything from a decent school was enough to land you
meaningful employment. That degree cost less than a third of what it does
today. A decent size house in a metropolitan area could be had in your late
20s with a single income. Upward mobility in the workforce was basically
unlimited, and thanks to the population bulge, boomers also were able to enact
pretty much whatever political policies they wanted as an aggregate group.

Yes, Vietnam really sucked, and the S&L crash wasn't fun, either, but how hard
would it really have been to set aside 5% of income every year instead of
plowing it into ever bigger houses, more cars, vacations, etc.? I'll give you
one thing - financial planning education in the US is absolutely awful and
continues to fail millions of people every year. Without that, all you see is
mass commercialization encouraging people to spend more money, and an ever
increasing need to keep up with the Joneses.

~~~
ThomPete
Every generation become a product of the previous one. Just because you as
young often revolt against the older generations, doesn't mean you can see
through all the hazy clouds that surrounds you.

Historically there have been a lot of money poured into finding ways to
convince people to long term thinking with short term gains. There are a
reason why advertising quick loans and and credit cards have become popular.
There is a reason why the US creditscore system forces you to take on debt to
build you credit score (just think about how absurd that notion is) and there
is a reason why people growing up in an environment where this is the norm
become bad at saving up. It's systemic and it's done by the previous
generations and not simply because the young generations are stupider or more
careless.

You seem to believe that people in general rationalize far mor than they
actually do. We are humans not rational machines.

~~~
ethbro
> There is a reason why the US creditscore system forces you to take on debt
> to build you credit score (just think about how absurd that notion is)

To be clear, the US credit score system forces you to take on credit limits,
not actual debt.

~~~
ThomPete
It forces you to use your credit card in order to build a credit score. In
fact in the beginning I had to sponsor my own credit line of which I paid
interest. So yeah I would say pretty much forces you to take on debt even if
it's only for a little while.

~~~
ethbro
You'd be surprised at the number of credit card companies that are perfectly
willing to keep a card (and its associated credit limit) open with no
activity.

But granted, if for some reason the system scores you as not-auto-grant on the
_initial_ card application (in which case I have no idea what they base it
on), then you might have to go with a fee secured in order to jump start the
limit climb.

------
bryan11
A comment heard from several friends: "Why save for retirement? One large
medical expense can wipe out years of savings. You're better off enjoying life
and spending what you earn while you can."

~~~
EliRivers
I'm not familiar with your system, so excuse my ignorance; can they do that?
Take money from your pension scheme?

~~~
cookiecaper
No, they can't take money directly from the "pension scheme". Social Security
cannot be garnished to satisfy judgments from private creditors, and in most
cases, retirement accounts are privileged and will not be forcibly garnished
or confiscated by the authorities to pay an outstanding judgment. Also in most
cases, you can retain retirement accounts through a bankruptcy. This is a good
reason to make sure a lot of your savings is allocated into designated
retirement accounts and not just a standard savings account.

Parent poster is commenting on the general expense of medicine, but for your
typical retiree, it shouldn't be too out of control with Medicare.

~~~
toomuchtodo
A Roth IRA is a wonderful savings and retirement account if you have creditors
at your door: you can remove the contributions at any time penalty free.

------
EliRivers
As an aside, it's sometimes really hard to get people to save for their
retirement.

My employer recently had another round of meetings, trying to encourage people
not to opt-out and extolling the benefits. At the moment, to put 1000 GBP into
a pension pot will lower an employee's take-home here about 350 GBP - the
company is doubling it (up to 5% of the salary), the government is giving the
tax back, and the company is doing it by salary sacrifice so your take-home
isn't so badly affected (tax etc. goes down a bit, offsetting a little the
money the employee puts into the pension). They can choose what to put it in;
stocks, funds, cash, treasuries. They can move it between providers, it's
theirs. The only restriction is they can't have it back until they're at
retirement age (not even retired; just at the right age, I think).

Even so, many people say they'll not bother, thanks. Some say they rather just
save the money up themselves (costing them an incredible 1000 GBP for every
1000 GBP they save - three times the cost!). I know that putting it into a
pension has risks and downsides, but given that the pension is basically
tripling their money on day one, it seems incredible how many people aren't
interested. Makes me fear that if people aren't interested even with (what
seems to me) such a good deal, what are people without such sweeteners doing.

~~~
icefox
At least in the states with the 401k, everywhere i have worked it has been an
opt-in system so you had to convince people to do the minimum paperwork to get
get "Free money" and think of the future. Only recently have a I started
hearing that there can be the opposite and 401k can be opt-out (some law
change perhaps?). This was also shown with Organ donation
[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282905.php](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282905.php)
how much better opt-out could be. I am only guessing, but the percentage of
people that are in the system even after those that opt-out is probably way
higher than here where most has to opt-in.

My sad example would be my 24 year old self didn't bother to bring the fully
filled out 401k form upstairs to get the free money even though he vaguely
understood it was the right thing to do. It was all set to go, I just had to
carry the paperwork, but I didn't. Took a job change and another opportunity
before I figured it out.

In startup land this is the difference between a 1 step funnel and a zero step
funnel. Which would your company like to have?

~~~
EliRivers
The UK is in the middle of switching to opt-out. I am pretty sure that some
people at my current employer are as apathetic about opting-out as they were
about opting-in, so they will drift into having a pension (in which, as I
mentioned, their money is going to be somewhere between doubled and tripled on
day one). To some, this is the nanny state going too far.

------
jqm
I've seen retirement make people unhappy. They become isolated and have to
find ways to make connections with others. They are bored and start doing
things like canvassing the neighborhood looking for minor HMA violations.
Sometimes the lack of schedule and structure isn't the best for the health.
Sometimes they feel useless.

Of course this isn't all cases but I've seen it. People generally want to feel
important and connected and a job often provides that.

The problem is, as a persons mind and body starts to wear down there is less
they can actually contribute. People talk about wisdom and experience and
there is something to be said for that, but the world is changing so much
faster than conceptual models which makes "wisdom" worth less than
traditionally it has been. Besides, people start forgetting. So who actually
hires old people? Who can afford too? It's hard enough to find good work when
you are young and able.

I don't know what the point is. I guess I hope to actually never retire but to
be able to do what I like at a pace I'm able until death. (With all the
vacations I want of course). Even were I unfathomably wealthy I would want to
live like this. Because sitting around doing nothing sucks. So does playing
golf every day.

------
tomohawk
When we bought our first house in the early 90s, we were the only people in
the neighborhood who were not retired. In fact, everyone in the neighborhood
had been retired longer than we had been alive (26+ years).

They were living off of social security and savings, which was possible
because their houses were paid off and because the social security taxes while
they were working were much less (2%) than they are now (14%).

So, they were getting a fantastic payoff from their social security
'investment' that no future generation can hope to get, while at the same time
able to save more since much less was being skimmed off the top.

It's too bad that our generation and later generations have not been given the
same opportunity that they were, and instead face the ruinous 14% social
security tax with the disincentive that it is likely that getting any benefits
will probably be 'means tested' by the time we retire. Most of my peers that
I've talked to don't expect to get any social security when they become of
age.

Socking 15% - 20% away after 14% is taken off the top is difficult, but the
benefit from it will far surpass anything I'll ever receive from social
security.

~~~
ac29
I'm curious where you got that 14% number. The source I found says 6.2% [1],
and 0% after 118.5k/year in wages.

[1]
[http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751.html](http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751.html)

~~~
lotsofpulp
From an employer's perspective, what an employee is paid depends on the total
cost of employing that person, which includes the employer's half of the
social security and Medicare tax. It's reasonable to state that also as a tax
that the employee pays.

From your link:

The current tax rate for Social Security is 6.2% for the employer and 6.2% for
the employee, or 12.4% total. The current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the
employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total.

~~~
evgen
_It 's reasonable to state that also as a tax that the employee pays._

No it isn't. If your employer can spend less to employ you then they will keep
the profit for themselves, not share it with you.

~~~
YokoZar
Are you being paid minimum wage? No? Then there's something you're not
considering.

There is at least _some_ competition for your labor, and making it
dramatically more expensive to employ you will have some effect on how much
money you can get.

------
maehwasu
I save most of my income, and try to have a clear plan to spread spending
evenly over my future, rather than just blowing money today (I'm 31).

At the same time, given the drastically worse quality of life from age 65+
relative to ages 30-60, I'm not particularly interested in plans that
enable/force me to save a lot of money for that stage.

This isn't a simple case of hyberbolic discounting (overvaluing the present
relative to the future)--I value those age 35-60 years quite highly and have
been willing to sacrifice some immediate benefits to optimize them. I just
think it's important to be realistic about the fact that certain periods of
life are superior to others, and I'd rather stack my enjoyment in those
periods.

------
jbuzbee
The author of this article has an obvious bias or slant she's pushing and
tries hard to paint a picture of doom and gloom and of evil corporations out
to take advantage of employees, e.g. when talking of self-directed 401K
retirement funds with company contributions: _Workers got shafted_

But you know what? In many ways the opportunities that these retirement-age
workers have sounds like an adventure. What's the alternative? Sitting at home
watching soap-operas on TV or feeding pigeons at the park? No matter what,
getting old sucks and you'll be popping Advil and aspirin for aches and pains.
But companies like Amazon and the Park Service give these folks something to
do and a way to keep contributing to society.

At the start of the article May was out of money, living in a trailer with no
electricity or water, contemplating suicide. But by the end, thanks to Amazon
and other companies she had turned it around and she was having a ball.
Obviously work at these companies can be hard or boring, but we get quotes
like the following:

 _Despite the boredom, May was grateful for one part of her job. “The best
thing was the camaraderie,” she said. “I made friends there.”_

 _“Oh my God,” she said, explaining that it was a relief to be around people
who she felt understood her. “The other day, for the first time in years and
years, I felt joy. Joy! That’s better than being happy.” Before long, May was
helping two of her neighbors..._

 _May told me she was doing fabulously. “My whole life has been ups and
downs,” she said. “The happiest I’ve been is when I have very little.”_

Sounds to me like Amazon and the others were a god-send for May and her
friends.

~~~
zzalpha
Yeah! It's like homelessness! That's, like, free camping! Who would complain
about free camping???

~~~
jbuzbee
To repeat, from an active participant in this economy:

 _for the first time in years and years, I felt joy. Joy!_

------
gambiting
I don't understand something - if she worked her entire life, how can she not
have a pension? Does US not have a state pension?

~~~
pkaye
Unless you work for the government or a legacy union, the concept of a pension
(one with defined benefits) no longer exists. Most people who worked can rely
on Social Security or Medicare but it doesn't fully cover your costs. The more
common option is 401K where you basically have to save up and invest your own
money tax deferred because employers hardly contribute much. In these cases,
those make little income or are not well organized don't put anything much
into their 401K. Then they reach their retirement age and find out they don't
have enough to survive. Lastly there are those who did save into their 401K
but lost a lot due to ill timing and the whims of the stock market.

~~~
alyandon
I really love how my employer gets to define the options I have for investing
the money in my 401k. I'm basically forced into investing my money in the
volatile equities market if I want to have any hope of living comfortably in
retirement. :-/

~~~
toomuchtodo
Where would you prefer to invest your retirement funds if not equities?

~~~
bryanbuckley
treasuries, precious metals/commodities, bonds, real estate

~~~
toomuchtodo
Treasuries and bonds wouldn't provide anywhere near the return you'd need to
grow your retirement assets to a level you could live off them, and
metals/commodities/real estate are still fairly volatile.

~~~
bryanbuckley
didn't say they would. Simply that parent expressed dissatisfaction about only
being able to invest in equities and you asking i.e. what in the world is the
alternative? Asset allocation is key to control returns and volatility.
Consider:

[http://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/permanent-
portfolio/](http://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/permanent-portfolio/) and
[http://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/total-stock-
market/](http://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/total-stock-market/)

------
roymurdock
An economic perspective because the article didn't really touch on it:

There are two main schemes for creating a pension system like social security:
Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) and Fully-funded.

Under the PAYGO system, contributions from the current labor force are shared
among retirees.

Under the Fully-funded system, current earnings are collected as taxes from
workers when they are young and invested by the government on their behalf,
then paid out at retirement age.

Social Security in the US is a PAYGO pension system. PAYGO works great when 1)
the working-age population is increasing relative to the retiree-population
(tax-base is increasing relative to tax-drain) and 2) worker productivity is
increasing (more taxes extracted from tax-base).

Fully-funded doesn't depend on population growth as the rate of return is
generally determined by return on private investments, such as bonds and
equities.

There are benefits and drawbacks to both systems, but with the shift in
employment dynamics (less young, more old), the slowdown in the growth rate of
the US population, and observed 6-7% market returns over the long-run [1] it
seems like it would be worth considering phasing out PAYGO and switching to a
Fully-funded system, or a hybrid of the two.

Here's more info for those who are interested (article is from 1998 but seems
even more prescient now): [http://www.frbsf.org/economic-
research/publications/economic...](http://www.frbsf.org/economic-
research/publications/economic-letter/1998/march/on-the-transition-to-a-fully-
funded-social-security-system/)

[1]
[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a1.ne...](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a1.neDMy8DEU)

~~~
wazoox
There is a common misconception in your description or the return rate on
bonds and equity. At some point, you need to sell your bonds to get actual
money to buy things. When many older people sell their bonds to earn a living,
they flood the market and bond price crashes, and they're actually no better
than using the pay-go system. _in the end, retired people must live on the
surplus created by those still working_ ; the way you redistribute that
surplus doesn't really change the equilibrium.

~~~
yummyfajitas
This ignores the effect of buying bonds earlier in life.

While people are working, they are reducing consumption and directing some of
their productive capacity into investment. This raises future production,
resulting in more future surplus to go around.

~~~
toomuchtodo
You're assuming future production will always be higher than present day. No
one can be sure of this.

The federal reserve can't even raise rates above zero _today_ , let alone us
assuming future productivity or production gains.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I'm assuming that if we invest in the future, production will be higher than
if we don't. Do you believe this to be false (i.e., do you believe that all
possible investments are receiving optimal resources)?

I'm also not sure what the federal reserve has to do with anything, or why you
believe the fed can't raise rates.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Do you believe this to be false (i.e., do you believe that all possible
> investments are receiving optimal resources)?

I believe that we've tapped out as much consumer demand as we can in the first
world, and that emerging economies (China, clearly from recent events) is
unable to bootstrap their own local demand.

It doesn't matter if production is higher if there's no consumer demand;
you're "pushing the string" as it were.

> I'm also not sure what the federal reserve has to do with anything, or why
> you believe the fed can't raise rates.

The Federal Reserve is the level by which the US (and through it, the world)
economy is governed. Rates go lower, you (supposedly) throttle up the economy.
Rates go higher, you throttle it down.

The Federal Reserve won't raise waits until there are enough positive economic
indicators that their actions won't push us back into recession; if you want
to see what I believe the Fed can't raise rates, look at Japan:

[http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-04-25/zero-
rates-...](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-04-25/zero-rates-are-
harder-to-escape-than-the-imf-thinks)

Now, I'm not one to hold Japan up as a failed experiment. Even with interest
rates at zero, everyone has a fairly high quality of life. I'm saying: Once
consumer debt is sapped, either because of a populace aging (which reduces
demand), stagnant wages (which also reduces demand), and so forth, there is no
economic driver.

~~~
yummyfajitas
If consumer demand doesn't exist there is no problem - everyone already has
everything they want. Is it your belief we live in a post-scarcity world? If
so, we indeed need no new investment.

Then again, the consumption of retirees is also not really a problem.

I don't know China well, but the idea that the emerging world doesn't have
unmet demand is insane. Indians (a nation I know much better) certainly want
to consume vastly more than they currently do.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> If consumer demand doesn't exist there is no problem - everyone already has
> everything they want. Is it your belief we live in a post-scarcity world? If
> so, we indeed need no new investment.

I agree with this. We're almost there, not quite yet though. The renewables
push and electric vehicles get us over the hump (although housing is going to
be something we'll need to figure out).

Although, if you don't have consumer demand, you don't have any need for
investment (except perhaps infrastructure, which the government can do; that
leaves bonds/treasuries intact as an investment vehicle).

> Then again, the consumption of retirees is also not really a problem.

Ahh! But it is! Retirees consume much less, especially with most of them not
having saved enough for retirement. They'll have enough to survive, and that's
it (and those who need to depend on their families will be sapping away
disposable income that's now re-purposed as non-discretionary living expense).

> I don't know China well, but the idea that the emerging world doesn't have
> unmet demand is insane. Indians (a nation I know much better) certainly want
> to consume vastly more than they currently do.

Yes, true. But do they have the income to do so? Without income, you cannot
have consumption.

------
dovereconomics
To be honest, I believe the trend is to only become worse.

Every generation appears to become more hedonist and think less about
retirement. Many of my friends(millennials) make six figures and barely save
any money for retirement.

Carpe diem is failing on people.

~~~
shubhamjain
> Every generation appears to become more hedonist and think less about
> retirement. Many of my friends(millennials) make six figures and barely save
> any money for retirement.

Well, maybe I am too unimaginative but not being an American, I am curious
where does all the money go. Reading Paul Graham's article about Ramen
Profitability, I get the idea that a bare minimum lifestyle can burn as low as
~$1000 - 1500 / month [1]. Now a person is earning 6x this figure, how you
don't end up saving something. Bars, clubs would only be fun to a certain
extent. The only reasonable explanation I can think is, people buy everything
that they don't need.

[1]:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/ramenprofitable.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/ramenprofitable.html)

~~~
dovereconomics
Unfortunately, most people don't have minimalist lives.

With a 'humble' example:

$3000/month SF/NYC apartment,$1000/month on clothing(specially bankers),
$1500/month on food(no time to cook, so $50/day), $2000/month on
entertainment($500/week), $1500/ month on a decent car +gas. That's already
~110k a year. It's really easy to go beyond that.

~~~
yummyfajitas
This example will take a lot of work to pull off.

Suppose I'm dropping $3000/month on a spacious 2 bedroom east village flat. If
I'm spending $1000/month on clothing, I'll very quickly run out of space to
store it in my second bedroom. $50/day on food is quite a feat even eating
eggs and kale on artisanal toast 3x/day. Maybe if you are eating bodybuilder
type meals at only the finest restaurants?

I'm trying to imagine how to do $500/month on entertainment. Fri/Sat/Sun bars
with a $25 cover charge, plus 42 $10 cocktails every week? With that kind of a
drinking problem, money is the least of one's worries.

Spending both $3k/month on a flat in NYC and $1.5k/month on a car makes no
sense (the whole point of the flat is to never drive).

------
geggam
Social Security is funded. politicians keep stealing the funds and putting
IOU's in it.

Not to mention if we quit capping the income paying into social security it
would be in the black regardless of the theft.

The thing that is evident here is the stock market is a method for the
fleecing of the people by forcing them to invest or lose money saving.

------
newmotors
How much does SS pay these days? Any other help programs for the elderly (65+
- assuming they never had a real job)?

~~~
woofyman
Social Security is based on your highest 20 years of salary and what age you
start collecting benefits. My projected monthly payment, if I start collecting
at 70 is $3,600.00 a month. I'm 56.

~~~
skimpycompiler
Are there parts of the US where $3600 is enough?

~~~
VLM
Median income of the subset of employed americans is only $2400/month before
tax, so you'll be living better than most Americans at $3600/mo.

~~~
cookiecaper
Where are you seeing that $28k/yr is the median income? Bear in mind this is
_per month_ , not _per pay period_.

~~~
dangrossman
Just a guess, but if he threw "median personal income US" into Google, it
would've quoted from Wikipedia:

> The overall median income for all 155 million persons over the age of 15 who
> worked with earnings in 2005 was $28,567

Which, divided by 12, is $2380.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States)

~~~
cookiecaper
I checked before posting by typing in "median us income":
[https://archive.is/M05IS](https://archive.is/M05IS) . It's $51,939. The
difference is that this is median _household_ income, not median _personal_
income. This is the answer I usually see when median income is discussed, and
it's really debatable which is the most appropriate to use when discussing
what a person can "live off of", though I accept that personal median income
is the most direct analog to personal Social Security payments. The real
question is whether the OP has a wife that will also be collecting SS.

------
cookiecaper
Retirement is a very new system. The concept that people just quit working and
let other people pay for their existence over the last 30 years of their life
is an artifact of the industrial revolution, since by about 70 people couldn't
reasonably tolerate factory work anymore.

------
reasonattlm
While it's blindingly obvious that the current monolithic pyramid schemes used
to move money from the young to the old will have to disappear, this is a big
stumbling block for politicians. People already in the payout stages of the
pyramid scheme will not take kindly to changes. The difficulty of changing
these systems has even been touted as a reason to opposing healthy life
extension technologies - so much for rules to benefit the people! It's quite
astounding that anyone would rather suffer and die (and force suffering and
death on billions) than face the reality that change happens and we must
adapt.

In the world just a few decades from now in which the old are becoming just as
healthy, active, and capable as the young, social security programs are just
not needed. Not that I think they are a good plan in the first place -
enforced wealth transfers from the young to the old are generally enforced
wealth transfers from the poor to the rich. Not to mention the fact that it
encourages people to rely on the (inherently inefficient, unreliable)
government for services that are quite capably handled by planning ahead (very
underrated in the present time!), insurance, family, investment, and standard
banking.

Retirement in the future will become something quite different from what it is
today. I think we will see two forms of retirement in this future without
aging. Firstly, there will be the extended vacation. A worker will finish a
career with enough money saved to go on vacation for a few decades. That
should be more than enough time to decide on a new direction in life.
Secondly, an ambitious worker could save enough wealth to remove the need for
income - they could live on capital gains, the return on investments, and all
the normal methodologies of the well to do in the present day. Given enough
time, even the most lowly of jobs could produce this sort of wealth, necessary
for a permanent vacation.

Of course, this won't result in a world of perpetually vacationing people. If
everyone is resting on their laurels, there would be no one to produce goods
and provide services. So a dynamic equilibrium would arise between the
vacationers and the working - too few workers and prices rise, so more
vacationers return to work (out of necessity, or looking to make a killing in
a hot market). If many people are working, prices fall, so more can afford to
become long term vacationers.

A future in which we have decided to treat aging as the medical condition that
it is, and implemented SENS or similar approaches of periodic repair of cell
and tissue damage that causes aging, will be one in which everyone who is
prepared to work can be wealthy. This wealth will bring vastly greater choice
and freedom. It would be a terrible shame if political concerns and simple
human selfishness mess up, prolong, and cause unnecessary pain in the
transition from the current state of affairs to a better tomorrow.

~~~
mbrutsch
> While it's blindingly obvious that the current monolithic pyramid schemes
> used to move money from the young to the old will have to disappear,

A sentiment shared by the young. Until they get old.

~~~
_benedict
Not only is this particular pyramid scheme a relatively recent phenomenon in
history, it's also only just now that the pyramid has burst, and we're now
seeing the input to the scheme shrink - so it's now more of a diamond scheme,
which isn't really tenable.

So I don't think this is something historically people have believed in youth
and rejected in adulthood. It's only coming to a head now. Of course, it's
reasonable to expect that the current entrants to the scheme will continue to
try to perpetuate it once they've committed significant resources to it,
despite complaining loudly about the scheme now, not least because many will
have little choice (they will be in a worse place than prior entrants, having
had to commit proportionally more resources prior to drawing their benefits,
and generally be expected to receive fewer benefits when they do, as the
schemes adapt to the situation).

What this rhetoric really boils down to, AFAICT, is trying to push some of
that burden back up the pyramid earlier, so that the bust is perhaps shared a
little more evenly. i.e. by reducing the benefits of current recipients so
that they are more inline with what future recipients can be expected to
receive. I suspect it is a fools errand, though, since these are typically
legal obligations, so would need very controversial legislation to enact. I
can't see "stealing from grannies" ever passing a democratic legislature.

~~~
mbrutsch
> So I don't think this is something historically people have believed in
> youth and rejected in adulthood. It's only coming to a head now.

This isn't about "youth" vs "adulthood", most of the people who wish to deny
the old their due are adults themselves. But I believe historically, when
resources get tight, the "community" doesn't mind putting their elders on an
ice floe and letting them go, so that the current generation can have more.

~~~
_benedict
Yes, I simply misspoke. For adulthood substitute old age.

