
Too Many Americans Will Never Be Able to Retire - petethomas
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-23/america-needs-more-young-workers-to-support-aging-population
======
paxys
The article skips over one important point - people are living longer, and are
generally a lot healthier at "retirement age" (60-65) than a generation ago.
While the number of young people decline, there's no reason why we can't
expect people to continue working for 5 or even 10 more years than expected to
make up the difference.

I believe what really needs to be fixed isn't birth rates but rather income
inequality/working-class wages.

~~~
smogcutter
"But now we can keep you alive long enough to squeeze out an extra decade at
your desk" is not exactly a silver lining.

~~~
Terr_
Well, suppose a miraculous breakthrough occurred and the life expectancy shot
from, say, 75 years up to 750, pushing back the onset of debilitating age.

Surely it would seem like grumbling to dismiss it as: "Now they can keep you
alive long enough to squeeze out an extra 675 years at your desk."

This might be rather millenial of me, but I don't view retirement as some
long-deferred tasty dessert for being a good compliant worker who eats their
vegetables... as much as a someday-unavoidable lifestyle transition.

~~~
flukus
> Well, suppose a miraculous breakthrough occurred and the life expectancy
> shot from, say, 75 years up to 750, pushing back the onset of debilitating
> age.

I wonder how this would play out economically. Most of us here could probably
retire by 100 (and many by 50) and have enough accumulated wealth to live off
interest. Could we have a world where that many people live off interest
forever it would the extra productive years create enough inflation that it's
not feasible?

~~~
greenhatman
The fewer people work, the more scarce products and services become, and the
more expensive everything becomes. So it would probably make retiring early
unfeasible. Unless things get automated to a degree that causes abundance.

Either way I'd imagine you'd be able to live a more relaxed life. With 50
years work experience you'd probably be very effective. Your probably only
need to work 2 or 3 days per week.

------
robofomo
you can't fix it with immigration. A greying white population supporting their
lifestyle with the labor of poor, young, non-white workers? I can't think of a
more reliable path to civil war.

Need to boost birth rate, increase automation, and change economic focus. Cut
the welfare state down to poverty relief. Pay down the debt. Get a sovereign
fund going.

------
fgandiya
What about shifting to a more stable form of retirement instead of the DIY
solutions (401ks, IRAs, etc.) pushed since the 80s? As great as they are,
there's a lot of BS marketing around 401ks (unless you self manage) and while
the market has consistent returns over time, the premise "past returns do not
indicate future performance" still applies.

Before then there were pensions which seemed more stable. Only thing I wonder
about them is what would happen to the pension if the company went out of
business.

~~~
jeffbax
Public sector pensions are bankrupting states around the country and widely
mismanaged. Not to mention extremely politicized and an easy way to get votes
by over-promising and kicking the burden to the future.

For all the faults of 401ks and such, they aren't destabilizing state budgets
around the country, and the market is in fact relatively stable if you keep it
simple. They also aren't dependent on your company remaining solvent for the
rest of time.

We can also relatively stabilize Social Security if we want to, but nobody is
willing to make the hard choices to do so:
[http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-plan-
to-f...](http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-plan-to-fix-
social-security.html)

Until then, we'll suffer the consequences of turning anti-immigrant, years of
property value getting held hostage by the few, and politicians who are
fiscally irredeemable at this point (another bomb that will drop on our heads
eventually)

~~~
toomuchtodo
I fully support high marginal tax rates on high earners (70% @ >$5
million/year in income) to help stabilize social security as well as
contribute to the general fund. It’s also not a hard choice to make.

I never understand why “tax the ultra wealthy” is always deemed a hard choice,
or thought of as untenable. Could they leave the country? Sure! That’s what
the exit tax is for upon renouncing US citizenship.

I am not advocating for squeezing the rich to death like a python, but argue
that the pendulum has swung to far towards “let them eat avacodo toast and
watch Netflix”. The pendulum must swing back a bit.

~~~
ardy42
> I never understand why “tax the ultra wealthy” is always deemed a hard
> choice, or thought of as untenable.

I think part of the reason is some of those "ultra wealthy" have spent some of
their wealth promoting ideas and policies that are favorable to them, though
think tanks, etc. I suppose it's kinda like taking out an insurance policy.

------
mnm1
According to [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-
paycheck...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-
paycheck.html) 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. So at a minimum,
78% of Americans will never be able to retire, except perhaps into extreme
poverty. The percentage only goes up from there.

------
scottlocklin
Play stupid games (40 years of anti-natalist policy, dilution of labor
bargaining power) win stupid prizes.

~~~
Buldak
What "anti-natalist" policy are you referring to?

~~~
cheez
You can't deny that there is a reduction in birth rates. Many policies combine
to make this the case:

1\. Supplementing housing prices or guaranteeing mortgages makes them
unaffordable. People cannot afford to have kids

2\. The severity of the divorce process makes people unlikely to want to
marry. Marriage rates have declined. Less marriages, less kids.

3\. Helicopter money keeps real wages down. Cannot afford to have kids.

You may say these are not explicitly "anti-natalist" but in effect they are.

~~~
ecwilson
I don't think it's a bad thing that the birthrate in the US has gone down. In
general, it means women have more opportunities, and that's a good thing. More
access to birth control. More women choosing to start a career. They didn't
used to have that choice -- they were dependent on marrying a man for
financial security.

~~~
cheez
At least as of 2009, female happiness has been in steady decline. Not a
surprise, you could have asked any man if he would prefer to play with his
kids than work and 75% of them would tell you they would rather not work.

------
sigfubar
My family doesn’t know this, but I have a solid retirement plan. It’s not
really a retirement plan in the traditional sense, because I won’t be able to
retire from the workforce and enjoy the spoils no matter how hard I try.
However, when I’m no longer able to work for money, I’ll pull out my gun and
put a bullet in my head. I’m at peace with the idea because it leaves me free
to raise my child in the best way possible. What happens to me after is
unimportant.

~~~
joshuahughes
My wife has a friend whose husband ended his own life that way. The family
members who found him not only lost a loved one, but they also have the
horrific images of his self-mutilation seered into their memory. I’d really
urge you to think about that aspect...

~~~
sigfubar
Yes, that does sound horrible, but I’m not what one would call a suicidal
person acting out of desperation. I’m also not an idiot. When the time comes,
no one will be subjected to horrific images.

------
NTDF9
How about letting prices deflate so that retirees and millennials can afford
to live with normal wages and savings?

The whole ponzi scheme is needed only because we have govts, Central banks,
Wall Street looking for inflation and returns. Why not let Wall Street go
bankrupt and let the economy deflate?

------
jorblumesea
I think this basic fact will push American politics towards more socialist
European style programs like universal healthcare. While the boomer generation
talks big about some of these conservative values, the basic economic facts
will push the drive for leftist policies, even if they are sold as something
else in the political world.

------
andrewmcwatters
Why should we all have more kids to subsidize social security? I doubt I'll
receive any to begin with; I don't factor it into retirement projections at
all.

With the continuing trend of politicians and businesses attacking American
retirement options, there's no incentive. Who even says to themselves and
their spouse, "Oh man, we should really have _more_ kids, because 40 years
from now, social safety nets are going to be compromised if we don't."

Kids are expensive.

------
mjevans
Full socialism is the only true answer. Don't provide the elderly a money
stipend, provide them medical care, housing, and other basic needs (and
probably free rides on public transit infrastructure).

~~~
andrewmcwatters
Social security, Medicare, general health, income security, and veterans
benefits and services take up over 62% of the United States federal budget.
How should socialism address this growing problem?

What a poignant comment, considering right this very moment, there's a
socialist collapse in Venezuela being broadcast.

~~~
rootusrootus
Perhaps we will have to increase the budget somehow. Or print some extra
money, as we are already quite willing to do.

And is there any particular reason, aside from partisan ideology, to point at
Venezuela, which is different in many important aspects from the U.S., instead
of one of the very successful Western European nations?

~~~
Godel_unicode
Sovereign wealth funds, or the abrupt lack thereof, seem relevant.

------
redahs
We should phase in a federal 400% annual land value tax on the appraised price
which all land would sell for if clear of improvements over the next 80 years.

A 400% annual tax on the market value means the expect purchase price of an
empty lot will approach 3 months worth of tax payments for holding it. A
percentage of the gross revenues can be prebated to citizen residents at the
beginning of each year to afford taxes due at the end of the year. A large
deduction can be granted for land and real estate property tax payments made
to state and local governments.

The additional revenues gained from the tax can be used to abolish sales and
payroll taxes which fall more heavily on younger working families so it is
more affordable for future generations to have a larger number of children
earlier in life.

~~~
hnuser1234
My retirement plan includes living somewhere where I can own the land and not
be raped by property taxes. Many people, my in-laws included, have to flee
their high property tax states upon retirement in order to be able to afford
to do so. How does this help maintain stable communities? Shouldn't people be
able to retire in place?

~~~
wmf
They can't use a reverse mortgage to pay property tax?

~~~
hnuser1234
Why should people have to enter into an exploitive financial agreement with a
bank to pay a tax to stay in their homes that they putatively own during their
aged years? How is that just?

~~~
wmf
Why should people use government services without paying tax? If they don't
want to pay property tax they can live somewhere with a homestead exemption.

~~~
hnuser1234
In what world do government services cost 400% of the land value per year?
That isn't paying for services, it's paying for the right to exist, no less
than being taxed to breathe.

