7 ms·

> The whole western world is in for a rude awakening in the coming years with regards to retirement. No kidding. Who will pay for all the people who didn't sa

> The whole western world is in for a rude awakening in the coming years with regards to retirement. No kidding. Who will pay for all the people who didn't save? The people who did. I have very little expectation of keeping most of my money as I get older.

frisco 9y ago
> I have very little expectation of keeping most of my money as I get older. Welcome to the world of Bitcoin and Monero.
- googletazer 9y ago
  Incredible that you are so heavily downvoted. Just shows the level of fear and disdain that even technical people have towards cryptocurrency.
sddfd 9y ago
Exactly and now tell anyone that it was ever a good idea to not provide basic pensions for everyone and make payments mandatory. If that had been the case then at least everyone had paid at some point.
- varjag 9y ago
  This idea is not without drawbacks. Mandatory pension systems have a history of being wiped out by extinction events both governmental (USSR et al) and corporate (Kodak and other midcentury megacorps). It's at least something I guess, but retirement planning is a really really long forecast horizon and is inherently risky.
  - blubb-fish 9y ago
    In Germany the retirement system is far from perfect - but it at least keeps (most) people from being homeless or starving. The lack of universal health insurance in the USA is basically traceable to the same societal shortcomings. Why should a rich banker support with his premium health insurance for a woman who gets pregnant - as he's not getting pregnant anyway. That's a very egoistical way to look at communal cooperation but at the end of the day the reason for why ACA is being sabotaged by many politicians.
    - peteretep 9y ago
      But but ... that's socialism! And socialism is bad because ... USA USA!
      - blubb-fish 9y ago
        don't know why you're downvoted - your comment is not constructive but an ironic reflection - I think that's totally fine.
    - jazzyk 9y ago
      I am far from rich, and not a banker. I assume by "woman" you meant someone who is at or below poverty line, if so, I (and most people) don't have a problem chipping in. The point you are missing is that right now, 90% of the US population cannot afford to pay for child-birth (or any other medical procedure) themselves (out of pocket), as they typically cost $20K and up. With a reasonable market- (or single-payer-) based health-care system, most people (except for the poor and almost-poor) would be able to pay for their own health care. The current "system" in the US is a scam of major proportions.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  It wouldn't actually matter. The problem is demographic, not financial. Ultimately, somebody has to produce the resources, goods, and services that every person on earth needs to survive. If people live an average of 5 years after retirement, work for 50 years, and the population is at a steady-state, then every elder is supported by 10 workers. If the population has doubled in the last generation, then it's 20 workers. If the population is still doubling but people are now living for 10 years after retirement, then it's still 10 workers/elder. If the population returns to a steady-state but people now live for 20 years after retirement, though, we're down to only 2.5 workers/elder. Suddenly everybody feels the pinch. Pensions, 401ks, stock market growth, and all other forms of retirement savings are just different ways of lying to ourselves. Ultimately, goods have to be produced, services have to be rendered, and money is just a way to track who has done that and reward them appropriately. If you have fewer people doing the work and more people depending upon it, standards of living will fall. If I had to bet on a (peaceful) solution, it would be automation. Do more with less and a given number of workers can support a much greater number of dependents; the only challenge then becomes redistribution in a way that people find adequately fair. But elder care has proven stubbornly resistant to automation: if you've ever had a family member in their 90s and tried to take care of them at home, you may be doubting that it's even possible for 2.5 workers to take care of one elder, even if their own needs were completely automated away and they had no children.
  - RobertoG 9y ago
    "It wouldn't actually matter. The problem is demographic, not financial." It's interesting how many people don't understand (or don't want to understand) this. Money is just a number, is real resource what is important. Never mind how many savings the people have, if there are not enough people or resources to do the necessary jobs. And, the other way works too, never mind how many old people there are without savings, if the productivity is enough to take care of them easily. The obvious conclusion is that, instead of caring about money "saved", we should be caring about getting more productive. That would mean improve technology, increase knowledge and training.
    - sddfd 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
icelancer 9y ago
>Who will pay for all the people who didn't save? The people who did. Correct. It is generally a good idea to consider all of the money being paid into Social Security to be completely wasted. I am in my early-mid 30s and I do not expect to see a dime of it. I think it will either be insolvent or subject to some ridiculous tax structure if people have earned X dollars in their lifetimes or spent too many years in high tax brackets (which I expect to in my late 30s and 40s). Taxes will also go up dramatically as the years go by. I have a maxed-yearly Roth IRA but I also don't expect the government to keep their promise on letting me take out 100% of it tax-free despite all my contributions being post-tax. I expect to be double taxed on that, because, well, why not? Retirement is ridiculous. It's just generally safe to assume all of your money is going to be taxed at a much higher rate and through loopholes/broken promises by the government. We face a really huge shortfall in the next few decades in public welfare programs, Social Security, and other tax-advantaged vehicles that I doubt will be honored down the line.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  It's not retirement that's ridiculous, it's that old people have a vote in this and because that vote is so overpowering, no-one will even try and fix the issue until it's too late.
- carbocation 9y ago
  If you really expect your Roth to be double taxed, why not contribute to a traditional IRA instead?
  - hkmurakami 9y ago
    Because expectation is not certainty.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    There's some business-related reasons why I don't (I don't yet make enough money in salary for it to matter wrt deductions) but also because I think taxes will be very high when I retire and that my Roth will be taxed at a relatively low rate, subject to some "fees" or something. I think the Roth will still exceed the value of a traditional IRA (plus it's only $5500/year, hardly huge as I get older and my net worth increases), but I would be willing to bet that the Roth IRA will not exist in the form it does in 20-30 years, and that existing ones will be subject to a tax/fee to make it "fair."
nostrademons 9y ago
Depends how history plays out in the future. If people who save end up paying for people who didn't, it implies one of three things: 1) financial panic 2) inflation or 3) taxation. All of these are fairly likely, but looking back at history, there are a number of other possible futures that would take care of the problem. Mass plague, where all the old people die off. Mandatory euthanasia, where the government kills all the old people. War or anarchy, where both young and old die indiscriminately. Colonizing other planets, which opens up vast new resources. Mass automation of health & elder care, so the robots pay for the people who don't save. The depressing thing is that most of these are pretty horrible, and the two that aren't - automation and spaceflight - are probably the least likely. But then, history is filled with black swan events that open up human frontiers that nobody could've imagined. Maybe one of them will save us.
- kamaal 9y ago
  Or like it worked in most socialist economies which gradually migrated to free market in the 90s. Older people make painful sacrifices to merely survive. Younger population doesn't care, and largely thinks the old deserve it for not being serious about their retirements in young age. Social security in that situation will largely depend on continuing to work in old age, and surviving on bare minimum money and at worst depending on kids and friends. War and anarchy aren't feasible in old age, when you get knee pain for walking across the street. The whole thing will be bad, its just people have to deal with it and move on.

frisco 9y ago

> I have very little expectation of keeping most of my money as I get older. Welcome to the world of Bitcoin and Monero.

googletazer 9y ago
Incredible that you are so heavily downvoted. Just shows the level of fear and disdain that even technical people have towards cryptocurrency.

sddfd 9y ago

Exactly and now tell anyone that it was ever a good idea to not provide basic pensions for everyone and make payments mandatory. If that had been the case then at least everyone had paid at some point.

varjag 9y ago
This idea is not without drawbacks. Mandatory pension systems have a history of being wiped out by extinction events both governmental (USSR et al) and corporate (Kodak and other midcentury megacorps). It's at least something I guess, but retirement planning is a really really long forecast horizon and is inherently risky.
- blubb-fish 9y ago
  In Germany the retirement system is far from perfect - but it at least keeps (most) people from being homeless or starving. The lack of universal health insurance in the USA is basically traceable to the same societal shortcomings. Why should a rich banker support with his premium health insurance for a woman who gets pregnant - as he's not getting pregnant anyway. That's a very egoistical way to look at communal cooperation but at the end of the day the reason for why ACA is being sabotaged by many politicians.
  - peteretep 9y ago
    But but ... that's socialism! And socialism is bad because ... USA USA!
    - blubb-fish 9y ago
      don't know why you're downvoted - your comment is not constructive but an ironic reflection - I think that's totally fine.
  - jazzyk 9y ago
    I am far from rich, and not a banker. I assume by "woman" you meant someone who is at or below poverty line, if so, I (and most people) don't have a problem chipping in. The point you are missing is that right now, 90% of the US population cannot afford to pay for child-birth (or any other medical procedure) themselves (out of pocket), as they typically cost $20K and up. With a reasonable market- (or single-payer-) based health-care system, most people (except for the poor and almost-poor) would be able to pay for their own health care. The current "system" in the US is a scam of major proportions.
nostrademons 9y ago
It wouldn't actually matter. The problem is demographic, not financial. Ultimately, somebody has to produce the resources, goods, and services that every person on earth needs to survive. If people live an average of 5 years after retirement, work for 50 years, and the population is at a steady-state, then every elder is supported by 10 workers. If the population has doubled in the last generation, then it's 20 workers. If the population is still doubling but people are now living for 10 years after retirement, then it's still 10 workers/elder. If the population returns to a steady-state but people now live for 20 years after retirement, though, we're down to only 2.5 workers/elder. Suddenly everybody feels the pinch. Pensions, 401ks, stock market growth, and all other forms of retirement savings are just different ways of lying to ourselves. Ultimately, goods have to be produced, services have to be rendered, and money is just a way to track who has done that and reward them appropriately. If you have fewer people doing the work and more people depending upon it, standards of living will fall. If I had to bet on a (peaceful) solution, it would be automation. Do more with less and a given number of workers can support a much greater number of dependents; the only challenge then becomes redistribution in a way that people find adequately fair. But elder care has proven stubbornly resistant to automation: if you've ever had a family member in their 90s and tried to take care of them at home, you may be doubting that it's even possible for 2.5 workers to take care of one elder, even if their own needs were completely automated away and they had no children.
- RobertoG 9y ago
  "It wouldn't actually matter. The problem is demographic, not financial." It's interesting how many people don't understand (or don't want to understand) this. Money is just a number, is real resource what is important. Never mind how many savings the people have, if there are not enough people or resources to do the necessary jobs. And, the other way works too, never mind how many old people there are without savings, if the productivity is enough to take care of them easily. The obvious conclusion is that, instead of caring about money "saved", we should be caring about getting more productive. That would mean improve technology, increase knowledge and training.
  - sddfd 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

icelancer 9y ago

>Who will pay for all the people who didn't save? The people who did. Correct. It is generally a good idea to consider all of the money being paid into Social Security to be completely wasted. I am in my early-mid 30s and I do not expect to see a dime of it. I think it will either be insolvent or subject to some ridiculous tax structure if people have earned X dollars in their lifetimes or spent too many years in high tax brackets (which I expect to in my late 30s and 40s). Taxes will also go up dramatically as the years go by. I have a maxed-yearly Roth IRA but I also don't expect the government to keep their promise on letting me take out 100% of it tax-free despite all my contributions being post-tax. I expect to be double taxed on that, because, well, why not? Retirement is ridiculous. It's just generally safe to assume all of your money is going to be taxed at a much higher rate and through loopholes/broken promises by the government. We face a really huge shortfall in the next few decades in public welfare programs, Social Security, and other tax-advantaged vehicles that I doubt will be honored down the line.

mattmanser 9y ago
It's not retirement that's ridiculous, it's that old people have a vote in this and because that vote is so overpowering, no-one will even try and fix the issue until it's too late.
carbocation 9y ago
If you really expect your Roth to be double taxed, why not contribute to a traditional IRA instead?
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  Because expectation is not certainty.
- icelancer 9y ago
  There's some business-related reasons why I don't (I don't yet make enough money in salary for it to matter wrt deductions) but also because I think taxes will be very high when I retire and that my Roth will be taxed at a relatively low rate, subject to some "fees" or something. I think the Roth will still exceed the value of a traditional IRA (plus it's only $5500/year, hardly huge as I get older and my net worth increases), but I would be willing to bet that the Roth IRA will not exist in the form it does in 20-30 years, and that existing ones will be subject to a tax/fee to make it "fair."

nostrademons 9y ago

Depends how history plays out in the future. If people who save end up paying for people who didn't, it implies one of three things: 1) financial panic 2) inflation or 3) taxation. All of these are fairly likely, but looking back at history, there are a number of other possible futures that would take care of the problem. Mass plague, where all the old people die off. Mandatory euthanasia, where the government kills all the old people. War or anarchy, where both young and old die indiscriminately. Colonizing other planets, which opens up vast new resources. Mass automation of health & elder care, so the robots pay for the people who don't save. The depressing thing is that most of these are pretty horrible, and the two that aren't - automation and spaceflight - are probably the least likely. But then, history is filled with black swan events that open up human frontiers that nobody could've imagined. Maybe one of them will save us.

kamaal 9y ago
Or like it worked in most socialist economies which gradually migrated to free market in the 90s. Older people make painful sacrifices to merely survive. Younger population doesn't care, and largely thinks the old deserve it for not being serious about their retirements in young age. Social security in that situation will largely depend on continuing to work in old age, and surviving on bare minimum money and at worst depending on kids and friends. War and anarchy aren't feasible in old age, when you get knee pain for walking across the street. The whole thing will be bad, its just people have to deal with it and move on.