So far, so good!So mooching off society and surviving at the expense of others is your strategy?
So far, so good!So mooching off society and surviving at the expense of others is your strategy?
It is my opinion that we should start worrying about the burden of the retired who have worked long and productively, right after we deal with the burden of those of not only do not work and have no intention of working, but through their crime and anti-social behavior place burdens on society far beyond the 15-20 years of retirement that retired workers "enjoy".As our population continues to crowd the earth and as easily harvestable natural resources dwindle, the burden of supporting a percentage of the population not engaged in any productive activity (retired) will become unmanagable. Yes, we could print money and pass it out to those not engaged in supporting themselves. But in the end, we survive by dividing among us all the resources available to share. Having fewer contributing to the aggregate pool while still requiring their slice of the pie isn't going to do it .
It is my opinion that we should start worrying about the burden of the retired who have worked long and productively, right after we deal with the burden of those of not only do not work and have no intention of working, but through their crime and anti-social behavior place burdens on society far beyond the 15-20 years of retirement that retired workers "enjoy".
If anyone thinks that prudent retired people are going to go off and find an ice flow to die on, he should put away that ganja and get real.
Ha
That economist must be 62 years old.
Many criticized the idea.... But it it probably would have been a better idea that what we did. We have spent a lot of money trying to create jobs.
Consider how many people would qualify for this program (in a 3 year window) that might be able afford to do it (lose their paycheck). There is a finite number. pick a number in the millions... say 4M
Consider the difference paid on the average payout difference between FRA and 62. Run that out till life expectancy and bring it back to a PV.
It is probably no more than we are spending to try to stimulate the economy and extend unemployment benefits (but I did not bother to calculate the amount).
It would immediately open up 4M jobs (using my fictitious number). The retirees would continue to spend (for their living expenses) and the people replacing those that exited the jobs would begin spending (because they are earning a full wage).
Many of those that are unemployed will be the people buying houses once they get a chance to restart their lives.
So far, so good!
Artificially shrinking the work force by incentivizing early-retirement for the masses might do wonder to improve the unemployment rate in the short term, but personally I think it would damage the country fiscally and economically in the long term. I grew up in a country who famously asked people to work fewer hours per week in order to artificially create jobs for the unemployed and the results have not held up to the promises.
In addition, people could take their full SS benefit at 62 and still hang on to their jobs a few more years.
So mooching off society and surviving at the expense of others is your strategy?
It would immediately open up 4M jobs (using my fictitious number). The retirees would continue to spend (for their living expenses) and the people replacing those that exited the jobs would begin spending (because they are earning a full wage).
Hey, wow! That's telling 'em.The current trend toward demonizing older individuals as parasites on society so as to avoid having to make good on obligations for pensions or annuity income streams is, to be blunt, the rationalization of parasites who managed to deceive members of society concerning their degree of contributions, and now that the jig is up, wish to deflect interest away from their own deceit and vilify the individuals that they are indebted to.
...
The current trend toward demonizing older individuals as parasites on society so as to avoid having to make good on obligations for pensions or annuity income streams is, to be blunt, the rationalization of parasites who managed to deceive members of society concerning their degree of contributions, and now that the jig is up, wish to deflect interest away from their own deceit and vilify the individuals that they are indebted to.
...
Interesting post, thanks for taking the time. I guess the "dilemma" is - am I a parasite if I exit the workforce before I "lose [my] capacity at producing" just because I am financially (independent) able? While it may draw emphatic emotional answers - the answer is not crystal clear IMO.Well, that's a dilemma we all face. After a while, we tend to lose our capacity at producing.
I would not consider a typical retiree to be a parasite, moocher, or looter. The retiree has worked within the human society for many years, producing goods or services in exchange for a combination of current income and a future pension or annuity (as from SSI) income stream. The current trend toward demonizing older individuals as parasites on society so as to avoid having to make good on obligations for pensions or annuity income streams is, to be blunt, the rationalization of parasites who managed to deceive members of society concerning their degree of contributions, and now that the jig is up, wish to deflect interest away from their own deceit and vilify the individuals that they are indebted to.
One man's "ideal world" is another man's nightmare...I suppose in an ideal world, I guess we'd all work as long as we're productive even if we reach FI before the end of our work days.
...I guess the "dilemma" is - am I a parasite if I exit the workforce before I "lose [my] capacity at producing" just because I am financially (independent) able? While it may draw emphatic emotional answers - the answer is not crystal clear IMO.
I suppose in an ideal world, I guess we'd all work as long as we're productive even if we reach FI before the end of our work days. I'd start a thread, but I've had some bad experiences here with topics along these lines...
I understand, and support your right to that view - I'm on track to follow your advice. But I'm willing to concede that if we all saved and invested AND continued to work as long as we're productive (regardless of FI), the cost to society at large would be significantly less. That's where the parasite dilemma is not clear IMO.So, if I have saved and invested enough to sustain my lifestyle while no longer reporting to the office, then by that argument I have done my share of "contributing", and continue to do so via remaining invested and spending the proceeds on the goods and services provided by others- so, no, not being a parasite at all.
But I'm willing to concede that if we all saved and invested AND continued to work as long as we're productive (regardless of FI), the cost to society at large would be significantly less.
But I'm willing to concede that if we all saved and invested AND continued to work as long as we're productive (regardless of FI), the cost to society at large would be significantly less. That's where the parasite dilemma is not clear IMO.
...and as easily harvestable natural resources dwindle...
Interesting post, thanks for taking the time. I guess the "dilemma" is - am I a parasite if I exit the workforce before I "lose [my] capacity at producing" just because I am financially (independent) able? While it may draw emphatic emotional answers - the answer is not crystal clear IMO.
I suppose in an ideal world, I guess we'd all work as long as we're productive even if we reach FI before the end of our work days. I'd start a thread, but I've had some bad experiences here with topics along these lines...
Seriously? The more people who are working and providing goods & services and the fewer there are receiving social security and other benefits, the less the burden on those working. This is NOT a judgement or comment, just the math. I am only trying to frame the parasite question in terms of the economics - I am NOT pretending to judge anyone's choices (along the lines of rockyj's POV).Significantly! Is there any Math behind this theory? (It is beyond my number skills.)
Seriously? The more people who are working and providing goods & services and the fewer there are receiving social security and other benefits, the less the burden on those working. This is NOT a judgement or comment, just the math. I am only trying to frame the parasite question in terms of the economics - I am NOT pretending to judge anyone's choices (along the lines of rockyj's POV).
I am going to become a parasite this year if it makes you feel better...
I am going to become a parasite this year