'We're not lazy, we're old': 71yr-old Costco worker wins right to sit on the job | Hacker News Reader

'We're not lazy, we're old': 71yr-old Costco worker wins right to sit on the job

cbc.ca

40 pointspetethomas14 comments

This seems a little misleading. He didn't really "win" the right in my opinion. Rather he complained enough such that the company granted him an exception. Based on the headline I was expecting some sort of court decision.

It's very misleading. He's not even a Costco worker. He works for a subcontractor called CDS.

That must be a very poor country where the 71 year old still have to work... /Sarcasm

But more seriously, if life expectancy increases, but we still suffer the same 'elderly' conditions as humans always have, there is a problem.

Yup. Increased lifespan with increased ageism results in less productivity, less income, less taxes and more unhappy, idle people.

The richness of a country should not be judged by institutionalized payouts of a full living stipend to the elderly.

You pretty much missed the entire point of what wealth is for.

Not every socialist country is rich. And not every rich country is socialist.

It would be wise for you to keep political biases distinct from a clear view of the facts.

Give us a way to measure it, and lets see how we can do analysis on ita merits and flaws.

A way to measure what, richness? You can either look at income or wealth, and there are several/countless ways to do that. Income may be measured by GDP or GDP per capita. Wealth may be measured by the nation's balance sheet (gross assets minus liabilities). The latter is tougher to calculate but the UN attempted to do it five years ago. No idea if there is newer data but here's the 2012 result in graphical format as reported by the Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21557732

You will see that many of the wealthiest nations (the USA being the wealthiest, and Japan the wealthiest per capita) don't have a strong culture of socialism or welfare capitalism.

In my view, the general American attitude is, "the government provides some very basic benefits to the elderly, and the expectation is that people will save for needs beyond those basic benefits or plan to have family members care for them." It comes from a disdain for the nanny state and a feeling that taxing individuals to return the money later is less efficient and less meritocratic than simply reducing the tax burden and allowing people to save as they see fit.

On another note...just because there is a strong socialist sentiment on HN, doesn't mean that people should stop being fact-hungry critical thinkers when they approach the topic.

The US is the wealthiest country on paper, sure.

But there is huge gap between the elite and the poor. And meritocracy? That's actually a socialist ideal. Fact is that people in the Netherlands or Norway aren't fleeing to the US. There are advantages to living in a welfare state.

The American idea of meritocracy is, "I earned the money, I should keep it. If you want money, go make some."

The socialist idea of meritocracy is, "we should provide basic necessities to people so that they can work, study, and perform to the fullest of their ability, and ultimately earn and achieve beyond the traps and limitations of poverty."

I don't see anything wrong with either view. Nor do I see either as superior to the other.

Lastly, it's irrelevant that people from Europe are not fleeing to the USA, or vice versa. People have ties to friends and family, so you can't judge the momentary health of an economy based on egress and ingress.

Part of wealth is, not gdp per capita, but of its distribution per its citizens.

What you are describing is inequality, not wealth. A nation can be unequal and still be rich.

To be less pedantic, I agree with what I think is your implicit argument that wealth alone is not worth much if it doesn't reach everyone in the nation. I just think it's intellectually imprecise when I see folks on HN take potshots and zingers at the USA for things like having an overwhelmingly nonsocialist culture, when in real terms it is both a fairly wealthy nation and also a fairly equal one. Not to mention that many states in the United States actually do offer healthcare programs and other benefits that level the playing field for citizens.

I feel it's good to say something on HN because otherwise you just get a bunch of folks thinking they're right without having to consider the opposing view.

Some of the folks around here should go spend a few months in South America. Even the socialist nations in South America are often highly unequal and very corrupt. Some can't afford medicine. Others have decent state-funded healthcare but the programs are so large and expensive that they leave lots of room for corruption. In either case, it would be healthier to receive healthcare in the expensive and price-inflated system of the USA, where doctors are first-rate, hospitals take cleanliness seriously, and there is better access to modern pharmaceuticals.

Lastly, many of the shining stars among the socialist nations are far smaller than the USA. Norway has some wonderful government programs, and a low Gini income inequality coefficient. It's also a nation of around 5 million people, whereas the USA is a nation of 326 million. Those 326 million live in places with vastly different prices for rent, food, healthcare, and transportation. So some inequality in income is healthy -- lest you think people in Manhattan can live on the same wage as people in Kansas.

They just upped pension age to 67 here. Its not bad if your life expectancy is 90 and you're in good health.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com