Hacker News Reader

Comment by candiodari | Hacker News Reader

> Well, we are the ones paying those people's pensions, in the form of taxes, so we're the ones fucking ourselves over if they got too sweet of a deal right?

And how does this square with this being a democracy ? Or to put it another way: you're also (indirectly, but ...) the ones promising sweet pensions to these people if they would just work. And they worked. Now you want to revoke your part of the bargain ?

Furthermore, if you refuse to pay for their pensions ... do future kids get to refuse to pay for yours ? (either directly, or through devaluing the currency, just in case your answer is that private sector pensions are safe)

But we all know that there's no answer here, so it'll be devaluation. At least that means private and public pensions are equally screwed (I'm leaning socialist, so I like fairness in the sense that people get treated the same).

View on HN

> And how does this square with this being a democracy ? Or to put it another way: you're also (indirectly, but ...) the ones promising sweet pensions to these people if they would just work. And they worked. Now you want to revoke your part of the bargain ?

So I think this argument actually works against you.

First, nothing can bind future generations. They can always change whatever they want to. In the United States, a future congress can revoke, alter or amend any law passed by a previous congress. So if you want your pensions to be secured, the benefits cannot be guaranteed by faith in future governments!

In this sense, a defined contribution plan is more secure than a defined benefit plan. This is because a defined contribution plan belongs to the recipient as soon as the funds are allocated - even if a future government changes the rules, the money that's already in your 401K is yours!

Consider the alternative - are you saying that future generations are always bound to the decisions of past generations, even though they may not even have been alive or of voting age? If a law is fair and benefits society, that future generation will respect it because it benefits society. If that law is unfair to them they can and absolutely should change that law! How could it be otherwise? As a socialist this should utterly appall you. Do you believe that laws put into place by capitalists and large corporations constitute binding pacts between governments and their citizens, and that any future government that seeks to amend them towards a more equitable balance is now acting unfairly?

If the median income in a nation is $40K, but the median pension given by the state exceeds that income, then who is suffering unfairly if the pension is reduced to be more in line with what the average worker earns? How as a socialist could you justify a pensioner earning more than a productive active worker?

So think of it this way, how would you feel if a socialist government took over and decided that your 401k is fair game for extra taxation? But it's _your_ money, capitalism promised you! "Boohoo", you should have thought of that before entering into a clearly unsustainable pyramid scheme.

Not so useful or interesting in terms of commentary, is it?

The standard shouldn't be that government decisions are set in stone forever, period. The standard should be good policy, in both directions. If a previous government sets a bad policy, a future government should not be bound to it. If it sets a good policy, a future government should uphold it. If a future government decides to be "bad" and tear up everything, no piece of paper will stop them.

> So if you want your pensions to be secured, the benefits cannot be guaranteed by faith in future governments!

It's funny how you see this as a positive ? If people have this attitude, of course the result will be mercantilism, or worse : the hoarding of jobs/companies/markets and the only way to get into a specific jobs is to do whatever "the guild" wants, which I guarantee will include paying pensions.

And if you "go around" the guild, they will either regulate you out of existence or outright physically attack you. Before you say that can't work I'd like to point out that they did this in almost all of Europe for ~1200 years.

And under these conditions, I would understand that way of working.

Such things are the alternative. So, I would very much want people to have faith in government, and that very much means you have to pay up the promises made before.

> Consider the alternative - are you saying that future generations are always bound to the decisions of past generations, even though they may not even have been alive or of voting age? If a law is fair and benefits society, that future generation will respect it because it benefits society.

You mean, paying people for their work what they were promised when they started that work, for example ? Like pensions ?

> How as a socialist could you justify a pensioner earning more than a productive active worker?

I don't understand why this would be a problem for a socialist ?

> Consider the alternative - are you saying that future generations are always bound to the decisions of past generations,

What I don't understand is that as a supposed capitalist alternative you're actually advocating making promises (like pensions), then reneging on them. Your alternative is to lie. Make promises, and exploit people who believe them ...

I guarantee if there is one thing that kills markets faster than anything else it's a loss of trust. You're advocating, unless I'm mistaking, exploiting trust. This is just not going to work.

There's a reason most historical capitalist societies had extreme versions of holding people to their promises. Slavery, debtors' prisons, forced labor, indentured servitude, ... were "solutions" used by past societies to avoid this problem. There was presumably a reason they did this ... do you really want to go back ?

If you are a socialist, you ignored my most important argument :

> If the median income in a nation is $40K, but the median pension given by the state exceeds that income, then who is suffering unfairly if the pension is reduced to be more in line with what the average worker earns?

If government pensions pay out more at retirement than the median worker makes while working, would you agree that under socialism this would be considered unfair to the worker, and overly exploitative for the pensioner?

> If government pensions pay out more at retirement than the median worker makes while working, would you agree that under socialism this would be considered unfair to the worker, and overly exploitative for the pensioner?

No, because, firstly, this isn't true. The government simply has started to pay less. From any individual's perspective, I assure you they don't earn more in retirement than when they were working. If you have heard differently, I assure you that's propaganda.

Secondly, I would simply say that current government employees have the right to be paid the same as their predecessors. Lowering pensions ? No way I'd agree to that as a socialist. No way in hell. But you should raise the conditions for government employees.

> I assure you they don't earn more in retirement than when they were working. If you have heard differently, I assure you that's propaganda.

They earn more than the average worker overall. In California the average government pensioner earns 26% more than the average non retired, currently working worker.

Source:

https://californiapolicycenter.org/what-is-the-average-pensi...

That's too much. As a socialist, I would find it clearly exploitative that a non worker is making more than an active worker. That's completely unjustifiable under socialism.

The point of a pension is to provide an income so a retiree doesn't live in poverty. Paying a pension that exceeds that of a younger worker who is actively working full time completely goes against that.

> That's too much. As a socialist, I would find it clearly exploitative that a non worker is making more than an active worker. That's completely unjustifiable under socialism.

I don't understand where this is coming from. Personally, I am a socialist and I think it's too little.

If I look at it from a capitalist's perspective, I ... also think it's too little.

> Personally, I am a socialist and I think it's too little.

I'm sorry, just to be clear, are you saying that as a socialist, you think a young worker who is actively working and only making $40K a year should pay more to support someone who is making $50K a year but isn't working at all, because $50K is too little?

I think they should both be paid more. In case you don't remember, socialism is about the state just taking control of the means of production, so where the money comes from is quite obvious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com