Hacker News Reader

Comment by epicureanideal | Hacker News Reader

> The problem is we're all now dependent on stock market performance to make retirement feasible.

Which seems a bit convenient for the wealthy. I think it was intentional, to align the interests of pensioners with the wealthy.

It seems to me that pensions are one thing governments can do a good job at, because companies may fail but the government is much less likely to be unable to pay retirement benefits. They may need to renegotiate the benefits but they won’t go to zero. And if companies fail the government provides a pension of last resort anyway.

Either way, we have set up a system where those with assets are slightly in the majority (65% home ownership, probably similar number with 401ks or stocks [1] 56%) and so will continue to vote themselves benefits at the expense of those who haven’t already acquired assets.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...

View on HN

People who can retire are wealthy. They have a claim on [10, 20, 30] years of an income stream in the future. This can either be a claim on future tax revenues (public pensions) or on return to capital previously invested (private pensions). Most people have always worked til they died and it seems unlikely that the system where people work for 30-40 years and then get 30-40 years of pension will last.

95% of people used to work in agriculture, now 5% do. This scarcity is our own creation.

I don't think it's scarcity, I think it's just reallocation of workforce, due to technological advancements. Those 5% can now produce equivalent or more to what the 95% used to produce. And because of that, people are able to focus on other work.

>It seems to me that pensions are one thing governments can do a good job at, because companies may fail but the government is much less likely to be unable to pay retirement benefits.

Illinois and New Jersey beg to differ. Granted checks haven't bounced yet but it's pretty clear weird stuff is gonna happen and either pensioners or taxpayers will get screwed bad.

Right. Strategy 1 was "offer retirement plans and default on them," strategy 2 is "let them buy assets, dilute them with printed money."

I also agree that when the middle class erodes to the point that asset ownership falls below 50% is when things get, uhh, interesting.

A lot of people think this - but most of Europe has been like this for a while. Why will it be so interesting when it happens in the US?

Yeah middle class homeownership is bullshit. Middle class stock ownership is less obviously good or bad, because the 0-sum nature of land is not present.

When one gets right down to it, ownership is a too strong stuff. Total Control for eternity which is then sold in finite time in practice? Woah there, why so many infinities? "Rent" has a bad rep, but the problems of rent have to do with it being backstopped by ownship --- i.e. private landlords. "Rent all the way down" is good and conceptually simpler as their are no crazy cancelling out infinitis or whatnot. It's a system of flows that more accurate tracks how the "real economy" works.

Of course, it is important there is still leverage, futures markets, etc. etc. of various sorts to push along history, but full ownership is too much a sledgehammer.

There really isn't such thing as ownership. Stop paying your property tax and see what happens.

Certainly, but we dole out an awful lot of privileges in return for that measly obligation!

Prop 13 merely puts the silliness in sharper relief.

There is with bitcoin.

So, what then? The state owns all the land and all company stock? Non-middle-class persons own all the land and all company stock?

Sounds like a great way to force everyone except the wealthy elite into poverty cycles. Maybe there is a reason that those countries that implement what you are talking about (no property ownership) are locked in either perpetual poverty or perpetual war against their own citizens.

Doing away with property ownership is a great way to join the ranks of the third world.

It's already that way in the US, the percentage of paid off home owners is ~29%.

I don't know why some people consider themselves "owners" of assets the bank actually owns, but it's normal in the USA.

With interest rates at their current level, it makes a lot of sense to not pay down your mortage, to refinance, or even to take out a heloc.

Again what matters is net worth, not whether you house is paid off.

> It's already that way in the US, the percentage of paid off home owners is ~29%.

That 29% is a huge chunk of people; to put things in perspective US presidents win elections with a lower percentage of support from the population.

> I don't know why some people consider themselves "owners" of assets the bank actually owns, but it's normal in the USA.

Because they actually have equity in that asset, and that equity might be the majority? For example, they bought the house for $500k, then ten years later they owe $350k but the realisable value of the house is $800k. If the house is turned into cash, they own more of the cash than the bank does.

Also, because there is a clear path to ownership[1]? You aren't at the whim of the landlord - upgrade (or not) your property whichever way you feel is best with very little interference from the actual "owner" (i.e. the bank). If you have complete say in how an asset is used, and when it will be disposed off, and who may use it, that sure looks like ownership to me.

My residence, for example, will, at the current trajectory, be completely paid off in 24 months or less. My monthly costs drop dramatically at that point, which can be the major goal when "buying" property.

The bank owns the debt on the money that was used to buy the house, which is not the same as the house by any stretch. Having the deed to a house comes with a lot of strong legal protections.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com