I guess you're advocating that people work until they drop dead?
Humanity as a whole? I don't think anyone has advocated that here, just a certain segment of the population in their later years. As for any living creature, I didn't spend any time doing anything productive over the weekend, and I think it was a good thing. In fact, I've been doing that every weekend for a long time, and I plan to keep doing it!
Doing enough work to survive is a fundamental part of life. Technology and society function to either make that work easier or lower the amount of work that needs to be done. Take either of those away and you're going to be spending much less weekends doing "nothing productive".
meta point is that this is why nuanced conversations on the (texted based) internet are a waste of time. You and the person you're quoting are not really talking about the same thing. In a conversation you would go back and forth and figure that out; on the internet that's not required.
The reason I responded to the parent comment was that it seemed to me like they were misinterpreting the person they were responding to; the original comment that started this thread was that people who only have wage-based income instead of asset-based income would not be able to effectively retire and would have to work for their entire life. The response to this was to argue that if people didn't work, then humanity wouldn't progress. I don't see why "humanity needs productivity to progress" implies "every human needs to be productive for every moment of their entire life", which is why I responded with both a direct answer (i.e. arguing that people should be able to retire is not arguing that people shouldn't be productive _ever_ in their life) and a tongue-in-cheek response (nobody actually is productive every single moment in their life).
It takes roughly a career to amass enough assets to retire on and that's with a slightly reduced standard of living in retirement.
Unless you want to assume population growth forever (seems unwise IMO) you need one average career to generate enough surplus to pay for an average retirement. So far, buying assets (usually a mix of real estate and fractional ownership of financial instruments that are ultimately backed by companies and governments) is the most efficient way we know to accomplish this goal.
note the phrase "asset income being periphery", which implies an optimum. the ability to own one appreciating asset is great. owning two is probably ok in most cases. 90 is highly unlikely to provide a net social good.
To answer you first question/comment (because you are not as original as you think you are): That is why robust electorate, transparent public governance, and durable anti-corruption institutions are so important.
That is the point.
> And there's always intermediaries. And they always take a cut.
Should they not be compensated for their productive work?
> Maybe it's you that's not that original.
That is the point.
Edit: sorry that was a bit snarky. The point is that there are other ways to ensure people have a reasonable lifestyle once their 'working days' are over. Those schemes are probably best to be tied in some way to contributions, but they certainly don't need to be simply a savings plan, they can be a means to provide social support for those that cannot contribute to the same degree as others.
again, that’s a logical leap that i was careful not to make. small-time investing can have positive externalities on an economic system; industrial, mechanized investing, not so much. if we didn’t try to turn everything related to money into a get-rich-quick gambling scheme instead of the (imperfect) accounting mechanism it was originated to be, we’d be much better off, pensions and 401(k)’s included.