Hacker News Reader

Comment by scoofy | Hacker News Reader

It's not going to be economically devastating. It's just going to mean countries are going to have to make tough decisions they don't want to. The era of free money for retirees to live more comfortably is over. People will have to live modestly in retirement.

Most millennials can tell you that you can live a quality life with fewer resources, it's just that people will have to do unspeakable things like riding a bicycle instead of driving an SUV to places like the grocery store.

If we are concerned with a short-term economic catastrophe, I think our attention should be on the impact of large language models on unskilled and semi-skilled labor.

View on HN

> It's not going to be economically devastating.

I’m sure you’re qualified to make such a bold and conclusive statement about an unprecedented global financial crisis.

What we’re talking about is inherently a recession greater than any recession in world history, if you’re arguing such a thing won’t be devastating to economies then you need more than “people will just have to ride bikes instead”.

Seriously, I’m open to the idea that it won’t be as bad as some people claim, but you seem entirely unqualified to put forward such a case, and given that, it’s extremely frustrating how you speak with such certainty.

I don’t get it. They bitch about overpopulation, they bitch about under population. Just smell the goddamn flowers.

Complaints about population numbers are typically in support of some other agenda. Concern with over-population typically lies with the environmentalists, which is really a problem of lack of urbanism, not population. The concern with under-population typically comes from folks who support a robust social safety net, but only way those are possible without a steep reduction in quality of life, is to have more people always paying in than paying out, which is no longer feasible.

>free money for retirees to live more comfortably

By this I assume you mean avoiding moving in with their kid, or facing homelessness?

Yes, very much talking about things like means testing to prevent thing like this, while maintaining financial solvency.

So, basically you want to renege on the social contract that's been in place since the 1930s, and replace it with layers of bureaucrats?

This results in people who are in their declining years having to supplicate themselves if they want to avoid ruin.

That's inhumane. Means testing is a way to throw away massive amounts of money on administration, instead of sending it where it needs to go, in order to help the citizens.

Supposing the system is unsustainable (it is), how would you propose dealing with a system that can’t pay for itself long term? Especially given the fact that those paying in now will necessarily get back less, even though they will need to pay more to maintain the status quo?

The system is said to be solvent for at least one more generation, perhaps 2, even at current demographics, but for one small change... removing the cap on paying into the system as your income rises.

Again, you’re changing the deal as much as I am. Asking some people to pay in more than they will get out is just means testing on the front end, and it means tests the young to pay the old.

Removing an artificial cap on contributions isn't a means test. It's removing a give away to the rich.

Means testing shouldn't be required to receive benefits when you retire.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com