Comment by PorciiVorbesc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by PorciiVorbesc | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>And the government buying 150 F35's is just a slap in the face when there's a massive chunk of the population that is, very quickly, going to need extra care.

I'm torn on this issue. I think the elderly and people in general should get a decent life, but on the opposite side we have Europe that's investing massively more in making its boomers richer and more comfortable than anyone in human history has ever been(average pension in France is now higher than the average salary), rather than investing that money in ensuring opportunities and prosperity of future generations, who are facing economic stagnation/degrowth and are forced to foot the bill for this elderly spending, with the guarantee the pyramid scheme they're funding will fail them when their turn comes to benefit from it.

So perhaps Japan sees the defense capability those 150 F-35's bring to its future national security more valuable than keeping the elderly alive for a few more years.

Yeah, it sounds harsh when you look at people like that, but taking care of people takes resources(money), and money is finite, so all these decisions are a game theory trolley problem, where you have to choose whose lives a country should prioritize the most: the past generations, or the future generations.

Historically in the history of nations would be willing to sacrifice the elderly to prioritize the survival and growth of its future generations, that was the social contract of the tribe, that is until the western boomers came and decided they deserve to fuck the future of their nation if they can get wealthier and feel good till the end.

I'm not saying there's one correct solution here, because I don't have it. I'm saying tough decisions have to be made from which there will be winners and losers, so a nation should choose the winners carefully, if it wishes to have a future.

> average pension in France is now higher than the average salary

This sounded crazy so I looked it up. I don’t think it’s quite true, but after you subtract taxes and living expenses (a lot of old people own their homes) and add investments, seems like retirees do have a higher standard of living than workers in France.

Thanks for looking into that - that claim also surprises me!

It makes sense to subtract the taxes for a comparison between pension and salary, but by taking investments into account, and probably living expenses too, since they depend upon investments, I think you're doing too much work to support that claim.

Presumably it is fairly standard for the average retiree to have more assets/investments than the average worker. Those assets generate income (or reduce living expenses). I think that is too different from the claim that the pension is higher.

To be clear, the claim is false as it is written as far as I can tell.

That said, young people have a lot more expenses. They need to buy houses and raise kids and get bigger cars. Retirees largely don’t have to do those things.

So I can imagine the frustration if I was trying my best reach basic life milestones while at the same time being forced to pay for people who already achieved those things.

>being forced to pay for people who already achieved those things.

"Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, like I did when I was your age."

- Joe Boomer who bought his house for 20K and got a union job paying the equivalent of 80k today via a firm handshake

From experience, elder care is more of a drain on the younger family members than the elder. It's not just financial either. Needing to take off from work to take the elderly somewhere, making sure they understand the medical situation, etc. Every country/situation is different though. Maybe pensioners in France can afford their own care, but I'm assuming they can't drive themselves to the doctor.

Even if Japan believes that spending money on young people is more appropriate than extending the lives of the elderly by a few years, the decision should absolutely not be to purchase large numbers of American fighter jets, but rather to use the funds to improve the birth rate, build infrastructure, transition to green energy, and support domestic industrial productivity. I cannot understand what purchasing fighter jets can do for Japan. Japan has in fact completely handed over its military sovereignty to the United States, and buying fighter jets is essentially just giving the United States a blood transfusion.

I agree to some degree. There is also the case to be made that whereas in the past, young people would stay at home until they were married, and therefore assist their parents/grandparents, the rapid westernization (or "de-Japanization"?) of Japanese youth has them moving out asap into larger cities to be "free individuals" and those downstream effects on the elderly aren't anyone's fault, I guess.

Can you blame kids (especially those without siblings) wanting to strike out for a life and family of their own?

They don't choose to be born. Have few/no rights to change how they're raised or their parents spend the family funds while they are minors. Often they have no choice over large portions of their education. To say they owe their parents decades of unpaid caregiving is absurd.

I'm speaking from a Japanese cultural point of view, here. To say that Japan has been wrong until now to focus on family values over rampant individualism, waiting until you are married to leave the home, and respecting the lives of the elderly until they pass on is one I've never heard before. And where do you get that their education takes a backseat by living with their parents? Post secondary education has always been a pillar in Japan.

Until this most recent generation Japan (and the rest of the world) had no problem starting a "life and family of their own" as you put it.

> family values over rampant individualism

This isn't binary. And it doesn't appear Japan has ever had rampant individualism. They seem to punish any personal expression and lifestyle outside very narrowly defined norms. Supposedly for "family values", which overwhelmingly benefit old men.

> ...respecting the lives of the elderly until they pass on is one I've never heard before

How is leaving a parent's home before marriage disrespecting the elderly? Are parents owed unpaid caretaking by people who had no say in birth, childhood, and youth?

> Until this most recent generation Japan (and the rest of the world) had no problem starting a "life and family of their own" as you put it.

I don't think the problem is the kids. I think the problem is cultural expectations of parents. When kids become adults they can choose any values they like. Parents don't have to agree, nor do they have to enable entirely selfish behavior. Of course if parents create an economic disaster and a culture of dependence, well, then everyone gets to reap what the parent's (and their generation) have sowed.

When those boomers die where does the money go?

The single biggest generational transfer of wealth in human history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wealth_Transfer

I sincerely wonder how this is going to work given the large divergence in lifestyle preferences between these generations. Real estate especially will be an interesting one - lots of young people either cannot (due to employment situations) or actively choose not to live in the areas that their parents did. What will happen when these houses hit the market? How will this huge supply increase affect the people who do live there? Nobody I know is moving to Pennsyltucky to live in their parents' house even if it's free... will it crater property values for all of the hard-working townies who sunk their money into their own homes?

>will it crater property values for all of the hard-working townies who sunk their money into their own homes?

It already has. Rural land prices going down in real terms is a decades old thing.

Tax man, funeral industry, late life casino runs, o o o o o o an investment in GVC gold

Feeding massive wealth inequality. Why work hard when your neighbour gets far better than you through inheritance.

It’s an anti-meritocracy.

>Why work hard when your neighbour gets far better than you through inheritance.

You'll be forced to work harder than those with inherited wealth because otherwise you'll starve and go homeless from the exploding CoL.

Musk, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos.

Even though they have some money their wealth is trivial compared to the generational transfer.

Trivial? Sounds like bootlicker-talk.

Top 5 billionaires ≈ bottom 40% of Americans — roughly 135 million people.

(The bottom quarter of households have essentially zero or negative net worth, so most of that $2.2T sits with people in the 25th–40th percentile range. It's an estimate — the Fed doesn't publish fine-grained slices — but 5 people vs ~135 million is about where it evens out.)

This is doing a lot of cover for an airplane that has massive supply issues and mostly seems to have been invented to extract more money out of allies to serve the US military industrial complex.

An island nation under the protectorate of the US TOTALLY needs to spend over $300 billion over the needs of their people, okay sure. Makes sense I guess.

Historically those that were greedy were banished from society so the community can continue thrive. How greedy are you willing to be since you're okay with sacrificing other humans for political ploys?

>This is doing a lot of cover for an airplane that has massive supply issues

I'm not covering the damn plane in my comment. I was covering the nation's need for self defense which is gonna cost crazy money any way you slice it if your military wants to have latest gen "sci-fi" jets capable of beating Chinese ones.

>An island nation under the protectorate of the US TOTALLY needs to spend over $300 billion over the needs of their people, okay sure. Makes sense I guess.

The security guarantee that nations, like Japan in this case, receive from the US is not free of charge, it never was. It's paid in barter via purchasing US military gear like F-35s that supports the US economy and defense industry jobs. It's the same deal with the gulf states. Saudi Arabia and the others, accepted to trade their oil only in USD, making the USD the world reserve currency and the US the richest country in the world, and in exchange it received defense assurances form the US. That's always been the deal. Are there still people oblivious to this fact?

>Are there still people oblivious to this fact?

Most people think the US just goes around bullying people and kicking up dust. There is a genuine widespread belief that if the US didn't exist, the world would be living in harmonious peace, just like how the world was before WWII.

And WW1 came out of nowhere and nobody wanted it.

Yeah I don't think it was a good look for a supposed democratic nation to sell weaponry to nations that rely on slave labor either, but there never was a good look for American imperialism. Still shocked to see people champion it still.

> Still shocked to see people champion it still.

Can you share who here is championing it?

Also, you often don't have a choice, as imperialism is a constant throughout human history. If it's not the US it's gonna be someone else, maybe even worse. Now I'm not American, but if I were, and I'd need to make a choice between my nation being THE imperial power or someone else with different values than mine resulting me being at their mercy, then I'd rather me than them.

But this isn't "championing it", this is choosing the pragmatic least-worst option.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com