Comment

Comment on These 100-year-olds say working beyond retirement age is what keeps them going: 'I'll work for as long as I can'

<- View Parent

anachronist@midwest.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

This is neoliberal lies.

Live expectancy for people nearing retirement age has not increased much since the 1930s. The main reason life expectancy has gone up is due to childhood mortality going down.
Life expectancy for blue collar workers has gone up even less, in recent years it is declining. To the extent that people live longer in retirement it’s almost all white collar and wealthier people. Most people I know who work with their bodies are completely exhausted by the time they get to 62.
Social security is completely financially sound. It is the most sound retirement plan there is because it is not tied to the wall street casino.
Any projected shortfalls can be eliminated by raising the FICA contribution limit and taxing the wealthy a little more.

source

Sort:hotnew top

ProbablyBaysean@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Well, I didn’t post my sources and you didn’t post sources. I think I am right but I don’t want to spend the time looking it up when I am straight up told that I’m lying. I’ll address your four points off the top of my head though.

life expectancy has changed drastically for different populations and subcultures in the usa. Tweakers have a much lower life expectancy. White collar work has a much higher life expectancy. Blue collar… I bet you are right that it is about the same. I read that the current average is 74 (so 10 years longer than when retirement became codified into law) However shortly after the industrial revolution was the information revolution, so most of the gdp of the usa and other western countries is produced by these long lived white collar workers.

yup I agree. Blue collar life expectancy is about the same as when retirement was first codified into law

money turns to worthless over time unless it is invested and earning interest. A government is in the business of “Accountability to taxpayers on a election Cycle period”. Therefore, the government is highly incentivised to kill the golden goose and spend the money and claim that they invested it wisely into roads and stuff. If I recall correctly, that is exactly what happened to the social security program, and we are now paying out as fast as it comes in. Regarding “not tied to the Wallstreet casino” as what makes an investment more financially sound, I don’t follow the logic. There is some well established ways to make money on wall street:

buy and hold a low cost index of funds that diversified risk away from a single company. Have a mix of equity vs fixed income based on how soon you intend to start needing to rely on fixed income. Put your money in this exact index fund and don’t worry about market ups and downs.

If you follow that logic, you beat the social security administration every time if you paid in the while time.

Taxing the wealthy is hard. There is a general rule of thumb in politics which is “those who have power don’t let it go easily”, and if those with power caused a politician to be favored, it is generally due to the bet that the politician will pay it back with a favor later. As far as I know, when you tax the wealthy, the wealthy are able to organize some governmental upsets/coops. The American revolution was headed by the “wealthy” of the American colonies. As far as I know, wealth also exits easily if it is a hostile environment. All these things come together to make taxing wealthy people hard.

Talking about raising the contribution limit, government will be “accountable in this election cycle” by spending immediately based on my argument above.

-‐------------

Did I say anything factually False? I hope to see any nuances that I missed.
source