An Ageing Population
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Challanges for our generation</div> Ok, here we go with a non-Middle Eastern topic! Booyah!
As we all know, advances in the field of medicine have allowed large sections of the population of western nations to live well into their 80's and 90's; some individuals even further than that. The technology keeps improving, to the extent that even today doctors are talking about people living for multi-centuries. These advances are without doubt a good thing and are giving people a much longer and more productive lifespan.
Once people reach around 50 - 60, they generally retire. The body, even with modern medicine, is starting to run down. As age increases, productivity decreases, until for the last decades of a life a person relaxes and takes things easy. Their lifestyles still need money of course, which is where pensions and superannuation come into play. Governments increasingly have to try and make up the shortfall with social security. And there-in lies the problem.
With longer lifespans and decreased mortality rates, an increasingly large percentage of our population is not working and reliant to a certain degree upon government spending. In the past this wasn't a major problem because the number of elderly people was so low. But with numbers now climbing very quickly indeed, an ever-increasing burden is being placed upon the shoulders of governments and taxpayers.
For our generation, this is of particular importance. For it is our money that will be going towards assisting the elderly. Will we be able to support steadily increasing numbers of retirees?
Governments know that this is a problem and here at least in Australia there are superannuation funds where the government pays additional money for money you, the worker, puts in. Will it be enough though? Will people be able to earn enough to retire on?
Or perhaps more optimistically, could medical breakthroughs allow us to reverse or stall aging effects, thus allowing the elderly to work actively for much longer?
There are many questions facing us with this issue. Your thoughts and discussions please.
As we all know, advances in the field of medicine have allowed large sections of the population of western nations to live well into their 80's and 90's; some individuals even further than that. The technology keeps improving, to the extent that even today doctors are talking about people living for multi-centuries. These advances are without doubt a good thing and are giving people a much longer and more productive lifespan.
Once people reach around 50 - 60, they generally retire. The body, even with modern medicine, is starting to run down. As age increases, productivity decreases, until for the last decades of a life a person relaxes and takes things easy. Their lifestyles still need money of course, which is where pensions and superannuation come into play. Governments increasingly have to try and make up the shortfall with social security. And there-in lies the problem.
With longer lifespans and decreased mortality rates, an increasingly large percentage of our population is not working and reliant to a certain degree upon government spending. In the past this wasn't a major problem because the number of elderly people was so low. But with numbers now climbing very quickly indeed, an ever-increasing burden is being placed upon the shoulders of governments and taxpayers.
For our generation, this is of particular importance. For it is our money that will be going towards assisting the elderly. Will we be able to support steadily increasing numbers of retirees?
Governments know that this is a problem and here at least in Australia there are superannuation funds where the government pays additional money for money you, the worker, puts in. Will it be enough though? Will people be able to earn enough to retire on?
Or perhaps more optimistically, could medical breakthroughs allow us to reverse or stall aging effects, thus allowing the elderly to work actively for much longer?
There are many questions facing us with this issue. Your thoughts and discussions please.
Comments
I don't think the elderly will be able to contribute to the workforce past the typical age, unless medical breakthroughs allow to reverse the physical and mental effects of aging. The elderly simply don't have the capacity for work beyond a simple point, because their bodies and minds are shutting down, losing functionality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->These advances are without doubt a good thing and are giving people a much longer and more productive lifespan.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I'm going to disagree. I don't think that on the whole, their lifespan is any more productive, because they still retire at the same age, and after that they just stick around longer. Is it a good thing? Well, there are some big issues concerning government provided retirement funds. From a societal standpoint, retirees are generally not contributing anything. From the standpoint of continuation of the species, taking care of your elderly and keeping them alive longer is a foolish choice.
The problem may well be negated by increasingly efficient methods of manufacturing food and necessities.
The slightly utopian ideal of a society where all the grunt work is handled by machines and robots and humans only get the "dignified" jobs(science, architecture, engineering, designing and programing games, the entertainment industry... all that stuff some lucky people enjoy so much they would practically do it without pay in their spare time if they had too) is a very real solution given enough time IMO.
1. Social Security will be drastically revamped. Government Social Security isn't really social security at all. They simple took that and paid it to the older generation at that time.
If they had taken all that money people paid out in Social Security and put it in a bank, they would make about double what they will get when they retire.
The way the system works you need a large base of working-class to support Social Security. This won't be the case. I predict that only old people with a certain amount of level of wealth will get social security. Fortunately the elderly are also the largest wealth holders in the US/Canada, mostly because they've got it stashed away in savings accounts.
2. Our generation might be taxed heavily (which I doubt, seeing as most people leave when taxes get too high, and they are high enough as it is), but I think it would be wiser to leave well enough alone. We will have little trouble finding jobs since the demand for goods will be much higher with a large consumer base, and fewer productive adults.
So I don't think it will be a major problem unless you're old and decided not to stash away some money. For the current twenty-somethings it will be great for us.
Here are some interesting numbers I found out my paper the other day:
When Social Secruity was first formed, there was around 20 adults to support every one senior
Now there's gonna be 2 adults to every 1 senior
To claim this isn't going to be a HUGE problem is a massive understatement
Sucks to be my generition I guess.
I think what's gonna happen is that Social Security will be abolished.
Will be a very painful and troublesome process, but it must be done. It's just not possible to support all of these seniors
It is true that the generational contract as we know it today is becoming more and more difficult to maintain, but we're at the same time seeing a continuing upsurge in productivity. Seeing this, I can't see why social security shouldn't be moved into a different, for example a state funded, system, instead of abolishing it altogether.
Cost of living was a lot lower back then as well, therefore meaning with the abundance of workers to retire's, workers paid a minimal amount to what people of today must pay.
Yes, but I'm basically saying that dispite how much worker production has grown in the years it doesn't add up enough in today's world to stem the tide of seniors.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34723-2004Mar29.html' target='_blank'>Good read on why social secruity is doomed</a>
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34723-2004Mar29.html' target='_blank'>Good read on why social secruity is doomed</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All your link states is that the United States' system doesn't work. There's a number of highly functional social security systems around the globe (cue: Scandinavia).
As for the claim "that dispite how much worker production has grown in the years it doesn't add up enough in today's world to stem the tide of seniors", worker productivity has grown far enough to put an annual 300 billion into defense, just to name the favorite example.
Now, if you ask me, a society that prefers to arm itself rather than to feed the parts of it that have contributed to its contemporary prosperity should get its priorities straight.
<!--QuoteBegin-Menix+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Menix)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Abolish. The basic assumption behind Social Security is that humans are too incompetent to invest in their future. Those that are deserve to starve, those that invest well or simply save up can retire safely.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The basic assumption behind social security is that human societies have an obligation to support those that are no longer in a position to support themselves. To claim that individual 'investments in the future' will endure the test of time is in itself an assumption devoid of any historical backing.
Just to take the most glaring example, the social darwinists of the 1920s were all robbed of their investments on a single friday...
Now see, this is where we fundamentaly disagree - I would strongly favor more money into defense than into our social security system.
I don't know if you can understand this, but imagine waking up to see American corpses dangling from a crane, or reading yet another article in your newspaper which describes some other man who loathes America for some other reason.
or how Anti-Americanism is actually a political topic in many places of Europe.
When you see threats on a daily basis, I think it's important to fund our military very very well.
There needs to be another solution than to take a large portion of our paychecks to help people live out the rest of their lives and die peacefully.
Hopefully in the future we can discover something that would give vigor even to the oldest of people so they can do basic operations and work for a living and not put such a huge drain on society. Of course, if we can't find this wonder drug someone's gonna get screwed.
I just don't wanna be that person.
I'm rather certain you don't want me to start about the origins of anti-americanistic sentiments within the fundamentalistic scene here, and as for the article on European Anti-Americanism, I dismantled it when you <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=60881&hl=anti-americanism' target='_blank'>posted it the first time</a>, so let's don't go there, either.
The matter of fact is, however, that not even those agitating for even bigger defense budgets claim that there is currently a threat capable of sending as many people into misery as the complete abolishing of social security would.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There needs to be another solution than to take a large portion of our paychecks to help people live out the rest of their lives and die peacefully.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, but until it is found, we'll have to make up with what we have, which is more money than any human nation owned at any former point of history.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, if we can't find this wonder drug someone's gonna get screwed.
I just don't wanna be that person.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You continue implicitely thinking that those in need for social security are 'the others', that you are inevitably going to be the 'victim' of the societal contract. What makes you think that?
As an example, let's imagine you are hit by a drunken driver tomorrow on your way to work. You are at no fault whatsoever, but still, your legs are mashed in the course of the frontal crash, and it is definetely sure that you won't be able to walk for the next few years. The offender had barely enough money to pay the gasoline for his own car, and much less the extremely costly rehab you are going to need.
How long will you be capable of supporting yourself? How long your family?
There's so many things that can happen to each and every one of us at any moment of his or her life that nobody should feel 'safe' from once being dependent on social security.
You continue implicitely thinking that those in need for social security are 'the others', that you are inevitably going to be the 'victim' of the societal contract. What makes you think that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what a chain letter is?
That's all social security is. Sooner or later it's going to catch up with someone with not enough cash to afford it (my generation) and then they will have to take the losses out of their own pockets in order to correct it.
OK, well my thought is that while it is nice to liv longer, I think you are only prolonging the inevitable event of death. I'd rather die at 90 or so, it's not like I'm going to miss anything too exciting. Even if I did experience something exciting in my 100's, I'll prolly be to old and feeble to care or remember.
You continue implicitely thinking that those in need for social security are 'the others', that you are inevitably going to be the 'victim' of the societal contract. What makes you think that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what a chain letter is?
That's all social security is. Sooner or later it's going to catch up with someone with not enough cash to afford it (my generation) and then they will have to take the losses out of their own pockets in order to correct it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, Forlorn, these discussions would be a whole lot more interesting if you actually adressed my points. In my very first response to this topic, I pointed out that "It is true that <i>the generational contract as we know it today is becoming more and more difficult to maintain</i>, but we're at the same time seeing a continuing upsurge in productivity.", so why do you try to prove me wrong by telling me that the generational contract doesn't work?
Just to take the most glaring example, the social darwinists of the 1920s were all robbed of their investments on a single friday...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is it moral to place that obligation on unwilling citizens? Why should they support those they have no relation to?
When investing for safety, I would put most of my money into precious metals, which, unlike fiat money or unsupported contracts, don't go poof when **** hits the fan.
Just to take the most glaring example, the social darwinists of the 1920s were all robbed of their investments on a single friday...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is it moral to place that obligation on unwilling citizens? Why should they support those they have no relation to? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look at this as a deal: "I support you if something bad happens to you, and you do the same for me"
If you don't want to be part of a deal like this, you should either move to a country that doesn't have any social security or start your own political party. No one forces you to pay taxes either, just move somewhere so distant place, that no one has even heard about taxes. Then again, you won't be reaping the benefits of taxes or social security, such as roads, sanitation, free health care and schools. But I'm sure you'll do just fine hunting polar bears with icicles on your own(tax officials won't find you, or at least won't most likely come after you)
We(humans) formed societies to keep ourselves safe, because we understood that we are more powerful as a group than on our own.
You continue implicitely thinking that those in need for social security are 'the others', that you are inevitably going to be the 'victim' of the societal contract. What makes you think that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what a chain letter is?
That's all social security is. Sooner or later it's going to catch up with someone with not enough cash to afford it (my generation) and then they will have to take the losses out of their own pockets in order to correct it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, Forlorn, these discussions would be a whole lot more interesting if you actually adressed my points. In my very first response to this topic, I pointed out that "It is true that <i>the generational contract as we know it today is becoming more and more difficult to maintain</i>, but we're at the same time seeing a continuing upsurge in productivity.", so why do you try to prove me wrong by telling me that the generational contract doesn't work? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because I'm trying to point out the generational contract does NOT work, and that's why this topic is so controversal, because many many many people, including myself, do not believe social security can surrive, with or without increased worker production.