New deficit reduction plan

[pmp10]

Leaving old people to die is hardly a solution

That may be but modern medicine offers plenty of expensive treatments that have relatively little effect.

The line has to be drawn somewhere and public health care systems have serious problems justifying cost-cutting in the face of human suffering.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Old people are a Medicare problem, Medicare is already completely Federal, so health care reform has nothing to do with it. Medicare reform is what's needed, but that's a hell of a tough nut to crack.

[Orogun01]

So Medicare it's the problem not old people.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The deficit plan has bipartisan support, the only thing needed is some courage from the politicians: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51864.html

[Humodour]

IMO, The biggest need for reform is end-of-life care. An enormous portion of American GDP is spent on keeping a bunch of 82-year-olds alive to see 83, which has almost no effect in helping the rest of the economy. (In terms of international competitive advantages, healthcare costs in general beyond what is necessary to keep the present and future workforce healthy enough to live, work, and learn are wasted.) I love my grandfather, but the fact that the bill for his $20,000 hip replacement was paid out of the public fisc should be scandalous-- the country is no worse off if that man has to be in a wheelchair.

 

Well spotted. It's interesting because in this regard America is really quite different to Australia (and I believe Europe). I guess having a universal healthcare system makes spreading one's healthcare over their entire lifecycle easier and cheaper, but even so it just makes sense from an economic and social perspective. End-of-life-care frustrates me greatly.

[Wrath of Dagon]

More Medicare shenanigans: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56467.html

 

I have to say I'm with Obama on this one. Actually both parties are bat **** crazy, fighting over the steering wheel while the car goes over the cliff.

[Walsingham]

Oddly enough, I was just thinking about this issue, in response to an article about a new heart drug.

 

It seems to me that the central problem is that we are doing everything possible to live longer, and refusing to face the fact that our current system was designed for a population who lived to their seventies, not nineties.

 

To my mind there are only three options:

 

1. Increase the productivity of the active population - although I think there might be objections on the part of the bastards actcually working.

2. Die slightly earlier - which I must say I like the idea of, proving I'm an idiot

3. Extend the productive age of people. Although with a ballooning world population and unemployment already huge in many regions, that may not be a solution.

 

I just can't slice it any differently.

 

EDIT:

 

4. Reduce the burden caused by the aged. Maybe some sort of artificial reality? Although I'm not sure if that's any better than euthanasia in philosophical terms.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Walsingham

[Tale]

I think reducing the burden of the aged would work by extending productivity.

 

The concept of retirement actually bothers me. But I think that's a fundamental difference between me and most of humanity. Most people hate their jobs. I would crack a smile and laugh while being tortured to death.

[Walsingham]

I think reducing the burden of the aged would work by extending productivity.

 

The concept of retirement actually bothers me. But I think that's a fundamental difference between me and most of humanity. Most people hate their jobs. I would crack a smile and laugh while being tortured to death.

 

Hang on. Your job is being tortured?

[Tale]

I think reducing the burden of the aged would work by extending productivity.

 

The concept of retirement actually bothers me. But I think that's a fundamental difference between me and most of humanity. Most people hate their jobs. I would crack a smile and laugh while being tortured to death.

 

Hang on. Your job is being tortured?

Not what I wished to imply, but sure. Let us go with that.

[Gfted1]

3. Extend the productive age of people.

 

I belive this is being talked about wrt Social Security. There are currently two tiers of retirement: 1) Retire at age 65. This nets you a certain amount. 2) Retire at age 67. This nets you a higher amount than retiring at age 65.

 

I think Ive heard/read somewhere that they are now talking about backing the reitrement age to 72.

[Calax]

What's going to be interesting is when, in another generation, the baby boomers all are retired/gone, and I mean "not putting strain on the system" gone.

 

I think that we're going to see a significant cultural shift at that point in relation to how jobs work.

[Walsingham]

3. Extend the productive age of people.

 

I believe this is being talked about wrt Social Security. There are currently two tiers of retirement: 1) Retire at age 65. This nets you a certain amount. 2) Retire at age 67. This nets you a higher amount than retiring at age 65.

 

I think Ive heard/read somewhere that they are now talking about backing the reitrement age to 72.

 

True, but this is not just about what age people are wiling to work until. Jobs have to be found for them. Perhaps more importantly, the jobs those people are occupying before they retire are jobs 'needed' for other people. This is what I meant about a ballooning population. You've got pressure from young jobless at the other end of the system.

 

God, this is depressing.

[Hurlshort]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I plan on retiring in my fifties. Working until 67 sounds like madness.

[Morgoth]

I guess if you're fed up with your job you want to retire earlier, however, if you're a cool guy like Fergus that owns his own game company I wouldn't want to retire until I drop dead.

[Enoch]

3. Extend the productive age of people.

 

I believe this is being talked about wrt Social Security. There are currently two tiers of retirement: 1) Retire at age 65. This nets you a certain amount. 2) Retire at age 67. This nets you a higher amount than retiring at age 65.

 

I think Ive heard/read somewhere that they are now talking about backing the reitrement age to 72.

 

True, but this is not just about what age people are wiling to work until. Jobs have to be found for them. Perhaps more importantly, the jobs those people are occupying before they retire are jobs 'needed' for other people. This is what I meant about a ballooning population. You've got pressure from young jobless at the other end of the system.

 

God, this is depressing.

Indeed, the chief immediate benefit of Social Security when it was passed in the '30s was to allow a lot of older, less productive workers to retire, opening up jobs for younger, healthier, and generally more productive workers. America's productivity-per-worker jumped up.

 

 

As to Wals' other post, there is a #5 on the list: Accept a lower standard-of-living across the board. This is something that Americans might have to get used to. The post-WW2 boom in the U.S. was an amazing thing. With every other industrialized nation on the planet bombed to ****, America had competitive advantage out the wazoo. It was considered relatively unremarkable for a man to earn enough in 35ish years in the workplace to pay for his own education and support a non-working spouse, raise children, and pay for both him and his spouse to have a long retirement.

 

But that comparative advantage simply couldn't last. Partly because the rest of the world wasn't going to stay blowed-up forever, and partly because American institutions and policies got complacent. Really, no president since Eisenhower has made maximizing American competitive advantages much of a policy priority. (As an aside, women entering the workforce in large numbers beginning in the '70s were a big help in delaying this decline.) And there have been both accidential and malicious fundamental mis-allocations of societal resources that will have to be painfully corrected at some point-- primarily the portion of national resources being invested in relatively-low-return enterprises like the financial sector, the healthcare sector, and defense/security. Getting into a position to re-build American competitive advantages is probably going to mean that a lot of people are going to have to accept being generally worse off than their parents' generation was.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Enoch

[Walsingham]

*gentle smile* Well, sure that's an option. If you discount human my view of human psychology.

 

No way is everyone going to take a hit. People will try to opt out. Whether by tax evasion, moving, so on and so forth.

 

One way which just occurred t me and is therefore probably bollocks, is to ship our eldsters overseas. Basically, all overseas development aid is delivered by eldster care. Foreigners work for less, land costs less, the weather is generally warmer. Scheme is viable so long as there are gross inequalities in national earning power. So, cynically, forever.

 

This also depends on people being honest about how often they will visit their elderly relatives. Which I reckon might actually go up in frequency if they're living somewhere fun, like Cote D'Ivoire, rather than Bognor Regis.

[Humodour]

3. Extend the productive age of people.

 

I believe this is being talked about wrt Social Security. There are currently two tiers of retirement: 1) Retire at age 65. This nets you a certain amount. 2) Retire at age 67. This nets you a higher amount than retiring at age 65.

 

I think Ive heard/read somewhere that they are now talking about backing the reitrement age to 72.

 

True, but this is not just about what age people are wiling to work until. Jobs have to be found for them. Perhaps more importantly, the jobs those people are occupying before they retire are jobs 'needed' for other people. This is what I meant about a ballooning population. You've got pressure from young jobless at the other end of the system.

 

God, this is depressing.

 

We have a skills shortage in Australia. That means we have more jobs than people to fill them. We currently just 'import' lots of and lots of foreign workers (around 300,000 a year) but at some point we're going to have to raise the retirement age as well.

 

The other thing is that in any country with an aging population, soon the number of young people born each year will drop off precipitously, while the number of old people alive will increase precipitously. When it does, worrying about the youth unemployment rate will be the last thing on a policymaker's mind, and raising the retirement age will be a necessity.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Krezack

[Calax]

3. Extend the productive age of people.

 

I believe this is being talked about wrt Social Security. There are currently two tiers of retirement: 1) Retire at age 65. This nets you a certain amount. 2) Retire at age 67. This nets you a higher amount than retiring at age 65.

 

I think Ive heard/read somewhere that they are now talking about backing the reitrement age to 72.

 

True, but this is not just about what age people are wiling to work until. Jobs have to be found for them. Perhaps more importantly, the jobs those people are occupying before they retire are jobs 'needed' for other people. This is what I meant about a ballooning population. You've got pressure from young jobless at the other end of the system.

 

God, this is depressing.

Indeed, the chief immediate benefit of Social Security when it was passed in the '30s was to allow a lot of older, less productive workers to retire, opening up jobs for younger, healthier, and generally more productive workers. America's productivity-per-worker jumped up.

 

 

As to Wals' other post, there is a #5 on the list: Accept a lower standard-of-living across the board. This is something that Americans might have to get used to. The post-WW2 boom in the U.S. was an amazing thing. With every other industrialized nation on the planet bombed to ****, America had competitive advantage out the wazoo. It was considered relatively unremarkable for a man to earn enough in 35ish years in the workplace to pay for his own education and support a non-working spouse, raise children, and pay for both him and his spouse to have a long retirement.

 

But that comparative advantage simply couldn't last. Partly because the rest of the world wasn't going to stay blowed-up forever, and partly because American institutions and policies got complacent. Really, no president since Eisenhower has made maximizing American competitive advantages much of a policy priority. (As an aside, women entering the workforce in large numbers beginning in the '70s were a big help in delaying this decline.) And there have been both accidential and malicious fundamental mis-allocations of societal resources that will have to be painfully corrected at some point-- primarily the portion of national resources being invested in relatively-low-return enterprises like the financial sector, the healthcare sector, and defense/security. Getting into a position to re-build American competitive advantages is probably going to mean that a lot of people are going to have to accept being generally worse off than their parents' generation was.

It's kinda funny that right now we're sort of seeing the same thing (Many jobs held by soon-to-be retireees)

[Walsingham]

A good point, Krez. But only if you buy the essential premise that birth rates go down as population increases. I don't.

 

1. Pointing at Western Europe as evidence ignores the importance of culture rather than numbers. And commits the cardinal sin of extending historical trends in complex data.

2. Population is booming worlwide and migration is occurring worldwide, and at least in Europe whether we want it or not. Individual countries are not the question any more.

 

EDIT:

 

3. Believing that the problem of youth unemployment will solve itself is comforting, but explosively dangerous if untrue.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Walsingham

[Humodour]

A good point, Krez. But only if you buy the essential premise that birth rates go down as population increases. I don't.

 

1. Pointing at Western Europe as evidence ignores the importance of culture rather than numbers. And commits the cardinal sin of extending historical trends in complex data.

2. Population is booming worlwide and migration is occurring worldwide, and at least in Europe whether we want it or not. Individual countries are not the question any more.

 

EDIT:

 

3. Believing that the problem of youth unemployment will solve itself is comforting, but explosively dangerous if untrue.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

 

One of the better Wikipedia articles out there. Worth a read.

[Walsingham]

A good point, Krez. But only if you buy the essential premise that birth rates go down as population increases. I don't.

 

1. Pointing at Western Europe as evidence ignores the importance of culture rather than numbers. And commits the cardinal sin of extending historical trends in complex data.

2. Population is booming worlwide and migration is occurring worldwide, and at least in Europe whether we want it or not. Individual countries are not the question any more.

 

EDIT:

 

3. Believing that the problem of youth unemployment will solve itself is comforting, but explosively dangerous if untrue.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

 

One of the better Wikipedia articles out there. Worth a read.

 

I don't wish to be harsh but this theory is pretty much a Just So Story, ignoring the fact that it could be tested in future.

 

The article itself points out that there are many countries where the theory does not seem to apply. I was already thinking of Nigeria before I read it through.

 

In any event, the connection is as much to economic development as anything else. I am positing that population growth is already far beyond any reasonable rate of economic growth. I suggest that this will provoke still greater inequality and instability, maintaining high birth rates as the only form of social security most people will ever see.

[Humodour]

Of course there are countries where it doesn't apply. But to my mind these seem very much to be exceptions to the rule.

 

For instance, any country where population dynamics are significantly influenced by government policy won't match this model (e.g. China).

 

Not sure what this thread is about anymore, so I may have jumped in at the wrong spot leading to us arguing two different points.

[Walsingham]

I believe the way we've taken the debate is to focus on the 'elephant in the room'. The long term budget is dependent on the dynamic behaviour of the underlying economic foundations. And I for one am arguing that those foundations are funted due to population thingy [/hangover].