Slashdot Mirror


When No One Retires (hbr.org)

More and more Americans want to work longer -- or have to, given that many aren't saving adequately for retirement. From a report: Before our eyes, the world is undergoing a massive demographic transformation. In many countries, the population is getting old. Very old. Globally, the number of people age 60 and over is projected to double to more than 2 billion by 2050 and those 60 and over will outnumber children under the age of 5. In the United States, about 10,000 people turn 65 each day, and one in five Americans will be 65 or older by 2030. By 2035, Americans of retirement age will eclipse the number of people aged 18 and under for the first time in U.S. history.

[...] Soon, the workforce will include people from as many as five generations ranging in age from teenagers to 80-somethings. Are companies prepared? The short answer is "no." Aging will affect every aspect of business operations -- whether it's talent recruitment, the structure of compensation and benefits, the development of products and services, how innovation is unlocked, how offices and factories are designed, and even how work is structured -- but for some reason, the message just hasn't gotten through. In general, corporate leaders have yet to invest the time and resources necessary to fully grasp the unprecedented ways that aging will change the rules of the game.

What's more, those who do think about the impacts of an aging population typically see a looming crisis -- not an opportunity. They fail to appreciate the potential that older adults present as workers and consumers. The reality, however, is that increasing longevity contributes to global economic growth. Today's older adults are generally healthier and more active than those of generations past, and they are changing the nature of retirement as they continue to learn, work, and contribute. In the workplace, they provide emotional stability, complex problem-solving skills, nuanced thinking, and institutional know-how. Their talents complement those of younger workers, and their guidance and support enhance performance and intergenerational collaboration. In encore careers, volunteering, and civic and social settings, their experience and problem-solving abilities contribute to society's well-being.

414 comments

  1. Fuck that by registrations_suck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am retiring the instant I meet my relevant financial goals for doing so.

    1. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They'll just make the cars and bread cost more

    2. Re:Fuck that by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

      I am retiring the instant I meet my relevant financial goals for doing so.

      That's why millennials aren't allowed to afford homes.

    3. Re: Fuck that by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      This is when you move to a less-developed country, buy some property to pay your way, and enjoy the fact that cars, food, and everything else are 25-50% of US prices.

    4. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You will quickly learn that you have an upper limit to how much relaxation your brain will tolerate. The "extreme hedonism" that people imagine, lounging around in hammocks sipping cocktails all day, leaves you bored out of your mind AND depressed after a couple of weeks (some people can't take it for even a few days).

      The human brain *needs* a sense of meaning, or it goes crazy and punishes itself with depression. It gets most of that sense of meaning from having responsibility for something that matters. Our jobs provide that. We don't notice it because we just notice all the stress and obligation. And when we take a break we just notice the absence of stress. But that is because our breaks are short.

      Very common stories include people coming out of retirement after a year, people turning to alcoholism after retirement, people dying shortly after retirement (sometimes by suicide and usually with depression-related symptoms), and people volunteering a lot after retirement.

      Accept this. You will seek work after you retire, in one form or another. Or you will die. Odds are you will not lounge around and "bliss out" like you probably imagine.

      Knowing this, consider NOT risking your financial viability in a very uncertain market (where all your retirement investments might fizzle out, costs might leap, a medical accident might eat up your savings). Instead, once you hit those goals, consider shifting your role to something that keeps your skills current while producing less stress (and possibly less income), going part time, or seeking work that is still profitable but more soul-satisfying (if not as lucrative).

      You will find it more fulfilling in the long run if you stay relevant to the world. Abandoning the world will leave you feeling isolated and unwanted.

      So, there you go.

    5. Re: Fuck that by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      This is when you move to a less-developed country, buy some property to pay your way, and enjoy the fact that cars, food, and everything else are 25-50% of US prices.

      Not true. Food is cheaper, services are MUCH cheaper, but manufactured and internationally traded goods like cars are NOT cheaper. A car in China or India is at least as expensive as a car in America. A housekeeper, cook, or nanny, on the other hand, costs very little.

      The trick is to live like a local. Eat local food. Get a bicycle (or rent an Ofo or MoBike). If you want to take a car, instead of driving use Ola or Didi (way cheaper than Uber in America).

    6. Re: Fuck that by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, but the cars aren't the same. You can buy cars outside the US that don't adhere to US safety standards, and are thus cheaper than the cheapest US-market vehicle.

    7. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here! I'm lucky where my salary has been increasing faster than I spend in increase in my credit consumption to increase my debt burden to lease or finance nicer cars or qualify for bigger mortgage.

      As a result I can use the money I'd squander in monthly debt payments for savings for retirement.

      Maybe the market will crash crash like 08 and I can finally buy in.

    8. Re:Fuck that by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Or just teach. Go for a master's or Ph. D. and become a professor or technical high school teacher.

    9. Re: Fuck that by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      True. The other benefit of buying such a car is that you also don't have to save as much money for retirement since it won't be nearly as long.

    10. Re: Fuck that by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 0

      Alarmist claptrap -- we're talking about 90s levels of safety, where most people STILL didn't die in car crashes.

    11. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or just don't try to find fulfilment through work. Hobbies, crafts, volunteering, learning, and family are all much, much, much better than work. For 90% of people, the only thing work is good for is to earn money so they can do other things.

    12. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not be surprised when they replace you and your retirement check with a walled robot garden while they keep you mesmerized with some fool TV show. May as well give up.

    13. Re:Fuck that by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am retiring the instant I meet my relevant financial goals for doing so.

      I got laid off in June 2017, but am debt-free (including having my mortgage paid off) and financially independent for my current and foreseeable situation, according to my spreadsheets where I track everything -- think FIRE, though not that young. My wife died in 2006 ( Remember Sue... ) so it's a little quiet.

      As it turns out, I've been contacted by a number of employers and recruiters recently and had one in-person interview and several phone interviews that all look like they'll progress further. I've got 30 years experience and been a system/application programmer and system administrator on just about every version of Unix, several versions of Linux and Windows and am big into automation and am getting inquires to do DevOps work. I'm thinking of going back to work. Some extra coin in the piggy bank wouldn't hurt and I'll get benefits and, eventually, 18 months of COBRA -- which was *way* less expensive than plans on the ACA marketplace, because I have too much passive/investment income to get subsidies.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    14. Re:Fuck that by Jetstream · · Score: 1

      I am retiring the instant I meet my relevant financial goals for doing so.

      Me too. So basically, I'm going to die before I retire. :(

    15. Re: Fuck that by Jetstream · · Score: 1

      Do not be surprised when they replace you and your retirement check with a walled robot garden while they keep you mesmerized with some fool TV show.

      Fine - as long as they give me lots of 'soma' to keep me stoned! ('Brave New World' joke there.... or was that '1984'?)

    16. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While temperatures are 20-F higher, Flint-like water, corruption is nationwide at Chicago standards and the local warland wants to rape your daughter and noone , but you will stop him. Did I mention ebola and yellow fever ?? Yep. Move-on to that 3-rd world nibberized paradise Bosco. NOT! Fact is you have not the balls to do so ... but stay in the USA and bitch like an azz-fucked hyena when taxed.

    17. Re:Fuck that by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Huh? He's giving up his job as soon as possible - meaning someone else can move into the workforce. How is that, in any way, bad?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    18. Re:Fuck that by UncleWilly · · Score: 2

      Game the system. In tech it's pretty easy to find a good full time job where you really work less than half the time, if that. Already over 60 and on a busy week I work maybe 20 hrs. I could keep this up until I'm 75 or so and probably will. Then I'll be the Walmart greeter with the Aston Martin in the lot ;)

    19. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or get a hobby

    20. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alarmist claptrap or not, it's still true.

    21. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      per capita GDP is more relevant than providing jobs for people just so they can say they have jobs. If we *all* have more total wealth and some people are getting handouts and some people are working, what's the big problem?

    22. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt any self respecting engineer with a lifetime of industry experience will jump hoops for 6 years in grad school in exchange for a Ph.D.

      How many 50+ year old PhD students do you know? I have yet to see one.

    23. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people don't know that the retirement age of 65 years was set when the average life expectancy was 62 years old.

      http://www.medrounds.org/encyclopedia-of-aging/2006/01/retirement-age-history-of.html

      Realize you are a slave and the controllers of the world work and rape you until death.

    24. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Volunteering = work.

      Sometimes family = work, too.

    25. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome. So like most of us you won't be retiring prior to death.

      The reason most people aren't saving enough for retirement, while there are some who simply can't budget themselves, is that a larger portion of us simply aren't making enough despite being worked to the bone.

      "Well find a better job" doesn't really help either when there's nothing particularly better out there for whatever skill set you have, and you can't afford to be trained in something new - especially when you'll still not likely edge out the people that have those skill sets already + years of experience.

      This is the natural effect of having salaries not even keeping pace with standard yearly inflation.

    26. Re: Fuck that by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      I live in Alaska.

    27. Re: Fuck that by registrations_suck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Retiring does have to mean relaxing.

      For me, it means no longer being a wage slave. I can do what I want, when I want, within reasonable limits. I will no longer need to worry about earning money. That doesnâ(TM)t mean I will not be working st something or doing something productive with my time.

    28. Re:Fuck that by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You will quickly learn that you have an upper limit to how much relaxation your brain will tolerate. The "extreme hedonism" that people imagine, lounging around in hammocks sipping cocktails all day, leaves you bored out of your mind AND depressed after a couple of weeks (some people can't take it for even a few days).

      Of course, lots of us don't really need employment to have plenty of work to do. I spent about a year doing a tiny bit of contracting work, lots of extra traveling, and otherwise generally doing nothing besides working on personal creative projects. The freedom was absolutely amazing, and at no point did I ever feel like I stopped working, or really even slowed down. I would expect the same to be true when I retire for good in a decade or three.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    29. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who are working....they will quickly feel like they are being jilted. If free money is being handed out, why aren't they getting some too? Why do they have to work when you don't?

      So they will stop working, and cash in on the free money.

      And when enough of them do that, productivity drops to the point that there is no longer enough free money to go around. And it all comes tumbling down.

      There is one and only one solution to that production problem:

      ROBOTS!

    30. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why how big of you. The "as-soon-as-I-get-mine" mentality will doom future generations. Because you have no depth of soul, no pride of self-worth, don't expect anyone else to lift a finger when you need help.

      Oh, I guess I'd better stay at my job until I'm about to die then. Who else is going to make upper management richer? I'd better do my part so that they can retire as millionaires at age 55...

    31. Re:Fuck that by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Just plain wrong. Retired for 5 years. I go to movies, play poker, exercise, repeat. I have a few other distractions and absolutly none of them qualify as work. I'm not bored out of my mind, I have a lot of fun online and in the other endeavors already mentioned. Work is nowhere close to necessary, and that's a fact.

    32. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the Boomer propaganda really got it's teeth into you, huh?

      I'm in my 30s and I'm already ready to retire, psychologically at least. I don't have enough time for my hobbies, or my friends. I've had one overseas vacation in the last 10 years and I couldn't even get my bosses to sign off on the absence until the week before, and THAT was when I held my own job for ransom.

      The current generation of workers is paying for every sorry lazy lump of shit that came before them.

      So, no, I'm not volunteering, and if I'm already stressed now I can't see how having no 9-5 responsibilities can possibly make that worse. If I haven't succumbed to substance abuse with the stress I'm already under, believe me when I say that having some free time won't push me to it.

      Fuck your "value of a hard day's work" rhetoric. We quitting.

    33. Re:Fuck that by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      And just ordered 3 books to get better at that poker thing. Was at a week of various poker tournaments at the Orleans in Las Vegas last week and had the time of my life. Work? Totally unnecessary. Oh, and I misspoke above, not 5 years retired, but 7 - retired on the last day of 2011, Dec 31st, a few weeks after coming back from Iraq for the last time (civilian sci-tech advisor to Army EOD.) Have been absolutely ecstatic about not having to get up and go somewhere and do something for which I'll get criticized and so forth - work has always sucked, always will suck, because of that. This is the life, and if I ever decide to add to my income, it'll be something where no one has the right to criticize my output - maybe extra $$$ by being good at poker, or maybe winning photo contest or something, but... never employment. Never again...

    34. Re:Fuck that by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Teachers at many private institutions don't need degrees.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    35. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just guessing here...maybe gtall is thinking along these lines:

      1) registrations_suck is probably refusing to donate to charities, and refusing to do anything else with his money that might benefit others, because he is keeping it all for his own retirement.

      2) when he retires, he will just live off that pile of money, when he could instead be working and sharing his income with charities.

      3) when he retires, he probably won't volunteer for anything, since he is obviously such a selfish person.

      4) His refusal to share his money means he is a selfish asshole who only lives for himself, and cares about nobody else, leaving us all to starve in the streets. And that attitude is exactly what makes the world suck today.

      This seems to be the typical narrative among the people who use the phrase "I've got mine, screw you" to ridicule others. They feel like everyone should work and freely give away what they have earned, especially rich people who obviously have more than they need, so that everyone else (as in, people with no marketable skills and no work ethic) can live off all that free money and enjoy a nice high quality of life at someone else's expense.

      Interestingly, they don't see this sense of entitlement to other people's money as selfish. They just see others as selfish for refusing to give their earnings away in return for nothing.

    36. Re:Fuck that by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Productivity is production per working person. As long as there isn't total industrial collapse, fewer working people implies no drop in productivity.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    37. Re: Fuck that by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I miss the days of our, when you were one of Slashdot's biggest trolls. I really do. Now your trolls are lost in the Signal to Troll Ratio.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    38. Re: Fuck that by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      You can't even figure out how to log in, fucktard.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    39. Re:Fuck that by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You will quickly learn that you have an upper limit to how much relaxation your brain will tolerate. The "extreme hedonism" that people imagine, lounging around in hammocks sipping cocktails all day, leaves you bored out of your mind AND depressed after a couple of weeks (some people can't take it for even a few days).

      Cool story bro. Is that what US employers tell you as an excuse to only give you two weeks vacation? From here in Europe I can tell you a month plus is no problem and people want more. Those I've talked to who's taken 3/6/12 month sabbaticals all seem to have enjoyed it too.

      Very common stories include people coming out of retirement after a year, people turning to alcoholism after retirement, people dying shortly after retirement (sometimes by suicide and usually with depression-related symptoms), and people volunteering a lot after retirement.

      Anecdotal stories yes, but most people who retire simply retire. The mortality tables show no jump or peak at general retirement age. They do more volunteer work but for most that's at a fraction of a full work week and quite possibly a way of winding down, not proof they need it permanently. In fact I just checked the stats here in Norway and only 39% of our retirees are active members in any volunteer organization. Only 30% claim to have done any volunteer work. Of course that covers all retirees, directly post-retirement is probably higher but most of our elderly do fine just being retired.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    40. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The human brain *needs* a sense of meaning, or it goes crazy and punishes itself with depression. It gets most of that sense of meaning from having responsibility for something that matters.

      Jordan Peterson? Is that you?

    41. Re:Fuck that by m00sh · · Score: 1

      I am retiring the instant I meet my relevant financial goals for doing so.

      But how do you factor in the unexpected medical expenses?

      I find that keeps people to stretch what they are willing to retire at way way further because of this.

    42. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or singularity

    43. Re:Fuck that by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You will quickly learn that you have an upper limit to how much relaxation your brain will tolerate. ...

      He never said he was going to sit on his ass. But, you're right, if you think you'll just golf and fish all day, then you're likely not going to be happy for long.

      I just turned 60, and will be retiring after 42 years of fulltime work. That doesn't mean that I plan to sit on the couch all day. What it means is that I'm going to not be stuck at a fucking desk doing spreadsheets all day, and gaining weight. It means that I'll finally have time to get the dog I've been wanting, and will be out walking it a couple times a day. It means that I'll have time to go volunteer at a hospital, Habitat for Humainity, or other such place where I will feel motivated again. It means that I'll have time to take month long vacations to distant places that I couldn't while working...Australia/New Zealand are already being planned. And, it means that I'll finally have time to take care of my mother (who's been in nursing homes off and on for several years) properly.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    44. Re:Fuck that by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Cool story bro. Is that what US employers tell you as an excuse to only give you two weeks vacation? From here in Europe...

      No need to be a dick. Plenty of us in the US get more than two weeks. At 15 years with my company, you get five weeks a year.

      FWIW, I've had several well off coworkers retire and come back. Mostly because they didn't have a plan, and decided they could only golf so much. I'll be taking my own shot at it in just a few months, While I don't have specific plans, I'm looking forward to finding some volunteer work just because I enjoy helping people.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    45. Re:Fuck that by hjf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed. Americans are weird types. They take pride in their "hard work", sometimes you can't believe what kind of nonsense they have to do. Really few holidays a year. NO vacations (walmart gives their new employes ZERO days of vacations, they "earn" them by working years and years there. They're forced to do weird shifts. They are all hurr durr "free market will solve it dont give me no regulations that's for communists, if you dont like your job quit!" and then they have Amazon workers on food stamps. yes, people employed full time earn a salary that doesn't cover their minimal expenses. they are EXPECTED to work overtime). weird people. And they think *that* is what makes them the world's largest economy (it's not). They think *they* have the best standard of living. Most of them have never been in another country, and they seem to think you can just "move" to Canada. weird people, indeed.

    46. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, get the stick out of your ass. There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting out as soon as you can afford to. You're too busy making assumptions about what he's going to do when he retires, to realize that you don't know squat about him in spite of claiming he has "no soul, no pride of self-worth"...Bullshit.

    47. Re:Fuck that by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      But how do you factor in the unexpected medical expenses?

      Insurance? I'm 60, and just last year had a traumatic fall (nearly ripped my nose off on the edge of a flagstone step) that ended up in over $50k of plastic surgery. My out of pocket was my deductible.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    48. Re:Fuck that by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      The human brain *needs* a sense of meaning, or it goes crazy and punishes itself with depression.

      A better way to put this is humans need a sense of purpose . Likely it's an extension of the drive to perpetuate the species; when you have no purpose, you're a burden on your species, specifically the resources that would otherwise keep a productive member of the species alive to reproduce, therefore a built-in 'kill switch' instinct comes into play.

    49. Re: Fuck that by war4peace · · Score: 2

      This sounds like Exception here. Everyone must be like me otherwise they suck”.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    50. Re:Fuck that by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      Right mostly except that to stay relevant you don't have to contribute physical things. Just if you can keep your mind calm and happy, just your presence enriches the world. If you can get your mind to a celebratory mode. World and people already have plenty of "things" (how many billion hours of teaching/fun material in youtube today?). A rose plant is working to stay relevant; it just exists and enjoys the breeze going by. So can you be like a 3 year old.
      Yes, you won't be idle. The right passion will spot you and catch you. You must of course stay with high awareness (not dumbing substances indulgence like drug/alcohol). You will be working/exploring that field (art/math/science/sport), even as a fan not necessarily as a performer.

    51. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a programmer, the thing that scares me the most career-wise is the very real likelihood that we've seen the future of AI-driven software development... and its source code mostly resembles Malbolge. Or maybe C++, compiled into ARM assembly, and displayed as raw bytecode... GZipped, and in hex.

      Seriously, just look at the current state of Java 9. Specifically, lambda, stream, and tuple syntax. Java has always had a reputation for needing an IDE to get productive work done, but Lambdas, streams, and genericized tuples result in code that's damn-near IMPOSSIBLE for humans who don't ALREADY intimately understand what a Lambda does and how it does it to make sense of its source code... at least, not without the active assistance of an IDE to virtually rewrite and annotate lambdas into a form that humans CAN make sense of.

      Seriously, try this experiment... find something that uses Lambdas to implement some unfamiliar interface, consumes a stream of items, and returns a genericized tuple... and try to make sense of it WITHOUT creating your own annotated diagram, using ONLY Javadoc-style documentation for reference.

      I think my personal problem with Lambdas has to do with the limits of working memory. They recursively and implicitly pack SO MANY disparate elements and relationships into a single dense chunk of code, by the time I work my way through one backwards, my personal memory stack has overflowed & I can't remember the first part of what I looked up just a few minutes earlier. The only way I can personally make sense of them (short of having the IDE reformat, annotate, and explain it to me) is to spend 10 minutes painfully making my own diagram to show what the fuck it's actually doing.

    52. Re: Fuck that by CGordy · · Score: 1

      I live in a country with a civilised amount of vacation time, and I get more than most. I took over three months leave last year, and will probably take just as much next year (I'm in my mid thirties, but my skills are in demand).

      Americans seem to struggle with the concept of leave, because they don't get much and seem to have a learned aversion to letting their subordinates take it. The key with longer holidays (and retirement) is to learn to appreciate life, and to have goals. The argument that "humans get bored" is a reflection on a particular culture that that doesn't value activities outside of work, and is not an accurate representation of the other 95% of humanity.

    53. Re:Fuck that by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I know you are upvoted for eloquency because I have no idea what exactly you are trying to say

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    54. Re:Fuck that by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I am retiring legs first from my office

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    55. Re: Fuck that by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      Damn dude. What a pretentious dumbass. And you couldnâ(TM)t be more wrong too.

    56. Re: Fuck that by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      Iâ(TM)m trying to say that the only reason I have a wage job is to make money. When I have a sufficient pile of money, I will no longer need a wage job.

      If things work out, I will have $2M and no debt by the time I turn 60. By then, my kid will be 15 years old. I will be able to spend most of my time with her, in her last few years in my household before she goes out into the world. We can homeschool. Travel. See the world. Whatever. But what I wonâ(TM)t be doing is slaving away for some employer.

    57. Re:Fuck that by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Or just don't try to find fulfilment through work. Hobbies, crafts, volunteering, learning, and family are all much, much, much better than work. For 90% of people, the only thing work is good for is to earn money so they can do other things.

      Or find a job that benefits society and is worthwhile to continue to work at until you can't anymore.

    58. Re:Fuck that by sphealey · · Score: 1

      Ah, the Scots version of Calvinism that infects so much of the United States' population - can't live with it, can't get away from it.

    59. Re:Fuck that by Drethon · · Score: 1

      As a programmer, the thing that scares me the most career-wise is the very real likelihood that we've seen the future of AI-driven software development... and its source code mostly resembles Malbolge. Or maybe C++, compiled into ARM assembly, and displayed as raw bytecode... GZipped, and in hex.

      At the moment, AI driven software doesn't concern me too much. As a developer I think less about how to work in the current language I'm assigned to and more about the structure the program needs to execute. So I can transition to any language or programming method without too much trouble.

      A pretty small portion of my day is actually spent coding. Most of it is talking to the customers get clarification on what they really what the program to do. Most of the time the submitted requirements are incomplete, conflicting or just wont work. So I need to sit down with the humans and explain why the software can't overcome the physical limitations of the hardware they have chosen and what compromise they will be satisfied that will actually work in the real world. I'll start getting worried when AI can explain these kind of things to hardware engineers, or non engineers.

    60. Re: Fuck that by BytePusher · · Score: 1

      Or accept this, people who spend their whole life taking direction don't have the skills to direct themselves when they're elderly. This is similar to Stockholm syndrome, these unfortunate souls need someone to submit to and feel exploited, because they had to learn to accept that to survive. These unfortunate souls also spend significant effort trying to get others in their society plugged into this system of exploitation because the cognitive dissonance of seeing people enjoy their lives causes their carefully constructed, yet fragile world view to crack.

    61. Re:Fuck that by houghi · · Score: 2

      There is a HUGE difference between not working and being relevant. The thing is that the majority of people who retire have no real hobbies or way to spend their time outside of their job.

      I have been without a job for a longer period of time and I would LOVE not needing to go to work. The only readon I do that is because of the monies.

      The fact that you think that working part time or working for a lower pay is the alternative mena sthat YOU also do not have a clue what to do when you retire.

      There are a gazillion things you can do that are not working. As this is /., a good thing could be open source. You can spend a smuch or little time as you desire on whatever lever you want.

      It does not even have to be coding. It can be testing or designing or anything else. Another thing to do is to travel. And one does not even exclude the other.

      There is no reason to keep your skills current if you retire. Start learning new skill. Paint, dance, woodworking, gardening, ...

      But then it is easy for me. A medical accident wil, most likely, not eat up my savings. I know a lot of people and most will have a bit of a short shock when they retire. After about 6 months they will have found their new rythm. It is often very hardb on the relkationship, as suddenly they need to be with each other 24/7.

      Much will depend on the country where you live. e.g. in Spain going out and drink a coffee or a glass of wine with all the other pensioners is very normal.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    62. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people (not necessarily myself, but I have moods and modes like anyone else) basically need pressure to get something done. Some of us are good at taking free space (sometimes) and doing something interesting or useful without an external pressure. For better or worse, the average person is not.

    63. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This exactly. I'm within a decade of the standard retirement age and dream about being able to take it easy. In the early part of this year I was caught in a wave of layoffs due to a reorganization. Because of my seniority I was given a very generous 11 month severance package, that would have run through Feb of 2019. For the first month it was great, just getting things done around the house, working on some personal projects and the like. By the second month I was getting bored and starting to get worried about get a new job if I let the out of work gap get too big. So I reached out to my network and was able to land a good job a few weeks later.

      So I had about a 2.5 month taste of not being required to get up and go to work, getting to do my own thing, but I ended up discovering I couldn't sit idle like that. If I had the financial wherewithal to not have needed to eventually find another job it might have been different, but I still got bored really quickly.

    64. Re: Fuck that by UglyMike · · Score: 1

      Soma for the Epsilons was Brave New World.

    65. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You will find it more fulfilling in the long run if you stay relevant to the world. Abandoning the world will leave you feeling isolated and unwanted.

      Yes, this is a prime concern for anyone who stops working, for whatever reason, at whatever age.

      Those angling to stop "having to work for money" do well to address this.
      For examples, see any of a number of "FI/RE" blogs, such as Our Next Life, Millennial Revolution, Mr. Money Mustache;
      and books such as "Your Money or Your Life" and "The Next Millionaire Next Door".

    66. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is only if you define your life by work, which is moronic when there are so many things to do in life that aren't work. If you are bored when not at work it is because you are a boring person that wasted their entire life never doing anything but slaving away for somebody else's quarterly earnings report to get out and do interesting things.

    67. Re:Fuck that by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There never will be any "AI driven" software development, unless the AI is consciousnous (Google Chrome can not even suggest the correction for this word, it only underlines it red ... WTF?) and can _grasp_ the business the software is intended for.
       

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    68. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right I will be building shit and working out as much as my body can tolerate. Most people have spent their whole life being told what to do and never learned how to do anything on their own.

    69. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Most of them have never been in another country, and they seem to think you can just "move" to Canada. weird people, indeed.

      Most slashdot posters can probably fill out the paperwork and just move to canada actually

    70. Re:Fuck that by Drethon · · Score: 1

      There never will be any "AI driven" software development, unless the AI is consciousnous (Google Chrome can not even suggest the correction for this word, it only underlines it red ... WTF?) and can _grasp_ the business the software is intended for.

      While I don't see a takeover anytime soon, I could still see AI working parts of the development. It doesn't have to grasp the full business to analyze requirements and note a high probability that certain requirements are incomplete, conflicting, etc. While this would not develop software from scratch, it could cut out a significant portion of the work I do as a software developer (either identifying how to fix the requirements, or trying to implement bad requirements I failed to notice and having to rework the code later). Even this is probably going to be very costly and error prone for a while.

    71. Re: Fuck that by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >If things work out, I will have $2M and no debt by the time I turn 60

      You need to hit online calculators. You are most likely younger than me or the same age, you will find an unpleasant surprise: you will need more like $7M.

      I hope you are hitting the mark, fella, because my retirement plan is to be carried, legs first, from my office.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    72. Re:Fuck that by Drethon · · Score: 1

      There never will be any "AI driven" software development, unless the AI is consciousnous (Google Chrome can not even suggest the correction for this word, it only underlines it red ... WTF?) and can _grasp_ the business the software is intended for.

      Oh, and were you looking for "the AI is conscious and can grasp"? Or, "the AI consciousness can grasp"? The first meaning the AI can grasp while being conscious, the second meaning the AI's consciousness is what is grasping the concept (pardon if you knew any of this, but when I read your WTF it sounded like you were trying to find better phrasing of your comment).

    73. Re: Fuck that by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      Iâ(TM)m sorry your retirement planning appears to be so dismal.

      As for me, Iâ(TM)m already sitting on $1M. Assuming employment remains favorable, hitting $2M by age 60 shouldnâ(TM)t be much of an issue. With my modest spending patterns, that should be enough to meet my needs. If it doesnâ(TM)t work out, I can always start a new career in crime.

    74. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kind of an idiot.

    75. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible that they chose to post anonymously, using the "Post Anonymously" checkbox that is available when logged in.

      Best not to call people names that have an estimate of low intelligence built in, just in case you make yourself look like an idiot.

      (Posting anonymously using the above mentioned checkbox just to prove the point. Fucktard.)

    76. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, I totally agree with this whole post (and I'm "right-wing) and I find myself hesitant to voice it to anyone other than my wife because of the annoying preachy backlash I get. We are brainwashed to think pissing your life away working is this super desirable thing and anything else is being a lazy piece of shit.

      I refuse to buy into it though. Fuck 'em.

    77. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will quickly learn that you have an upper limit to how much relaxation your brain will tolerate.

      There is a difference between working because you have to and because you want to.

      Just because one "retires", doesn't mean one couldn't do various activities on a part-time or voluntary basis. The GP would have to give more information on his plans.

      Personally I'd look into getting a boat and sailing around the world. That should keep me occupied (mentally and physically) for a while.

    78. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we know you are a moron who doesn't understand the purpose of the checkbox. You already proved that.

    79. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear a lot of Walmart bashing and used to believe it, but now I have family members that work for Walmart. They get two consecutive days off each week, started at $1 above minimum wage in Colorado (almost $3 in Arkansas), full time, matching 401k up to 6%, money for college(not a lot, but still free money).

      The only people they know that don't get full time are either students that work around the class schedule and lazy people that do the minimum and leave as early as they can.

    80. Re:Fuck that by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      I've seen quite a few in their early to mid-40s, though. May end up as one of those people myself.

    81. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you had a family to support which is not moronic. That is why you should be careful when you use that word because if there is anything wrong with your statement it doesn't portray you in a good light. (Makes you look like the moron)

      In an ideal world everyone does what they love. For me, I love my job but hate the politics that often plagues people at my level. Between real estate and my 401k I hope to have enough to retire. Eventually I'll have enough saved that I can start to invest in other high risk ventures. I follow the adage of never investing what you can't afford to lose. Fortunately my house is double the value of what it was when I bought it just 5 years ago. If all goes well I will pay off that mortgage and free up a good amount of money. Hopefully what that means is that I only worry about property tax and insurance for the house which significantly reduces my monthly outlay allowing me to withdraw less when it comes time.

      Frankly I'm not sure its possible to save enough and still have a life. Their are people that are super strict with their budgets but I'd rather enjoy going to the dinner theater or other things I do to enjoy life now rather than just waiting until I retire to start having fun. Of course the other problem is that while I have no trouble squirreling away funds the lady of the house is another story.

    82. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe it - in the SF Bay Area, a surprising number of Walmart workers require public assistance to get by. They are otherwise mistreated as well; they're among the primary plaintiffs in one of the class-actions alleging wage theft. I don't shop at Wally World and counsel others who care about their fellow citizens to do the same.

      The best part is that the business model falls apart when fuel gets too expensive and labor arbitrage with the Far East becomes untenable. I kinda can't wait for that to happen....

    83. Re:Fuck that by outlander · · Score: 1

      It is already happening. There are language-aware models which can parse human speech in multiple languages, which are notoriously variable in terms of syntax etc. Once that's a fait accompli, it'll be easier to handle AI-driven development with more regularized syntactic rules. And that's not that far over the horizon now....

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    84. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans are social beings, society enforces always to compete with other unreal unknown people, selfishness, pettiness, pride and superiority complex.
      Society enforces people heavily into getting a partner and marry and have children and grand-children, but once they all are gone for any reason we are left alone, before medicine we had less time to live, but now we have to adjust our lives to the probability of living longer and in better stances.
      I see society as a half-baked artifact that still needs to adapt to the current times.

    85. Re:Fuck that by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      but when I read your WTF it sounded like you were trying to find better phrasing of your comment
      No, I wanted to fix the typo. But Chrome on Mac OS is to stupid to realize that my OS is German, but I'm typing in english ... so it only realizes the typo (how does it do that?) but then picks the German dictionary to give proposals ... (And I was to lazy to google for the correct spelling)

      And all this just because they programmed their own text input widget instead of taking the one provided by Mac OS X. That has no problems with a) realizing which language I'm typing in, b) taking the appropriated dictionary and c) ignoring what language is chosen to display the menus

      Skype is even worth ... it simply assumes that the language of the program (yes, my OS is still german, but Skype is set to english) is also the language of the dictionary ... so if I chat with Germans, all text is red underlined. And I honestly don't want to change all the time the language settings ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    86. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you are admitting that you are an incredibly boring individual that can't even come up with a hobby? While unemployed and looking for work for 5 months I not only got back into some of my old hobbies but started a bunch of new ones like photo hunting in the regional parks, building a smoker from junk I already had on hand or could scrounge up for free on craigslist and freecycle and take up both hot and cold smoking, got back into PC gaming on the dirt cheap via HumbleBundles and Steam sales, actually had time to go fishing, got involved in local politics.

      You got bored? You didn't even try to do anything.

    87. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, been on my own since 16, I'm just not a lazy shit who can't find something to do, especially in a world where we have the instructions to literally anything and everything in a handheld device we carries around all day. I find something to do, make, watch, listen to, read, cook, learn, play, get involved in etc. whenever I am not working.

      Only boring people get bored.

    88. Re:Fuck that by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Ah, sorry for the assumption but interesting information on how Chrome works!

    89. Re:Fuck that by Kevin108 · · Score: 1

      You are right that many people want to return to work soon after retirement. It's because the average person doesn't know what to do with himself when someone else isn't telling him what to do. I've known multiple people who developed into adults without goals or hobbies of their own. They did what the boss said at work, they went home and did what their wife said, maybe watched TV and did what it said, and followed that pattern for 30+ years.

      As the recent memes illustrate, most people are NPCs, incapable of believing there are self-directing people who think, invent, create, and carve their own path through any circumstances. Not everyone will struggle with retirement. I look so forward to having to do nothing but what is on my own extensive list: books to read, home modifications to make, endless miles to explore in my 4x4, plus whatever I might be able to do with family and friends when work no longer occupies 60% of my time.

      --

      It's a perfect time for being wasted.
      A perfect time to watch the stars.
      - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
    90. Re:Fuck that by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      (Assuming you're smart enough) It's pretty easy to find a tech job where you really work less than half the time and have to pretend to be busy working the rest of the time. There is little that's more depressing than having to pass time doing busy work or nothing at all.

    91. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never admitted anything of the sort, and you must have issues with reading comprehension as I did mention hobbies..

      What I said was that I was working on personal projects but after having worked with groups of others on projects for over 30 years, doing so solo is a very big change. I do play some games, but not much as I have no interest in shooter games or MOBAs and few other types are coming out. Other hobbies I have are already part of my life and have been worked into my normal schedule for a number of years. But add to that the fact I have a family, multiple car payments and a mortgage and like it or not I'm in a field where age discrimination is very real and anxiety kicks in worrying about being unemployed for too long.

      I assume by your response that your in your 20's or late 30's at most. What expenses did you have to cover for those 5 months you were unemployed and how did you cover them? Unemployment insurance, moved back home with parents or roommates? I currently have a son living with us and a daughter & granddaughter who moved back as she's going through a divorce. I had to cover all of her moving expenses across country and am covering her attorney's expenses, so I'm responsible for food, clothing, housing, legal and medical care for multiple people. Knowing there is an end to the paychecks but not an end to the expenses tends to make it hard to relax and take pictures of trees.

    92. Re:Fuck that by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      It's definitely tough to save enough when you're not single. We save a ton but we also bought a house. Probably 75% of our "extra" savings is just paying down a mortgage on something that won't make money. It'll be nice to have reduced living expenses, but it won't get us to financial freedom.

    93. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've got it exactly backwards. "I've got mine, screw you" describes the person who accumulates, often making use of tax loopholes or other advantages - social security, medicare, prop 13 (in California), mortgage interest deduction, et cetera - and then seek to deny the same advantages to others in order to ensure that their own accrual of wealth is unhindered.

      It *is* selfish. It's not enlightened self-interest, but rather the grasping selfishness of a generation (mostly boomers and older Gen-Xers) of cowards convinced that life is zero-sum. Even as (most) of these people profess extreme xtian piety, they give the lie to their profession of faith by enacting (through GOP reps) explicit rules which seek to reduce the common weal and turn the country into a more Hobbesian nightmare.

    94. Re:Fuck that by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Cool story bro. Is that what US employers tell you as an excuse to only give you two weeks vacation? From here in Europe I can tell you a month plus is no problem and people want more. Those I've talked to who's taken 3/6/12 month sabbaticals all seem to have enjoyed it too.

      I'm sure there are different types of people. I'm with the OP. First time I got laid off, I found a job in a month and looked back at all that free time I had but never used. Next time, during the .com bust, I gave myself two weeks and then jumped on some hobbies. One being a web site about bands I liked. I even went out with a band for a few weeks as a roadie so I could write about it. Lots of people were laid off in that time period and there was a common saying, "For the first two weeks of unemployment, every day is a Saturday. After that, everyday is a Sunday."

    95. Re:Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why those same countries are importing labor, labor whose culture is directly at odds with your own and they have no intention of integration, in fact they plan on integrating you into their culture, and they are winning. Perhaps not in the short term but baby by baby, and they multiply are a massively higher rate then you do.

      So enjoy your month vacations, probably should start growing a beard soon.

    96. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expat here, can confirm:
      Car prices are thru the roof.
      Petrol, maids, local food (aka not imported steak and cheese) is super cheap.

    97. Re: Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they adhere to japanese standards or Korean standards, are more fuel efficient and the parts are cheaper.

      USA standards for cars isnt everything.

      Source : I sell to car factories. Japan, korean, European car manufacturers. All usa car manufacturers died.

  2. it's time to medicare lower age! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    it's time to medicare lower age!

    1. Re:it's time to medicare lower age! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well as a culture, we need to find more ways to support people, then punish them. After a lifetime of work, the new generation deserves their chance, and they should be allowed to take their time off, and change their lives to a retirement lifestyle. Which isn't just a vacation for the rest of their lives, but being able to do things they wanted to do earlier on.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re: it's time to medicare lower age! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well as a culture, we need to find more ways to support people, then punish them."

      I believe that's in fact the current model.

      Instead, we need to find more ways to support people THAN punish them =P

    3. Re: it's time to medicare lower age! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to do away with most medicare benefots. I seen how my elderly in-laws use these benefits and it's patently disgusting.

    4. Re:it's time to medicare lower age! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need single provider NOW. No, it is time to nationalize healthcare and include dental care while we are at it. The federal government needs to the only legal employer of physicians, nurses, practitioners, etc. The federal government needs to take ownership of the drug companies and healthcare equipment manufacturers, and the federal government needs to be the only entity to own/operate hospitals, clinics, and urgent care. The main justification for doctors to earn so much money is that their school is long and expensive. This will not matter when the government is running the only medical academies.

  3. ...every elder a role model? by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

    So somewhat we managed to eradicate all old curmudgeons.

    --
    I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    1. Re:...every elder a role model? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:...every elder a role model? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I see no need. Much of the youth of today will just annihilate themselves. Skill? What skill? We can stand by and watch and then continue with business as usual.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:...every elder a role model? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      All you've got to do is provide them with youtube videos and tide pods.

    4. Re:...every elder a role model? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Did not know about the tide pods. Human stupidity is truly unlimited...

      On a side-note, there are certainly no less smart and capable young people around than in other generations. But they always were few and that has not changed. The rest is now addicted to the organized dementia most of social media inspires.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. Only the rich retire... by dicobalt · · Score: 0

    Labor has been devalued ever since outsourcing.

    1. Re:Only the rich retire... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Labor has been devalued as long as it is allowed.

      The 1800's labors for a company were in essence slaves. Living in Company Housing, having to pay their rent back to the company, buying food and everything from the company stores. If a worker get injured or fired, it was nearly a death sentence, because it wasn't a case of getting an other job, but spending the rest of your life homeless, barring extensive effort in finding new work.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Only the rich retire... by TheSync · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If a worker get injured or fired, it was nearly a death sentence, because it wasn't a case of getting an other job, but spending the rest of your life homeless, barring extensive effort in finding new work.

      Your family would often take care of you. This happened to several members of my family in the 1800's. Instead of paying 20-30% in income tax to the government to take care of the invalid, they paid 20-30% of their income to take care of their invalid relatives.

    3. Re:Only the rich retire... by dicobalt · · Score: 1

      In the 1960s factory workers would have got $15/hr in today's money. Now factory workers get $2/hr in China etal.

    4. Re:Only the rich retire... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      And notably, this is still reality in overwhelming majority of the world. People in the West (culturally) seem to forget that outside Western cultural sphere, it's a norm rather than exception that family is the primary care giving unit. Not the state.

      In many countries, this is actually codified into the law. For example, in China male children are required by law to take care of their parents, and if male child refuses to do so, there is significant legal precedent of parents suing the child for support and winning.

      Various regions on other continents, like in Africa and South America have different paths to enforcement, but base principle remains the same. It's a major difference between Western culture, which is a massive outlier in disconnecting "having children" from "social security".

    5. Re:Only the rich retire... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Factory workers haven't been that cheap in China on average in a long time. That's one of the reasons why China is experiencing the problems it's experiencing today. Alongside economic success, their labour is no longer as competitive as it used to be.

    6. Re:Only the rich retire... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many countries, this is actually codified into the law. For example, in China male children are required by law to take care of their parents, and if male child refuses to do so, there is significant legal precedent of parents suing the child for support and winning.

      Something awesome in France : there's a law that may allow even adult children to sue their parents for lack of support, but also a law to allow parents to sue their children just like above. These laws might have little meaning though because there is the whole "providence state" and social security and these laws or articles of law are little known.

      If you ask me? social security is no doubt awesome and was the next step of civilization, if only because your relatives might not exist, be dead or even poorer than you. But would I have loved to live with one of my grandmothers hell yes. This is why fucking North Koreans are singing on the way to work and we're drinking ourselves to a sleep or devising ways to shoot up the workplace.

    7. Re:Only the rich retire... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Considering that it also appears to be leading to innate severe decline of cultures that adapted it due to demographic realities, it appears to be a "next step" that is an evolutionary dead end at this point of history.

    8. Re:Only the rich retire... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      If my mom had a serious health crisis, the only person to take care of her would be me, and I have a full-time job. If I had such a crisis, there wouldn't be anyone, no kids, and I've already outlived my SO. So much for family.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    9. Re:Only the rich retire... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      This happened to several members of my family in the 1800's. Instead of paying 20-30% in income tax to the government to take care of the invalid, they paid 20-30% of their income to take care of their invalid relatives.

      As that's never happened (paying 30% of income in taxes for senior care) that sounds like a Libertarian riding his anti-sixteenth amendment hobby horse. Comment is further detached from reality as families don't typically consist of people having 5-10 kids anymore, and working children of retirees weren't paying five figures a year in education costs for their own children at the same time as they took care of their own parents.

  5. Retire on what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've invested as much as I possibly can in my 401k for decades. I don't eat out, I have a small home, and don't carry debt. Two stock market crashes have robbed over 2/3rds of my balances in retirement over time. Regardless of picking an exclusively index-fund, the losses have not been proportionally made up with gains. The short of it is - this is by design. The powers that be LOVE their "public good" slush funds. You're not actually supposed to collect from them, just pay in forever and then die for the good of the collective.

    1. Re:Retire on what? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Two stock market crashes have robbed over 2/3rds of my balances

      So you didn't have insider contacts that told you when to get out and maybe even short the market?

      "The time to buy is when there is blood in the streets." - Baron Rothschild

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Retire on what? by fred911 · · Score: 1

      " maybe even short the market?"

      You can't sell short and cover in a 401k. And most benefit plans have a fairly limited amount of funds available. All you can do is exit your position and get the days closing value.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:Retire on what? by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      In 2002, stocks went from 13,000 to 8,000. Currently the market is around 26,000. If you really lost 2/3rd of your money from the stock market losing 40% of its value but then tripling, you are possibly the worst investor of all time, buying at the high point possible on margin, and then selling it all at the worst possible point.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    4. Re:Retire on what? by ranton · · Score: 1

      Two stock market crashes have robbed over 2/3rds of my balances in retirement over time.

      You are either lying (most likely) or incredibly stupid. Even if you invested all your money in an S&P tracking index fund in March 2000 (just before the crash), you would have double your money today adjusted for inflation (triple your money not adjusted for inflation). The same is approximately true if you invested all of your money in September 2008.

      The stock market has done quite well over the past 20 years, although arguably it may have shown you cannot expect returns seen in the decades preceding the turn of the century. As long as you don't do something stupid like panicking during a recession your retirement savings should have done just fine during either of the last two recessions.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    5. Re:Retire on what? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      How could you possibly have lost money with a decent index fund? Did you sell and then buy again? All the indices are up considerably over pre-whatever-crash-you-want-to-talk-about.

    6. Re:Retire on what? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      You aren't allowed to use margin in retirement accounts. Also he wouldn't have bought it all at the high point, since with every paycheck a bit goes into the 401k, which means he would have bought some at the low points. He is just making shit up about his 401k losing 2/3rds.

    7. Re:Retire on what? by nealric · · Score: 1

      Did you sell on the crashes? If you bought and held a broad-market index fund for decades, you should be WAY up.

  6. Putting a stop on the promotion path. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Really the biggest problem I see, is how Gen X and Millennials are getting blocked out of their advancement tracks. When people in their 60+ are not retiring, that is creating a workforce where it is difficult to for the younger folks to advance in, because these promotion jobs are already covered by people with more experience.

    Plus the next set of problem, is these older people are not planning on retiring, so this means, they are not taking promising young people under their wing, mentoring them the tricks of the trade, to be ready to step up and continue on the work. Now these people are working to their death, without a transition plan in effect.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Crashmarik · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I did retire by selling my company. But if I hadn't why the fuck would I hand it over to a millennial or train up someone who is literally waiting for my generation to hurry up and die ?

      https://www.google.com/search?...
       

    2. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      i.e. I got mine. Fuck everyone else.

    3. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well if you were to train someone on your company, chances are better your legacy would be better intact, then selling to some corporation who will observe it, take your customers. I expect you put a lot of effort in making your company succeed to a point where you could sell it, vs going bankrupt. However with a new guy in charge, they could buy the company from you over time, but your name and legacy is in tact.

      If you are going on a Google Search as your source, you are probably not really understanding people in general. "The Hurry up and Die" is a broad generalization where they see the older workers as a hindrance to their growth. If you were to actually had took a good employee who is younger and trained them. They would be less likely waiting for you to die, but seeing you as a roll model that they look up to and respect.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When people in their 60+ are not retiring, that is creating a workforce where it is difficult to for the younger folks to advance

      This is a variation of the Lump of Labor Fallacy, and is economic nonsense. There is not a fixed number of jobs in the economy, nor a fixed number of opportunities to be productive, and late retirements do not "hold back" younger workers.

    5. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really the biggest problem I see, is how Gen X and Millennials are getting blocked out of their advancement tracks. When people in their 60+ are not retiring, that is creating a workforce where it is difficult to for the younger folks to advance in, because these promotion jobs are already covered by people with more experience.

      Plus the next set of problem, is these older people are not planning on retiring, so this means, they are not taking promising young people under their wing, mentoring them the tricks of the trade, to be ready to step up and continue on the work. Now these people are working to their death, without a transition plan in effect.

      This is really short-sighted. There may be an transition period for the initial generations, but at the end of the day there will be as many people leaving the work force as there are now. Just instead of leaving when they turn 60, they leave/die in their 80s (all numbers are just for illustration). So, yes, a given generation may spend a a bit longer in lower-level positions, they will also spend longer in higher-level positions. So the scale stretches, it doesn't slide (not the best illustration, but hopefully it works).

    6. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Damned right. You didn't build that, you little shit.

    7. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really the biggest problem I see, is how Gen X and Millennials are getting blocked out of their advancement tracks. When people in their 60+ are not retiring, that is creating a workforce where it is difficult to for the younger folks to advance in, because these promotion jobs are already covered by people with more experience.

      So much this! In addition to people being stuck in jobs because of no promotion path, it means that we would see 70 year old people in manual labor careers. They can't move up, they can't retire, so they will be trying to work manual labor as their bodies deteriorate.

      Plus the next set of problem, is these older people are not planning on retiring, so this means, they are not taking promising young people under their wing, mentoring them the tricks of the trade, to be ready to step up and continue on the work. Now these people are working to their death, without a transition plan in effect.

      We already have the beginnings of this. The bean counters have largely eliminated mentoring programs in order to reduce overhead - and usually hire more bean counters. So very often a person who does retire now will be called back into work as an emergency hire. I know I was. And in a further preview of the future, after returning, there was still no transition planned, they apparently just figured I'd keep going until I dropped.

      Screw that.

      This no retirement bullshit simply Occams out as the concept that a select group wants your money. And if the select few need your pension and other retirement money, and need to pay you at a level that makes it very difficult to save or invest for retirement, and still cry the blues about the select not having enough, I guess the next step is euthanasia when you can't "Tote that barge. Lift that bale." any more.

      The plight of the 1 percenters: https://www.businessinsider.co...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      He's not saying "be productive". He's saying "climb the corporate ladder".

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      o very often a person who does retire now will be called back into work as an emergency hire. I know I was. And in a further preview of the future, after returning, there was still no transition planned, they apparently just figured I'd keep going until I dropped.

      Screw that.

      I'm not sure why you sound pissed. You're already ready to retire, so you don't need the job. You can just keep upping the salary to whatever you want. You have a captive customer, and don't care if they find their way out of the trap.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      What are the odds that a new owner would continue the same financial returns as the founder, and that the market will stay "hot" for the next 10 years? If they aren't at least 50/50 - sell it now, because you're risking losing more money. A bird in the hand is usually worth more than 2 in the bush...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's not saying "be productive". He's saying "climb the corporate ladder".

      This is still "zero sum" thinking. It is only true if you assume that corporations don't grow, and new corporations don't form.

      A higher retirement age means more people being productive, and a BIGGER ECONOMY. This leads to more economic opportunities, not fewer.

      Furthermore, older workers tend to save more and spend less. This means more investment in capital, which increases the value of labor.

      Much of the stagnation in wages over the last few decades has been because of too much consumption, too much debt, too little savings, and too little capital investment, which has been worsened by declining workforce participation. Wage stagnation has NOT happened in countries with high rates of savings and investment.

      Pushing people into premature retirement is exactly the opposite of what makes sense. America needs higher workforce participation, not lower. We should be encouraging older people to stay in their jobs as long as they want.

    12. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither did you, snowflake.

    13. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Much of the stagnation in wages over the last few decades has been because of too much consumption, too much debt, too little savings, and too little capital investment, which has been worsened by declining workforce participation. Wage stagnation has NOT happened in countries with high rates of savings and investment.

      Err no. The overwhelming cause of the stagnation of wages over the past 40+ years is allowing an unlimited amount of legal and illegal immigration of people willing to work for slave wages.

    14. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is still "zero sum" thinking. It is only true if you assume that corporations don't grow, and new corporations don't form.

      No, it's based on the presumption that there has to be a certain ratio of management to workers at each level of a corporation and there's a finite number of people who can be at the bottom level (even if that finite number is slowly growing). Corporations aren't going to move you into a position with less workers overall (without good reason) because eventually there's no one left at the bottom to manage. New corporations will form and there will be more management positions but again you won't see management over no one. Perhaps you'll get lucky and become a manager of a staff that's wholly outsourced and the difference in cost will justify paying you more?

      Furthermore, older workers tend to save more and spend less. This means more investment in capital, which increases the value of labor.

      Unless those older workers are in isolation, what you say is mostly meaningless. Unless your idea is to fire everyone who doesn't save/isn't old as some sort of clever plot to balance things, but that's inherently contradictory. The right answer is to encourage younger workers to save more and spend less, not in some fashion try to force the balance of workers to be older savers.

      Much of the stagnation in wages over the last few decades has been because of too much consumption, too much debt, too little savings, and too little capital investment, which has been worsened by declining workforce participation. Wage stagnation has NOT happened in countries with high rates of savings and investment.

      Have you ever considered that this was intentional? The only meanings that economics in government know without spending money to boost the economy is to encourage worker spending. Companies which want ever increasing numbers on their quarterly reports want people to spend every dime they have and more. The decline in workforce participation is a result of wage stagnation, not a cause of it. Look no further than China, which has a long history of heavy savings, and their push towards getting people to spend, and they have continuous massive growth, even during "economic recessions".

      Pushing people into premature retirement is exactly the opposite of what makes sense. America needs higher workforce participation, not lower. We should be encouraging older people to stay in their jobs as long as they want.

      I would agree but for a different reason. We need to encourage older people to stay in their jobs because Social Security can't afford to pay these people, so they should keep working and paying in for those who can't work. We need higher workforce participation and more workers, in the form of immigrants. We need higher wages. We need the government and companies to stop pushing for manipulations that focus on quick fixes to the economy in the form of increased personal debt and in long term strategies for sustainability--that includes higher taxes and lower government spending.

      But, good fucking luck with that.

    15. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you right now that late retirements DO hold back younger workers. I am late to retire. If this was 1975 I would have already been retired for my age. But this is 2018 and I am in my mid 50's, I do have some retirement investments and could take those but they would dry up after a few years due to the cost of living almost anywhere in U.S. right now. So I keep working. And all those that work under/for me are waiting for me to leave so they will get their chance at my job and a promotion. The longer I sit in my job the longer those under me have to wait to get my job. They could leave and go someplace else but they too have retirements that will have to be shifted/moved into other retirement packages and they could end up losing a bunch of money. So I am effectively sitting on a pile of people just waiting for me to retire. And I too am waiting on management above me to retire as well. Upward movement and promotions are at a practical stand still where I work. And I don't see that changing any time soon. And since I don't plan to retire in the near future there is no need for me to mentor anyone to take my job.

    16. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      o very often a person who does retire now will be called back into work as an emergency hire. I know I was. And in a further preview of the future, after returning, there was still no transition planned, they apparently just figured I'd keep going until I dropped.

      Screw that.

      I'm not sure why you sound pissed. You're already ready to retire, so you don't need the job. You can just keep upping the salary to whatever you want. You have a captive customer, and don't care if they find their way out of the trap.

      Not certain why you think I was pissed. There were some specific rules about pay and the hours I could work that would limit the hours (essentially no more than 20 a week) but I eventually saw no point. Now I have taken on a very lucrative part time position - I still don't need the money, but I can buy a lot of cool toys. I still like doing some work, but there is a real coolness in knowing you don't have to.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turning it back around on you again...its the companies pushing the wages so low that the only people who are willing to take it at that rate are the legal and illegal immigrants willing to work for slave wages, and government being more than willing to look the other way as these companies recruit low wage workers wherever they can.a

      Point in case...companies that are headquartered in the US that open branches in India and slowly reduce their traditionally American white collar work force and hire more Indian white collar workers. I've seen this trend in no less than 3 of the companies I've worked for. They open a Lahore or Bangalore branch, build a big modern building and recruit heavily while American recruitment is discouraged. In fact, there are continual rounds of layoffs followed up with hires overseas for a tenth the price of an American hire.

      And the work goes completely to shit. The development team has very little home-grown dedication to the code, and in fact, the traditionally American development team is completely demoralized since they can see the trend as well as I did. Each time I saw this start, I quickly sent out my resumes and started looking for a new position. Continual rounds of meetings to clarify the requirements, and when the code from overseas is finally delivered, it barely works as long as no one sneezed.

      All the while, the corporate MBA's who came up with this brilliant plan to save money are being promoted or use this as a stepping stone in their career to the top. Why don't we just start replacing these brain donors with MBA's from India or China? See how much they appreciate seeing their high-wage positions go overseas?

    18. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      Really the biggest problem I see, is how Gen X and Millennials are getting blocked out of their advancement tracks. When people in their 60+ are not retiring, that is creating a workforce where it is difficult to for the younger folks to advance in, because these promotion jobs are already covered by people with more experience.

      I don't know that that's necessarily the case for Gen X'ers. Yes, there are Boomers still around, but as a late-Gen X/very early Gen Y, I can't say that I've noticed deserving folks in my age range *not* being promoted appropriately.

      As for the Millennials -- yes, they're having problems. I think their issue wasn't (and isn't) so much the lack of room on the promotion path as it was a late start in the entry path. Plenty of later Millennials (Recession-era Digital Natives, not the Gen Y'ers) have a retarded (technical term) work ethic and working world expectations. It's not entirely their fault -- at about they time they should have been learning about the real world, everyone stopped hiring and companies looked at productivity increasing and capital expenditure investments, followed by increases in labor costs (minimum wage, ACA, etc.... #ThanksObama) further causing issues with on ramps.

      So they decided to continue in graduate school or volunteer causes or whatever, which probably further didn't help them prepare for the working world. If you come out of your Masters program at age 24 with no work experience at all (not even at McDonalds) and a lot of debt, it's hard to start.

      Gen Xers, though? I think we're doing okay. We just get forgotten about while the Millennials and Boomers take pot-shots at each other.

    19. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Err no. The overwhelming cause of the stagnation of wages over the past 40+ years is allowing an unlimited amount of legal and illegal immigration of people willing to work for slave wages.

      Nonsense. Immigrants didn't kill unions. Immigrants didn't force CEO's to take home 500 times as much as one of their workers. Immigrants didn't force offshoring, temping, H1B's, a stagnant minimum wage, or force corporations into making their workers take massive benefit cuts while securing massive golden parachutes for their executives. Etc, etc.

    20. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be correct if it weren't for shareholders and higher-ups eating 90% of the gains in productivity and efficiency as profit. I used to work for a company that was posting record gains, while the people making the money were busy plugging leaks from 70 year old equipment that management refused to replace or repair.

      When a piece would finally die, they'd buy something used from a junkyard and fire everyone involved (except themselves). They'd hire replacements at minimum wage.

    21. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Don't be a complete dipshit. When there is an endless supply of people undercutting and willing to work either off the books or completely without the usual protections afforded labor in this country nothing you listed matters at all. Well except the red herring of CEO pay which is something that happens because it can and wouldn't have if they couldn't drive labor costs down.

      Let me know about this universe you live in where the laws of economics are repealed what's it called Earth-Venezuela ?

    22. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Hasaf · · Score: 1

      First off, I am a Gen-X'er. I remember reading an article in the Wall Street Journal when I was in High School (but I haven't been able to find that article online). The article looked that the retirement plans for Boomers and put forth that most Gen-X'ers would not move into career level jobs until they were in their 40's. I definitely say that in my workplace arch, and those of my friends.

      That runs X'ers into a couple of barriers. The first is that we are too old for most professional, entry level, jobs. The next is that because X'ers have been in, comparatively, low pay jobs, we will need to work well into our retirement age years. Then we have to look and ask, "really, who is going to hire a 70-year-old?"

      The simple facts are that our bodies are starting to slow down, yet we are still in "youth" jobs.

    23. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Wage stagnation has NOT happened in countries with high rates of savings and investment.

      You got the causality backwards there, chief.

      Countries without wage stagnation have workers who can afford to save and invest more.

      This is still "zero sum" thinking. It is only true if you assume that corporations don't grow, and new corporations don't form.

      That doesn't change that there are other positions that are currently occupied.

      Let's make a simple model. There are 100 high-level jobs that GenXers want, but are currently filled by Boomers. And we'll make 10 more of those jobs over the timeframe we're discussing.

      If we go with your work-until-you-die model, there are 10 openings for GenXers. Let's say the grim reaper has been particularly unkind, and we'll bump that to 15.

      If we go with the retire-before-you-die model, there are 110 openings for GenXers.

      Let's say your rather odd economic theories are correct, and we don't create those 10 new jobs because of those retiring boomers. So now there are....100 openings for GenXers.

      The fact that there are 10 new openings doesn't change that there are 100 filled positions.

    24. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The medium-sized company I worked for ($90 million) was acquired by a large company ($1 billion) last year. This large company just finished building their Bangalore office and is busy transitioning all their development to India, which is fine for their regular line of work (consumer statements and payment processing), but they will not be able to transition any of our team because of our direct involvement in several State and Federal contracts that require all data and process development remain in the US. I'm sure there are MBAs in the corporate office trying to find some way to make this transition, though.

      After talking with the US development team that is on the way out (slowly being replaced in Banagalore), they have not had a new American hire in over a year. As soon as someone retires or quits, they are replaced in Bangalore. And the company has quarterly layoffs (roughly 10% of the US dev team), just enough to stay under the radar, with immediate recruitment in India. From a corporate perspective, its hard to argue against the value of paying 10% the cost of a US worker. But the result has been a complete demoralization of the US dev team, with most of the top performers putting in their resignations as soon as the writing was on the wall.

      The quality of some of the code coming out of the Bangalore office is questionable too. We've had to deal with them covering some of the corporate-derived ERP software integration with the shop floor operations, and the API doesn't look anything like the documentation, only to find out that the team in charge of the documentation was one of the first that the company let go. The replacement team in India was still working on the updates, and when we asked for the drafts, the edits were in such broken English that it was almost unintelligible.

      And that was just the documentation. The software was worse. You could see the good bones of well-implemented interfaces, but all the new code additions seemed to completely ignore the interfaces and instead come up with their own implementation. And there is a lot of repetitive code. I stopped documenting all the examples of violations of the DRY principal. Needless to say, any time we have to test any of our integration points with the ERP, we keep our fingers crossed that we won't have to deal with the code.

    25. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You gotta be kidding. I worked in an old man company once. Dudes dumber than me were constantly talking to me like a child. I'd burn myselfy out trying to be good enough for the promotions my boss was talking about. Then I realized one day that there were no promotions, there never was. This also caused a generalized wage stagnation where everything was fixed roughly at late 90s pay for the area.

      All of my management was composed of guys who had shown loyalty and not skill, management was a mess of shit. My own direct manager was promoted to head of helpdesk because the CEO liked when the guy would fix his home wifi back in the 2000s, then after they needed an IT manager he was again promoted and in turn he promoted an old lady to helpdesk manager and then gave himself the title "Technical services project manager". This was because she flirted with him and they got drunk and made out (and thought it was a secret). This bitch didn't even know what an IP address or DNS server was.
      Out of all that promotion happening the only time there was a notable pay increase for any of them is when the douche went from helpdesk to helpdesk lead.
      I've talked to some people who worked there and dopucheboss was never promoted out of low level management. Those positions were filled by friends of other managers and then their lieutenants were all old friends they'd hire from old workplaces.

      I quit and within a few years I was personally admining an infra larger than my old job's entire enterprise and making more than my old douche boss. Eventually his bosses will start dying and I presume that's when he'll finally get his chance to prove himself in upper management where the pay across the entire org maxes out at 200k. Maybe, depending on how many people know he made out with that old lady and how many other people quietly think the guy is a huge douche. He can expect to be in his 50s before that has any chance of happening.

    26. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      You got the causality backwards there, chief.

      Countries without wage stagnation have workers who can afford to save and invest more.

      Nonsense. The highest savings rate in the world is in China which has a median household income about one quarter that of America. Saying they save more "because they can afford it" is ridiculous.

      The Chinese make deep sacrifices by giving up current consumption to invest in their future. Americans fail to make much shallower sacrifices, that they could easily afford.

    27. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. The highest savings rate in the world is in China which has a median household income about one quarter that of America.

      So there's this thing called "cost of living". It's just a tiny bit important when considering whether or not wages cover cost of living such that there is money leftover to save.

    28. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You aren't putting your bird into the right bush!

      Benny Hill

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    29. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      World-wide adoption of neo-liberalism is your culprit. And the various offerings of left and right wing populists around the world are the response to the realization that we've all been screwed over in the name of short-term shareholder profit. When Trump and Bernie voters stop and realize they are pissed off at the same thing, then the system will be brought down. While we blame them poor brown people, the system will stand strong.

    30. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Cost of living is controllable. You can choose to live in cheaper housing. You can choose not to drive brand new cars. You can choose not to travel to expensive destinations. You can choose to eat at home. You can choose not to upgrade your phone and TV every 2 years.

      What many Americans generally choose is to live in debt up to their eyeballs and save nothing at all. And that includes most of the highest earners.

    31. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Don't be a complete dipshit.

      Were you dropped on the head on the child, early and often? All the things I mentioned have had an infinitely greater effect on worker wages than any number of immigrants.

      Let me know about this universe you live in where the laws of economics are repealed what's it called Earth-Venezuela ?

      Let me know where there was an economic boom time in the United States when there wasn't immigration, dipper-shit.

    32. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You failed

      Don't be a complete dipshit.

      Really repeating yourself doesn't make you any less wrong than the first time.

    33. Re:Putting a stop on the promotion path. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the older workers in your world view have about as much respect for younger workers as the younger do for the olds who are just taking up space? Shocking. I presume if we pushed out the olds to make room for the young, when the young become olds they will just sigh and say hey fair is fair I remember those younger days I shall retire before I'm ready?

  7. Complete bullshit statistics !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the hell do they know that in 2050 the number of 60year old will be greater than the number of 5yr old, when those 5years old will be born in 2045 by a vast majority of parents NOT YET EVEN BORN TODAY !!!! Complete bullshit !!

    1. Re:Complete bullshit statistics !!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      How the hell do they know that in 2050 the number of 60year old will be greater than the number of 5yr old, when those 5years old will be born in 2045 by a vast majority of parents NOT YET EVEN BORN TODAY !!!!

      There's an entire branch of applied mathematics, known as actuarial statistics, that literally does nothing but figure these things all day long. And since corporations pay them a ton of money to do these projections, they've gotten pretty good at them. As in, amazingly good.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Complete bullshit statistics !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but it's important to remember that this is an estimate, not a fact. Birth rates may change due to, e.g., changes in immigration patterns.

    3. Re: Complete bullshit statistics !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope this message isn't too blunt for you, but I'm guessing that your use of exclamation marks (3 of!!!) and adjectives (complete!!!) provide insights into your thought processes:

      If you're not aware of how compellingly math and statistics can model the world, this may not be the web site for you.

    4. Re:Complete bullshit statistics !!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Sure, but it's important to remember that this is an estimate, not a fact.

      Hundreds of statisticians just read your statement and blew their brains out when they realized that their work is in vain.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re: Complete bullshit statistics !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it is and the rest of us should move on.

    6. Re:Complete bullshit statistics !!! by Kjella · · Score: 1

      There's an entire branch of applied mathematics, known as actuarial statistics, that literally does nothing but figure these things all day long. And since corporations pay them a ton of money to do these projections, they've gotten pretty good at them. As in, amazingly good.

      They're just extrapolating though, like if you look at historic fertility rates in the US you might think in the 1930s that it's around 2.0, in the 1950s 3.5 and in the 1970s 1.8. Countries have had huge "mood swings" and despite being somewhat correlated with GDP, HDI and whatnot there's a lot of variation. The rate of medical advancements increasing lifespan the next 30 years is also far from given. Maybe someone will set off WW3, that'll throw all projections out the window.

      The main reason it's almost certainly true though is that you don't need huge changes from the status quo. People live a lot longer, have kids later and have fewer kids right now, unless there's a radical shift to pop out tons of babies again it's happening. Most western social security systems were created when we had few retirees, they didn't live long on retirement and there was a booming population to support them. The essential input factors have already changed, it just hasn't filtered through the system yet.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Complete bullshit statistics !!! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Nah, the statisticians in question are actuaries. They're too busy driving fancy cars and smoking $1000 bills to read Slashdot. If one did, he'd just laugh and high five his high end hooker, knowing his job is secure.

    8. Re:Complete bullshit statistics !!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      They're just extrapolating though,

      Of course they're just extrapolations. What else could they be? We're talking about the future. We don't have any "facts" about the future. The weather report for tomorrow says "sunny and pleasant", but there could be an earthquake that swallows up my whole town.

      Actuaries take the history of a host of variables and try to make the best guess they can. They are right a lot more often than not. For someone to take a prediction and say, "Well, they don't know for sure" doesn't add anything to the discussion and can actually prevent people from making informed decisions based upon probabilities.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re: Complete bullshit statistics !!! by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I need to see data showing that they got pretty good. So far, never saw the headlines: "hey we predicted this 20 years ago correctly"

      Except for Nostradamus. That guy was a stable genius.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  8. Re:But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    While the Racist Right just blames the fact that others are taking their jobs, while they are just unqualified and not skilled enough to do the work. Also it seems these work shy Left areas, seem to have a much higher level of productivity, then the areas predominately right.

    I have seen people who are Left leaning, who are very hard workers, and often work harder then their jobs needs, I have seen Right leaning people who are also just as hard workers. I have seen Left leaning people who are lazy and just wants to get paid for minimum work, I have seen Right leaning people who are also just as lazy.

    You seem to be confusing political leaning, with other traits which are not correlated.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. SOYLENT GREEN HAD IT RIGHT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and that is the way it will be. Dump entitlements. Make the old food instead! Put Republicans BACK IN POWER and MAKE IT HAPPEN!

  11. Not the only impact by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 3

    This also will impact Medicare / Medicade, and health insurance rates in general in the USA. With the number of people over 65 quickly outstripping the people under 65, it is in no way sustainable past 2035. Per the US Census statistics, by 2030 all the "baby boomers" will be over 65, and by 2035 we will be at 165.6 million "working age" vs "retirement age" of 76.7 million...which puts the ratio at 2.15. SSA.gov says the ratio needs to be at least 3 to keep the system going; it dropped below 3 in 2010.

    There are only a few fixes for this: 1) forced births combined with forced adoptions; to increase the population AND place the kids into families capable of supporting them or 2) increased immigration; bringing in more immigrants and quickly incorporating them into the legal workforce. 3) restructuring medicare taxes by increasing the income cap, increasing the retirement age, etc.

    1. Re:Not the only impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >is in no way sustainable past 2035

      what in fact is not sustainable is the DOD spending and the amount of money flowing to the top 0.001% ers.

    2. Re:Not the only impact by gtall · · Score: 1

      2) and 3) seem doable. Well, 2) would be except for the White Fright asshole has unleashed. Not many Norwegians wish to move to the U.S. Damn, and they are so nice and white so as to not upset the locals.

      SS and Medicare should have no income caps. SS is already going to start going through an age index if it hasn't already. That should be a bit steeper. However, it will generate some big issues, not everyone can physically or mentally continue work in their later years. On the plus side, continuing to work and not falling for "retirement" as the "sunshine years" trap means better functioning blue haired and hence less in need of advanced medical services.

    3. Re:Not the only impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Missing option 4) FULL SOCIALISM for health-care.

    4. Re:Not the only impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOTO nibberland ... bitch and enjoy BulaBulaland hot-tub parties ... in the local radioactively contaminated brine you drink every day.

    5. Re:Not the only impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forced adoptions means being raised by parents that don't want you, never did, and see you a a huge burden and set of costs.

      Being raised in those circumstances is psychologically devastating.

      It makes zero sense to do that.

      Same with forced births, if the people having the babies are then on the hook for raising them.

      Will NOT work. At all.

    6. Re:Not the only impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3) restructuring medicare taxes by increasing the income cap, increasing the retirement age, etc.

      There is no reason that all the millionaires and billionaires shouldn't pay medicare/medicaid and social security taxes on their full income. It is ludicrous that those taxes stop at $132,900.

      Besides the retirement age has already gone up and is likely to go up again. For my father, the full retirement age was 65, for me it is currently 67.5 and I fully expect it to be 70 or higher before I get to 67.5.

    7. Re:Not the only impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, option #4.

      Universal Healthcare to cover healthcare costs and slowly start adjusting the requirements for full time down and the wages paid up, making sure that even minimum wage is a living wage and spreading the work around as jobs are being replaced far faster than they are being created and is accelerating.

      As it stands, we have more workers than work already, we need to spread that work around.The problem with the ratio of workers to retirees at this point is already less of a problem of not enough workers and more a function of too much money horded by the top and ensuring it doesn't spread around to ensure the economy runs smoothly.

      The biggest problem will be getting all nations on the same page and wrestling the power from the hands of the rich who measure their worth based on their income versus the rest than anything. Otherwise they will try and exploit it if possible.

    8. Re:Not the only impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are only a few fixes for this: 1) forced births combined with forced adoptions; to increase the population AND place the kids into families capable of supporting them or 2) increased immigration; bringing in more immigrants and quickly incorporating them into the legal workforce. 3) restructuring medicare taxes by increasing the income cap, increasing the retirement age, etc.

      4) expedited culling of the older population

    9. Re:Not the only impact by houghi · · Score: 1

      Another solution, besides increasing the retirement age, is to reduce the period people can use it. After 75? Off to the Soylent Green factory!

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  12. Shitty investments? by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your balanced mutual funds didn't recover since the last two market crashes? The market as a whole rebounded in an average 1.5 years after the last few crashes. What kind of dog shit mutual funds do you own?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Shitty investments? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Your balanced mutual funds didn't recover since the last two market crashes? The market as a whole rebounded in an average 1.5 years after the last few crashes. What kind of dog shit mutual funds do you own?

      And yet I know a guy who lost it all in 1999 and 2007. Then since he was in his 70's by that time, he simply retired on what was left. What is your wisdom for him? Seems that the masters of the univers like yourself are immune from aging like the rest of us mortals are not.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Shitty investments? by DogDude · · Score: 2

      Oh, you're right. If it hits at the wrong time, you can be fucked. At the same time, a year and a half to get back what you lost isn't all that bad. But, there have to be special (shitty) circumstances where somebody would have to dump their entire portfolio immediately after a crash. Most people should be able to just wait a bit longer.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Shitty investments? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The problem is you don't know that the market is going to recover that fast. Might not have a government that prints or borrows large amounts of money or might have one that actually cares about spending.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re:Shitty investments? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Oh, you're right. If it hits at the wrong time, you can be fucked. At the same time, a year and a half to get back what you lost isn't all that bad. But, there have to be special (shitty) circumstances where somebody would have to dump their entire portfolio immediately after a crash. Most people should be able to just wait a bit longer.

      What I have found to be the issue is that many or even most people are horrible with money management. Even people who are really smart. I've seen it so many times that it can't be a fluke.

      Stage 1: The 20's - They can't be bothered to save for retirement, or have some rationale that there is not point. When I was in my early 20's, the rationale was that inflation was going to make any savings worthless. Stage 2: The 30's - Baby needs a new pair of shoes. Family matters will suck up as much money as you allow it to take.

      Stage 3: The 40's - Some folks start to think about putting some money way. Many just re-fi their house to buy that awesome Escalade and fly themselves and their children and friends to Disney World YOLO, y'all.

      Stage 3: The 50's Somewhere between the early to mid 50's, these folk suddenly are confronted with the fact that they are going to be retiring. So they start saving hard. But here is where the evil sets in. They attend a retirement seminar. And the grifter H^H^H^H^H^H^ Financial consultant starts in on how they are going to be destitute unless they have at least 2 million socked away. Anything less and they will be living like paupers.

      And many of them panic, and make a lot of risky investments. They simply must turn the 50 K they have now into 2 Million if not more.

      And........ they lose a lot of money on those investments. I even know 4 people who fell for a Ponzi Scheme.

      Stage 4: the 60's Okay now, when people should be winding down, they are coming to terms with still having a mortgage, while that Escalade they bought in their 40's has been melted down and is now part of a Chinese Aircraft carrier. They look at their CC debt. Then they look at the pittance they will be bringing in on Social Security, and see that the amount won't even cover their mortgage payment. Now they are well and truly screwed.

      I always catch crap from the smart people about this, but I had 2 outside retirement accounts by the time I was 22, and then a third one before 30. Plus an inside one via employer. I paid my mortgage off in 15 years. I have no CC debt, even though I live on 2 Credit cards, paying them off every month, and making a few thou on cash back every year.

      And I retired at 55, having put the money in conservative accounts for the last 15 years or so. And it beats the living bejeezuz out of working. Full disclosure, I have taken on a part time job that pays very handsomely, that I use to buy my toys without affecting the family finances.

      I'm a firm believer that we should go back to teaching civics in school, and teaching money management as well.

      I only offer this stuff as an alternative for Slashdotters who think they will never be able to retire.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Shitty investments? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      At that point they shouldn't of had the bulk of their money in the stock market. They should have some but not most and the transition out of the market should have been done gradually in the good years between 99 and 07. I'm many years away from retirement so the vast majority of my money is sitting in the market and when things are on the way down is time to keep buying especially broad based ETFs that track the market wonderfully. In 15 years I will probably start the slow process of gradually moving it out into more secure investments. This does remind me that I should probably go and do a rebalance on things as it has been at least 6 months.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:Shitty investments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your balanced mutual funds didn't recover since the last two market crashes? The market as a whole rebounded in an average 1.5 years after the last few crashes. What kind of dog shit mutual funds do you own?

      And yet I know a guy who lost it all in 1999 and 2007. Then since he was in his 70's by that time, he simply retired on what was left. What is your wisdom for him? Seems that the masters of the univers like yourself are immune from aging like the rest of us mortals are not.

      Not be in equities that close to retirement?

      If you're 10+ years from retirement, then you can certainly be stock-focused with your positions (whether mutual funds or ETFs), but the general advice is to be bond-focused (>60%) once you're getting close-in to your retirement.

      This is the standard advice in basically all financial planning books that I've read.

      If you really don't want to be dealing with this shit, then purchase an annuity from an insurance company.

    7. Re:Shitty investments? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      At that point they shouldn't of had the bulk of their money in the stock market.

      Indeed! Unfortunately all too many people are really bad at investing.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:Shitty investments? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Not be in equities that close to retirement?

      If you're 10+ years from retirement, then you can certainly be stock-focused with your positions (whether mutual funds or ETFs), but the general advice is to be bond-focused (>60%) once you're getting close-in to your retirement.

      This is the standard advice in basically all financial planning books that I've read.

      If you really don't want to be dealing with this shit, then purchase an annuity from an insurance company.

      There are a lot of prudent and sensible ways to save for retirement.

      But as I've explained before, there are a huge number of people who are shit with money.

      They seem to think they are going to live forever, they refi their houses, they run up alot of credit card debt, then in their mid 50's they get smacked in the face that their dream of retirement is fading fast. Especially when they go to a retirement planning seminar and are told they need a minmum of 2 million or tthey might as well live under a bridge. So these foolish assholes try to figure out how to make 2 million by the time they hit 65 and live the dream.

      And since the return on what they can invest at that time needs to be stellar if damn near impossible, they panic, invest riskily, and almost always lose their money.

      I am not saying what people should do, I'm saying what they do

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:Shitty investments? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      That is true but I would say it goes farther than that. Most people are bad with money in general. A few years back I bought a lake property from a friend's parents. When I got it a number of friends asked how much I was paying a month for it and they were shocked when I told them I paid cash for it. I had been putting money away for several years specifically so I could get a property like this and one just happened to fall into my lap. Same thing with vehicles, I buy a nice used vehicles and drive them till they no longer run usually after they have over a quarter million miles on them. Yet all of my friends drive new vehicles and replace them every 5 years with another new vehicle each time spending more than I have on all vehicles I have ever owned combined.

      The secret to being rich is living below your means. Now that the house is paid off (14 years early) the wife and I are saving well over 50% of our income. This has the added benefit that when something unexpected happens, like the old AC unit shits its self like it did this summer, we can just pay for it out of pocked with ease.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  13. What's the point of retiring? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 0

    and sitting home all day doing nothing? get a part time job for the benefits and something to do to get your a$$ out of the house instead of sitting around watching TV all day and wasting away

    1. Re:What's the point of retiring? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I could literally retire right now and not run out of things to do for the rest of my life, no matter how old I may get.

      If you define yourself only by your work, I have nothing but pity for you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:What's the point of retiring? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >I could literally retire right now and not run out of things to do for the rest of my life, no matter how old I may get.

      Sounds like you have never been old and retired before.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  14. Nobody lives forever. by Pezbian · · Score: 2

    I worked for a company where a maintenance guy who was closing in on 80 and could have retired at 60 refused to leave and refused to train a successor. "If I train a replacement, I'll get replaced." (False. That would be age discrimination.)

    He ended up having a stroke and died soon after. He had never documented the hacks and workarounds that kept most of the long-since-discontinued machines running over the years and that knowledge died with him. The capital investment the company had to make after things started breaking immediately surpassed every dollar the guy made during his lifetime.

    And he had been making some damn good money.

    The machines were only part of the expense. Most of the tooling had to be remade and people had to be trained on the new stuff, plus the new stuff had to be re-qualified for some processes involving mil and medical products.

    --
    In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
    1. Re:Nobody lives forever. by geekmux · · Score: 2

      I worked for a company where a maintenance guy who was closing in on 80 and could have retired at 60 refused to leave and refused to train a successor. "If I train a replacement, I'll get replaced." (False. That would be age discrimination.)

      So, what exactly is the excuse that our prominent lawmakers have for continuing to work beyond their mental and physical capacity?

      That maintenance guy affected a single company. A lawmaker continuing to work when they shouldn't can affect an entire nation. Due to the funding issues with our Social Security program, we sadly can't afford a forced retirement policy. So, is the answer more mental and physical screenings for those who wish to work well into their golden years? The elderly will hold considerable power, so will this be deemed as some sort of age discrimination too?

    2. Re:Nobody lives forever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "If I train a replacement, I'll get replaced." (False. That would be age discrimination.)

      Oh, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.

    3. Re:Nobody lives forever. by gtall · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Congressional Doctor: Excuse me Senator, time for your yearly Mental Alertness Exam. What's your name?

      Sen: Uh...uh...

      CD: C'mon you can do it, I know you can.

      Sen: Foghorn Leghorn.

      CD: Okay, Senator Grassley, you pass THIS year, but next year you better practice harder.

      CD: Next, Senator, what is your opinion on Presidential powers.

      Sen: (eyes grow wild, much gesticulating) He can do anything he damn well pleases...errr....this will go out on a TV feed, right.

      CD: Yes, Senator Graham, Trump still loves you.

    4. Re:Nobody lives forever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (False. That would be age discrimination.)

      Yeah - and good luck trying to prove it.

    5. Re:Nobody lives forever. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't forget Senator Diane Feinstein having to be reminded by her staff if she did or did not leak the Kavanaugh accusation letter...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Nobody lives forever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the very least, he ought to have documented things to the nth degree and left the documentation with a trusted friend who would hand it over to the company if/when he was incapacitated.

      Firing someone because they are old is wrong.
      Screwing over your employer is also wrong.

    7. Re:Nobody lives forever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the very least, he ought to have documented things to the nth degree and left the documentation with a trusted friend who would hand it over to the company if/when he was incapacitated.

      No, at the very least they should have handsomely paid him (equivalent to 10+ years salary, a mass savings to the alternative) to document things and train his replacement.

      Screwing over your employer is also wrong.

      His employer was screwed over because rather than paying him a reasonable sum to document, retrain others, and retire and/or to just have replaced machines which apparently needed replaced, they kept paying one guy with critical knowledge until he died. Why the fuck, exactly, should he have bent over backwards in effort in his spare time to paper over the clearly consistent fuck ups in management that his employer engaged in?

      Some people, without even being asked, will fellatio their employer, off the clock, because to do anything less is "[s]crewing over your employer." The rest of us see argue for such pathetic to the extreme. If it's so fucking critical that people do something for a business, the business sure as fuck can pay for it and not expect or demand the charity of its workers.

    8. Re:Nobody lives forever. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It's not false at all, in many types of work and many situations. Younger personnel can often work at times, and in circumstances, that we older personnel cannot. Single personnel can often do weekend and holiday work that people who are married or have children cannot. Whether it is legally discrimination does not make it unreal, anymore than hiring junior H1-B's in place of fully qualified American citizens is not attractive to many businesses. Racial, gender, and disablity biased hiring is also illegal, but these are also common place.

    9. Re:Nobody lives forever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked for a company where a maintenance guy who was closing in on 80 and could have retired at 60 refused to leave and refused to train a successor. "If I train a replacement, I'll get replaced." (False. That would be age discrimination.)

      Buhahahaha. You are so naive. No one gives a shit. People get fired for being too old (and expensive) all day long. Only a minority of those people sue and only a minority of them win. Employers don't give a damn. Just ask IBM.

    10. Re:Nobody lives forever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the management was grossly at fault for not replacing all that equipment much earlier, and forcibly retiring the old fart then.

      Honestly, what did they think was going to happen?

      Anytime any employee makes themself "indispensible", it's time to make sure there's at least one other person who could cover their job. If they resist that, then bite the bullet and fire them now, before they have time to dig in even more. No-one can afford that kind of risk.

    11. Re:Nobody lives forever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet reality distortion field.

      Grassley asked Feinstein whether she (or her staff) had leaked the letter. Since her staff (it was forwarded from a US rep office, so it was probably only handled on a high level in Feinsteins office) that was involved in it was sitting right behind her, she asked them if they leaked it. Feinstein responded that neither she nor her office had leaked it. Grassles asked how she could know. Feinstein said because she just asked them. Grassley then went off on some tangent about how the letter was leaked and Democrats was probably to blame somehow. After a brief exchange with the staff, Feinstein explained that she did not think the letter was ever leaked (but parts of the information in it, such as Fords name). Grassley then let it go.

      In that hearing, the republicans simultaneously complaining that the letter had not been distributed to all in the Judicial committee, and that Feinstein had leaked it. In my world you have to choose. Either you complain about information not being shared between trusted committee members, or you complain about it being leaked by committee members. And if you are going to accuse someone of leaking something, you better know about it being leaked in the first place - and ideally have some corroborating evidence that the one you are about to accuse of leaking actually, you know, leaked it.

    12. Re:Nobody lives forever. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Ginsburg rarely stays awake through arguments. By any reasonable standard she would be medically retired.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  15. Seems a shame to retire-retire by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    When I eventually âoeretireâ it will probably non mean I stop working, but change the balance and kind of work I do.

    To me it seems a shame to waste years of experience and a good mind that could be used in some way to the betterment of humanity.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  16. We need the workers by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    If we curtail immigration and want a growing economy, we need elders to work longer. We should encourage a society that welcomes them into the workplace and values their experience. Elders should also respect the ambition and energy of youth and willingly step aside and assume mentor roles to allow younger people to fill senior roles. (Politicians are you listening?)

    Medical advances and knowledge (primarily the emphasis on diet and exercise) are allowing many people to be productive well past traditional retirement age. Many of these older people have the time and resources to build businesses and are job creators.

    Look at the story of Ely Callaway. After a successful career and retiring as an executive from a major textile company, he decided to start a second career by building one of the first major successful wineries in Temecula California. While most people would be proud of two successful careers, Callaway loved golf and founded the Callaway Golf company, one of the biggest names in golf. Two tremendous careers built after "retirement".

    Ageism is just plain ignorant.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:We need the workers by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Or, I'm sad to say, we could simply die off. The extension of the human life span is another reason for growing numbers of retirees. Population pressure reducing the number of births is another reason that younger workers don't enter the market as much. Women's liberation, freeing vast numbers of women to enter the market is another, especially as working mothers are more and more part of the workforce. The working mothers would not be as much of an issue if the fathers of their children stayed home to care for the children, but it remains unusual, and the parents both seem to work on advancing individual careers.

    2. Re:We need the workers by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      I recommend a driving vacation from Chicago to San Francisco; go through Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada and California.

      I find it laughable when people think out world is overpopulated. You can drive exceeding the speed limit for hours without seeing another soul. If that's not enough - look at the sky, the universe is big enough for everyone.

      e=mc2 tells us energy should certainly not be an issue. This is all a big engineering problem.

      I hope everyone can roll up their sleeves and get to work instead of taking the lazy fatalistic way out.

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    3. Re:We need the workers by Teckla · · Score: 1

      You don't need wall to wall humans for the Earth to be overpopulated.

      Look at depletion of natural resources; pollution; global warming; potential for pandemics and epidemics; ability for the human race to feed itself once the cheap oil runs out; etc.

    4. Re:We need the workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should gather the numbers and tell me the amount of acres it takes to raise a chicken. How many acres and gallons of water it takes to make a tire.

      Living space has nothing to do with the planet's carrying capacity for humans.

    5. Re:We need the workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In particular, you should visit the old Scandinavian farms of Wisconsin and Minnesota. You can feed a lot of people on a handful of nails, the occasional sawblade, and plow tip.

  17. Re:But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My job doesn't pay as much as I would like. Waaaaaaaaaaa!

    Dude, "some might call it slavery" is ridiculous. You are looking at it *all wrong*.

    Slaves cannot refuse sex. You can. Slaves cannot quit and choose a different employer. You can. Slaves cannot refuse to be beaten. You can. Slaves cannot choose where they live. You can. Slaves cannot vote. You can. Your analogy is juvenile.

    You like having things, like clothing, food, electricity? Well, somebody has got to produce all of that for you. You think THEY want to work for free? THAT would be slavery. No, you MUST give something back for all the effort they have put forth on your account. YOUR job is how YOU pay them back. The "tokens" are just a means of facilitating the exchange.

    Yes, we have a problem wherein too much wealth and power are concentrated among too few people. But your analysis of the situation is idiot-level wrong.

  18. not for me by AndyKron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Working at 80 something? I doubt I'll make it to 70.

    1. Re:not for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology and medicine are improving at an incredible rate. You will probably live to be 100.

    2. Re:not for me by tigersha · · Score: 1

      If Mick Jagger could make it to 70, so can you!

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  19. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    60 is the new 30, 80 is the new 40

  20. Social Security ratios continue to drop by TheSync · · Score: 5, Informative

    People certainly are "retiring" in terms of collecting Social Security old age benefits.

    There were about 2.8 workers for every Social Security Old Age old age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI) beneficiary in 2017. This is down from 3.7 in 1970, and 5.1 in 1960. Te ratio had been stable, remaining between 3.2 and 3.4 from 1974 through 2008, but now going down quickly.

    The Social Security trustees forecast that the ratio of workers to beneficiaries reaches 2.2 by 2035 when the baby-boom generation will have largely retired.

    1. Re:Social Security ratios continue to drop by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And note that Social Security runs out of money by 2034 - just before the ratio reaches its lowest level, meaning that SS taxes will have to be significantly increased (fewer workers paying in AND no more "trust funds" available) because it will be political death to cut benefits.

      I wish that Congress would lift the limits on IRA contributions - that would go a LONG way to making it easier to slowly reduce SS benefits over the next 20-30 years as people would be encouraged to save more of their own money up-front...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Social Security ratios continue to drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just raise the cap since only the first $120,000 of income is taxed and the rest is exempt when it comes to social security. So the rich really don't pay it.

      Start taxing all income over $250,000 a year as actual income regardless of source as well to close that loophole and Social Security will be golden.

      No need to raise the tax rate or cut benefits, just actually have the rich pay the same percentage of their overall income on it as the rest of us, problem solved.

    3. Re:Social Security ratios continue to drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Problem, just decrease the military budget by 10% and there will be more than enough money.

      1. More people are retiring
      2. cut military budget
      3. profit

    4. Re:Social Security ratios continue to drop by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The benefit of SS is also capped, based upon your contributions. Or are you saying we should continue increasing taxes but not increasing the benefits, more like a normal tax rather than a mandatory contribution retirement plan?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Social Security ratios continue to drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish that Congress would lift the limits on IRA contributions

      I wish that too, but I don't think it's going to happen, mainly because of financial industry lobbying. They have us all by the balls right now with these 401k plans chocked full of crappy mutual funds that give them the best kick backs to be "on the list" combined with high fees for us savers. Why would they support allowing people to save more in their individual retirement accounts where they can choose the custodian and the investments with complete freedom and seek out the lowest fees? They know that even with the high fees and the crappy investment choices you will be forced into their 401k game because the contribution limits on IRAs are only about $5000 - $6000 per year, depending upon circumstances, while the 401k tops out at $19,000 per year or nearly 4 times as much. Even with the higher fees and sub-optimal investment choices, the 4 times greater contribution limit for tax advantaged 401k investing is too good to pass up and the financial industry knows it. If any congressmen or women out there are listening, the best thing that you could do for individual savers would be to make the individual retirement account (IRA) contribution limits the same as the 401k limits.

    6. Re:Social Security ratios continue to drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish that Congress would lift the limits on IRA contributions

      There is nothing stopping you (or anyone, for that matter) from investing after-tax money in index funds as vehicle for saving for retirement. Granted, it's not tax-advantaged (even a Roth has better tax advantages) but the gains that you get from regular periodic investments and reinvestments are still better than spending the money or not investing it at all.

      I'm pretty sure both Fidelity and Vanguard have relatively low balance minimums for after-tax retail investing, too. (They should also have zero- or low-transaction fees for index funds as well.)

    7. Re:Social Security ratios continue to drop by TheSync · · Score: 1

      When my wife determines that it is no longer profitable for her to work because of the expansion of the Social Security payroll tax, she will drop out of her tech job and just watch the kids. Then SS gets no cash from her.

    8. Re:Social Security ratios continue to drop by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I don't know that lifting IRA contribution limits will have a noticeable affect for the country at large. I'm not opposed to raising or removing those limits, I just don't think that even half of the country would see a benefit from it. Most people absolutely suck at saving money for an emergency, let alone for retirement. Hell, I'm making enough to support a family of four on my one pay check, and I save more than 15% of that check for retirement, and I'm still not in danger of hitting those contribution limits.

  21. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never refuse sex.
    Iâ(TM)m also on /. so go
    figure.

  22. Re:But UBI? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    What's the point besides trading our time and efforts for a token created by those who would "employ" us

    Did you know that 42 million Americans are self-employed?

  23. Huh? Up 200%, 300%, 1000% by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you tracking it in ten-minute intervals and counting every little fluctuation as gain that you "lost" 10 minutes later when it went back to the price of 20 minutes before?

    The Dow is up 200% over the last 10 years, 300% over the last 20, and over 1000% over the last 30 years. Anyone who invested in index funds funds "for decades" at least tripled their money (two decades), if not a ten-fold gain (3 decades).

    If you were gambling picking individual companies, of course you could poorly. You claimed an index fund though, anyone can see what the indexes have done in 5 seconds on Google.

    Ergo you're full of shit.

    Furthermore, you claimed it was in 401K. Given a typical 50% employer match, which ALSO grew by 300%-1000%, the total return on 401k invested in index funds has been well into four digits.

    1. Re: Huh? Up 200%, 300%, 1000% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Past performance is not proof of future performance. The stock market is wildly different from
      What it was 30â(TM)years ago.

    2. Re:Huh? Up 200%, 300%, 1000% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So a few realities you need to be aware of. First, Inflation has eaten half of those gains, and most banks are considered insolvent when you look at their texas Ratios so most invesments have been hammered by too much capital which is evidenced by a fed rate near zero. Capital is not the issue, the issue is any rich person can gaslight the entire market. Furthermore, I've never worked for an employer with a 50% match, so I don't see how that's typical for the whole country. Finally, when the government doesn't put bankers in jail for giving NINJA Loans out for houses and blowing a massive housing market bubble, I see no reason to trust ERISA Laws; if the company running your 401k wants to spend the money they made on your money on hookers and blow they gosh darn can and you have no recourse.

      Finally, and especially you need to understand this. A 1% "year over year" gain is exponential. The laws of physics deem it unsustainable, although computers certainly make it easier to smooth things over.

  24. Soylent Green by evil_aaronm · · Score: 2

    We should get over the social stigma, already, and start processing the old and infirm as food for the next generation. This would solve the looming food crisis, and move older workers out of the system to create space for younger workers in the same fell swoop. /s

    1. Re:Soylent Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or us wealthier older folks could just use some of you younger ones for spare parts and helping us slow down the aging process.

    2. Re:Soylent Green by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That won't work, old people taste like arthritis cream and Viagra.

    3. Re:Soylent Green by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Just don't use that guy's brain as a spare FFS

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  25. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never refuse sex.
    Iâ(TM)m also on /. so go
    figure.

    It's easy to never refuse something that's never offered.

  26. of course no one will retire.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they keep jacking up the fra (full retirement age). that's how it's supposed to work so the republicans can keep raping social security to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy and hand out massive government contracts to their donors.

  27. Only owners can retire by DogDude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Only people who own things can retire in the US. You can't earn enough working for people to retire. You need to be collecting rent, either figuratively or literally. We're building our wealth by doing that literally... collecting rent from real estate.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Only owners can retire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since you are paying "property tax" rent you aren't really an owner, it can be jacked up enough "for the children" that you can no longer profitably subrent it and the government landlord will evict you

    2. Re:Only owners can retire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ridiculous, most of us working corporate jobs fund our retirement plans / 401k by working for someone. All of my coworkers who have retired in the past 5 years didn't have any rental houses.

  28. Unless a family member gets sick by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Informative

    or the stock market crashes and takes out your investments. Or your company outsources your job in your 50s and nobody'll hire you. Or any one of a dozen things out of your control happen.

    But it's a good thing we didn't gut the social safety net and that nobody is doing anything that could impact your plans to retire.

    I'm sure knowing all that is a real load off the old minderooni.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Unless a family member gets sick by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Did we? My mother is living on that social safety net...$900/mo social security & her Medicaid. It's not pretty, and I help her with a lot of things, but she'd be okay w/o it. She's had multiple surgeries, all covered.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:Unless a family member gets sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "$900/mo social security & her Medicaid"

      $10.8k / yr and she's "fine"?

    3. Re:Unless a family member gets sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The general investing rule is that the maximum percentage of your portfolio to have in the stock market is 100 minus your age. So at 65 only 35% should be in the stocks, with the rest in bonds, money market, etc.

      This is because while the stock market over time will bounce back from crashes you will need your funds sooner as you get older, meaning you don't want to have to sell low on your stocks in the meantime. Having the income-based investments (which can include stocks that have consistent dividends) provide the money you need for living expenses prevents having to sell low on said stocks.

    4. Re:Unless a family member gets sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife-to-be's father has to live with us because he was fired a couple years before retirement age so he had to use his 401k. Now he lives off social security as is sole income. If he didn't live with us he wouldn't be eating regularly much less able to keep a roof over his head. We originally got him into a nice cheap apartment complex, three years later they raised his rent past the point of no-return so he moved in with us. Fortunately I bought a house that could accommodate it easily. His story is all too common though and why social security is so important. We really need to get the GOP to stop fucking with it.

    5. Re:Unless a family member gets sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably lives in some bumfuck backwater that voted for Trump and thinks that a steady $10.8 equals prosperity.

  29. The may not want to retire... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... But they can't avoid dying. Henchmen! Bring the chainsaw cannon!

  30. I hate to break it to millennials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But there haven't ever been that many people that honest to goodness retire. Just because they are collecting social security does not mean they have a commensurate pension and are just twiddling their thumbs. This is yet another lie your parents and culture have foisted upon you. Surely that would be evident by the fact that your grandparents raised you, for, if anything, your parent's generation were some of the worst when it came to planning (unless you are a trust funder on the east or west coast, which in tech is entirely possible. That is still inherited wealth, not 'retirement'). Are you ready to start using your own eyes and brains yet?

  31. I won't retire by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    couple of family member illnesses hit in 2006. Then the 2008 crash wiped me out when I started getting back on my feet. By the time the Affordable Care Act's protections kicked in my career and finances were pretty well shot. Right around the time I recovered from that kid got to be college age. Of course nothing saved (even though I made 2x median income and lived like crap driving a 20 year old car). Suddenly had $20k+/year in school bills. I could borrow, but what's the point? They're gauranteed loans. I can never default. They'll just garnish my wages and toss me in jail if I can't/don't pay.

    The American working class got shafted since Clinton. The double whammy of Clinton Democrats and the GOP both siding with mega corporations against me left me screwed. H1-Bs flooded the market and my wages plummeted. I think the Berniecrats will eventually fix it, but I'm pretty sure I'll be dead by then.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I won't retire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way the 2008 crash wiped you out is if you sold everything at the absolute lows during that time. The market has recovered almost 4-fold since then, hitting all-time highs on a daily basis. Even still, whose fault was it that ALL of your accumulated wealth was wagered in the stock market? I find it hard to believe that you earned double the median average for decades and are now broke. That would take many, many seriously poor decisions. How is it now my responsibility to support you?

    2. Re:I won't retire by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      $20K for college? What State do you live in? That's about double or more of what you can find. And a decent part-time job can cover a lot of the other costs...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:I won't retire by DogDude · · Score: 2

      Tuition in a state college is about $4-5K/semester. The other half of his $20K is room, board, and books.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    4. Re:I won't retire by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Which State is that? The most expensive is Vermont, and the average nationwide is $10,000 for tuition and fees. Live at home, or share an apartment/house for a few hundred a month.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:I won't retire by houghi · · Score: 1

      It started long before Clinton. Think at least the 80-ies.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:I won't retire by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      I could borrow, but what's the point? They're gauranteed loans. I can never default.

      Did you just say that the point of borrowing is to default?

      --
      -Dave
    7. Re:I won't retire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illinois public schools are just under $30K a year.

    8. Re:I won't retire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The odds of successful graduation - especially from STEM degrees in college - goes down significantly if you don't room/board on campus with people that you share classes with.

      We expect a four-year degree at U of MN to cost $25,000/year for room, board, tuition, and fees when our kids are heading off to college in a couple of years. This matches the documentation produced by U of MN.

      (Of course, there's another discussion to be had as to why the U of MN's budget has increased by about 10% per year for the past 10 years...)

    9. Re:I won't retire by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I seem them starting at $11,000 per year. This doesn't include living on or off campus - live at home, save some cash.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  32. Re:But UBI? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    And because of idiots like you, the US will get an UBI far, far too late.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  33. There's plenty of money by DogDude · · Score: 1, Informative

    The US has plenty of money to pay for Medicare for everybody who needs it. Please don't spread the lie that it's not "sustainable". It's simply "unsustainable" if the Republicans decide they don't want to pay for it.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:There's plenty of money by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Of course there is plenty of money to pay for it, just not if it's only funded via the current payroll tax system taking into account the number of people paying in vs. the number of the people pulling money out extrapolated into future populations.

    2. Re:There's plenty of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The challenge with Medicare for All is that I do not want to be taxed into oblivion to pay for the enrichment of the medical industry. Healthcare should be nationalized. Physicians should only exist as government employees, and hospitals should only exist as federal entities. This means specialists and rehabilitation hospitals can be moved to cheaper areas, and healthcare provider can be capped to a government standard. I am not sure why I am supposed to subsidize the education and training of doctors and then pay exorbitant fees to enrich them when I am injured or sick. Fix the system. We don't need single payer. We need single provider.

    3. Re:There's plenty of money by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The challenge with Medicare for All is that I do not want to be taxed into oblivion to pay for the enrichment of the medical industry

      Then you'd really want Medicare for All. Because Medicare pays less than every private insurance company. Private insurance rates are "Medicare + x%" where x is negotiated....and always a positive number.

      We don't need single payer. We need single provider.

      The problem with this is it is ripe for sabotage by a political party that does not support it, and is using sabotage to push towards eliminating it. See: the VA in the US and recent problems with NHS in the UK. Those are entirely driven by one political party fucking with the funding of the single provider.

      Single-payer provides a relief valve in that the providers can do whatever they want, they just get paid $x from the payer. That provides less room for deliberate fuckery.

    4. Re:There's plenty of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not entirely true, or at least not the whole story. If we keep robbing Social Security to pay for things which have nothing to do with it, then yes, we have a problem. If we use the SS tax to pay only for SS, as was originally intended, then it will be solvent for the foreseeable future.

    5. Re:There's plenty of money by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      50 years of raiding the SS trust fund, the ship has sailed. Only option left is print money.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  34. Healthcare is the crisis by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    it's time to medicare lower age!

    Most countries already do this and provide public health coverage from birth. However, this is not going to fix anything and health care is the crux of the crisis with an ageing population. While 60+-year-olds can certainly be extremely productive and useful members of society they need considerably more healthcare than 18-year olds. As the population ages there are fewer low-cost young people and more high-cost elderly people and so the cost per-person is going to steadily rise.

    This is going to hurt every country regardless of whether or not they have a public health system. The difference is how the system will deal with it. In Canada and Europe we will end up with more and more taxes going into the health system and the quality of care will probably decline. In the US fewer and fewer people will be able to afford coverage and most people's coverage will likely get more and more restricted.

    1. Re:Healthcare is the crisis by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      forgot one part.

        In the US fewer and fewer people will be able to afford coverage and most people's coverage will likely get more and more restricted.

      After that ER will fill up with people will not pay and some will turn to the jail / prison to be there dockers.

    2. Re:Healthcare is the crisis by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0, Troll

      The unaffordability of health care is due to government meddling. Mandatory coverage of sex change operations raises insurance prices. Mandatory requirements for medical doctors and artificial limit of the supply of doctors raises medical care prices. Mandatory insurance raises prices because somebody has to pay the wages of insurance company employees. Government control of the pharmaceutical industry means markups in excess of 200,000% on some drugs. And on, and on, and on.

      If there were a free market in health care, people could contract for what they need, either by gambling (insurance) or directly. Prices would plummet.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:Healthcare is the crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitching about sex change operations resonates among lots of people who think the trans are at least slightly nuts, but the fact is, even if every trans person had top and bottom surgery unconditionally covered 100%, it would barely make a difference to anybody's health insurance premiums. There just aren't that many people who'd want to have it done, even IF it were totally free.

      It's kind of like how if Harvard accepts 1000 applicants and rejects 67,000, then those 67,000 find out that 10 got in through affirmative action, all 67,000 of the rejected applicants act like they were personally denied acceptance to Harvard, even though 66,990 of them would have been rejected ANYWAY (and often, the ones who get the angriest are the ones who were so far down the 'reject' list, a nuclear war could kill off the top 54,000 applicants & they'd STILL have ended up getting rejected).

      Health insurance ISN'T a free market. Nor is healthcare. Somebody who's just had a heart attack is in no position to go comparison-shopping and make informed decisions about which hospital to visit or compare costs. Nor, really, is someone who just broke their leg and has the bone sticking out (they might not die if their assistance were delayed by a few hours, but someone in agony isn't exactly in the frame of mind to make rational decisions as an informed consumer. I've broken my arm... it hurts like HELL, and you simply can't think straight about ANYTHING at that point.)

      The only ways health insurance could fairly exclude pre-existing conditions is if either:

      a) Parents could purchase a lifetime insurance policy for their newborn, financed over {N} years, with a guarantee that it couldn't be canceled as long as the monthly payments were made on time (though there would STILL be a serious problem with companies that went out of business over the course of a policyholder's life, as well as people whose parents were poor or assholes & had to somehow acquire health insurance coverage later in life... possibly, after one or more chronic conditions manifested during childhood)

      b) Health insurance worked like homeowner's insurance... the policy in effect at the time a covered medical condition first manifests has to pay for that condition's treatment for the rest of the policyholder's life. So... if some lucky person got cancer & had a heart attack within the span of a single year's policy, in theory their subsequent policies should be fairly cheap since the two biggest-ticket expenses were now the responsibility of the company that issued that year's policy for the rest of their life.

      Before you say 'b' sounds absurd, imagine how much MORE absurd it would be if a hurricane or fire destroyed somebody's house in November, and they were told that their policy would only pay for repairs completed prior to December 31... and that any unfinished repairs as of January 1 would be considered "pre-existing" by their new policy and excluded from coverage? Yet, that's EXACTLY how health insurance currently works. You can't have it both ways... if a policy only has to cover expenses during a single year, you have to provide for continuity of coverage (including issues that are ongoing as of the end of the year), since real life doesn't neatly organize itself into problems that fall neatly within exactly one calendar year.

    4. Re:Healthcare is the crisis by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      While 60+-year-olds can certainly be extremely productive and useful members of society they need considerably more healthcare than 18-year olds.
      Because they lived bad in their youth.
      There is no real reason for elderly to be less healthy than young people, if they live healthy. Look at asian countries ... especially at people who do martial arts or chi gong or yoga, don't smoke and drink moderately: except for some wrinkles they just look like a 30 year old healthy young person.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Healthcare is the crisis by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Prices would plummet.
      Why exactly? The doctor asking less per hour? Why would he do that? The nurse asking for less per hour? Why would s/he do that? The room of the doctor costs less rent? How should that be going to happen? The machinery, e.g. for a dentist, suddenly is cheaper? Or the X-ray machine is cheaper? How should that be going to happen?

      You are simply an idiot.

      Hint: all countries with mandatory healthcare insurance have cheap health care. Regardless if the insurance is free market, set by law or government sponsored or via taxes.

      Obviously the "not so free" but more or less free US system is the only expensive health care system on the world. And the most expensive one in terms of costs per treatment. You want to make it more free? And think it becomes cheaper? HA HA HA HA, you are an idiot.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Healthcare is the crisis by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You're old enough to know better.

      You can put it off, but the end is expensive and ugly.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Healthcare is the crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Hint: all countries with mandatory healthcare insurance have cheap health care.

      You clearly have never been to Switzerland!

  35. Reverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reverse is far more likely with the elderly harvesting replacement organs as theirs fail from the young. Afterall with nobody retiring how else are they going to earn enough money to have a decent standard of living?

  36. It's the single moms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I'm afraid it's not the increase of the number of single parents. The single fathers I've met in the last few decades struggle to be permitted to connect with their children, to connect with their spouses, to arrange some kind of stable home life as they approach retirement age. They have consistently been divorced by their wives, including the mothers of their children, who are "seeking fulfillment". The results are destructive to their children and to their spouses of whatever gender, race, or economic class, The increase in costs for multiple households, *which the dads or charity have to pay for 99% of the time*, drain all the funds that the greater income of the dads, or even of Social Security, might have invested in our retirement for both of us.

    You want to help your kids, more than being white or wealthy or educated? *Stay married*, even if your spouse doesn't "help you feel empowered" or fails to use the correct pronoun-of-the-week. Because, lady, when you reach the age he is now, there won't be any kids or wealthy protectors to help you. We'll be as old as you and be interested in *much* younger women. And you'll have those kids you've taken from their fathers, with no help for their fortunes or yours.

    And oh, for Pete's sake, stop with the "she has the hardest job in the world, she's a single mother!!". Yes, it's an incredibly difficult job, and it's a difficult job like getting off of crack. You chose it, now you and your kids have to live with it, and your "mom can get loans for college to study women's studies!!! mom can rely on Obamacare!!! mom can get a man if she needs one!!!" attitudes about it are dooming you *and* your kids to poverty when you reach retirement age. Because single dads die *much* younger, and having had to spend all that money on their own house and rent with no sharing. It's too late for you to get any, because they *already spent it*.

    1. Re:It's the single moms by viperidaenz · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you're old and bitter, after your wife left you for another man.

    2. Re:It's the single moms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Happened to me, happened to a stack of men of my age group and social class. No other man involved, if thee was actually another man involved I could at least take him aside and discuss reality with him. More a lot of "I don't feel empowered!!!", "How dare you fat shame me", "my guru says you prevent my enlightenment", and the like. There's a few "white knight male feminists" hanging around these women, but none of them are capable of actually supporting the kids fiscally or emotionally, and they're *certainly* not capable of putting away money for retirement for themselves, much less for mom, or emergency money for the kids. But, hey, they're "sensitive" and "feminist".

    3. Re:It's the single moms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's giving out a daily dose of red pills.

    4. Re:It's the single moms by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      They have consistently been divorced by their wives, including the mothers of their children, who are "seeking fulfillment"

      Given the massive pile of misogyny you've attempted to disguise as a post, methinks your wife left you for something a bit less trite.

  37. Kids are expensive by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Kids are expensive. I'd be broke if I had kids, for sure.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  38. You stupid man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and sitting home all day doing nothing? get a part time job for the benefits and something to do to get your a$$ out of the house instead of sitting around watching TV all day and wasting away

    You must be a fucking idiot. I have enough shit to do on my own to occupy 2 full time jobs; so do my retired parents. Retired people with half a brain easily have more than enough personal projects to keep themselves occupied without working a part-time job for somebody else.

  39. Retiring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember when I was in middle school, we were told that there would be SO MANY JOBS when we graduated we could be anything we wanted to be because all the baby boomers would be retiring. I graduated about 20 years ago and at least half the baby boomers I know are still working. Many of them cannot afford to retire. Which is making a sort of circular issue.

    Specifically, the children of baby boomers (and in some cases their children) are having trouble finding jobs. So they rely on their parents. Who need to keep working to support their families. So they never retire. So the jobs they hold on to are taken.

    I am one of the lucky ones, I've generally managed to find work, often in my field. But I find it curious and a bit sad that I'm likely to be retirement age by the time my parents are able to retire because of the lack of social safety net.

    1. Re:Retiring? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      20 years ago the baby boomer generation was 34 to 52 years old. None were of retirement age. Only half of them are of "retirement age" now, being 54 to 72 years old. Half of them should still be working now.
      Who ever told you that back in 1998 couldn't math.

  40. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Only the Left is fighting tooth and nail to tear down anyone who succeeds "too much", regulate innovation so it has to flee offshores, abolish protections for national interests, and dares to call anyone who sees the value of these things "racist".

    Citation: You.

  41. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Then become your own master, dipshit. It's really easy unless you are a total fucking moron.

  42. Re:But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    freedom wasn't implied, only choice was. choice != freedom either.

  43. intergenerational collaboration by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    [older workers] complement those of younger workers, and their guidance and support enhance performance and intergenerational collaboration.

    That may happen, but one harsh condition is that younger workers accept the idea that their elders have something valuable to share. Too often in IT we see old known problems solved again from scratch.

    1. Re:intergenerational collaboration by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      In my experience that "valuable thing to share" is all to often related some truly ancient system that should have been put to pasture long ago, but the older worker has decided to keep nursing it along and of course not documenting their myriad of hacks to keep it going. One of the first things I did out of university was documenting something like this after the developer's chain smoking had caught up with them and they'd died to assist in the effort to re-engineer this system using off-the-shelf components rather than the bespoke components they'd insisted on using.

      The usual response that I get when I bring up this story is a lot of angry comments from older people about how I supposedly helped replace the system with something worse for the sake of replacing it, but it truly as an out-of-date mess. However the new system I took part in developing, with a team where I was still the youngest and the oldest workers were in their 40s, was well documented from the get-go, way better structured and superior in pretty much every conceivable regard.

      Come to think of it... My experience with baby boomers is that they're typically very bad at documenting things. I've worked with people randing from university students to baby boomers and the latter is always the group that I find it hardest to work with due to things like no documentation, badly structured code (read: spagetti code), lacking communication skills and insistence on using deprecated APIs and libaries. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those 20-somethings that can't work with anyone not roughly their age, but for some reason I've found that people get and better at their jobs reaching an apex at some point in their 40s whereafter they start getting worse at all of things I've mentioned and by the time they reach their 60s working with them is an absolutely abysmal experience for the reasons that I mentioned. Writing code that's not meant to be maintained by anyone except you for as long as you can remember how you did it seems to be the norm and not the exception for people in their 60s.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
  44. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon, man. Don't tell me you weren't propositioned by BeauHD when he first started haunting Slashdot. He got access to the email list and started individually asking users for pictures and to meet up "IRL" - he is as much a creepy perv as the rest of the faux editors are retarded.

  45. I don't see how this will work by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    How are they going to say "get off my lawn" when there are no lawns in an office building?

  46. Re:But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trump kicked out the illegals and there are tons of jobs available. You need to look to the future instead of living in the past gramps.

    Tons of jobs, as long as you're looking for jobs picking fruit, mowing lawns, flipping burgers, or emptying waste baskets after hours in office buildings.

    The high paying jobs you wanted to come back are still in China, because everyone still wants a $99 air conditioner from Walmart.

    And the really good jobs required you to go beyond getting a high school diploma and expecting to get a job at the steel mill or the Ford plant.

    But I'm sure Twitler will bring those jobs back Real Soon Now.

  47. 'Retirement' is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you save and save and save, working your ass off your whole productive life, putting off everything you really wanted to do with your life, all for this mythical alleged 'retirement' bullshit, so that when you're old and worn out and suffering all the health effects of age plus how you've neglected your body and mental health (because you were 'saving for retirement') so you can spend it all in and out of doctors offices, the hospital, and on pills, shots, expensive prescriptions, expensive surgeries, and expensive 'recoveries', and in the interstices, too old, beat-up, weak, and diseased to actually DO anything you wanted to do when you were younger? All you can do for your so-called 'retirement' is sit on your ass and wait to die, and 'reminisce' about when you were young and strong and could actually DO things?

    Fuck that shit. Fuck it sideways with a rusty chainsaw. You know what? You're a CHUMP if you fall for the 'retirement' meme. It's BULLSHIT.
    Do what you want to do with your life NOW. Chances are, with how fucked the world is, with capitalism being perverted into what it is now, all your so-called 'retirement' funds will get siphoned off or otherwise lost before you get to use them. You'll end up with ZERO anyway. Unless you're one of THE RICH, in which case you'll be fine; you're the ones doing the siphoning of everyone else's money anyway.

    It's not like you can take it with you anyway. You should have precisely ZERO when you die. Live your lives NOW while you're young, strong, and there's still a world where you can do things. 'Retirement' is a myth.

    1. Re:'Retirement' is bullshit by ledow · · Score: 1

      Welcome to "why you should have actually voted for things like Obamacare", or even better, a national healthcare system where insurances play no significant part.

      I have sat and worked out my pension. If I live to 68, I will be given a pittance so small that it's not worth anything *now* let alone later. There is literally no way to live on what I'll be given.

      And I don't own property because it's so incredibly expensive that it's all-but impossible to do so on your own, even though I earn way more than the average worker.

      I chose early on in my professional career to therefore ignore anything and everything to do with retirement, saving or anything else. It's just not worth worrying about and, at best, would "take the edge off".

      Instead I paid my taxes religiously, worked decent jobs, never had a day unemployed IN MY LIFE. So I may call that back later if I ever need it, via social benefits, like some people do who have done none of those things in their entire life.

      Literally, it's just not worth the time thinking about it. I'm going to get nothing for all that. And retirement etc. works only if you have had partner and family for most of your life - then at least you might get a mortgage, own a place, have spare cash enough to save or things to sell later, inheritances coming down to you, children helping you out, etc.

      Basically, I'm fucked.

      But I will never have to pay for basic healthcare.

    2. Re:'Retirement' is bullshit by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      It might be that you have unrealistically high expectations for a standard of living. If you currently live somewhere that the cost of living is very high, getting out of there upon retirement should be one of your first steps. I live somewhere that is already pretty cheap, and plan to be somewhere even less expensive when I retire. Even with living somewhere cheaper I plan to downsize my living space considerably by then. Provided you can prepare your own food and can minimize ongoing expenses it should be quite possible to get by on a minimal income. I support a family of four on my wages, and I've got friends that have combined earnings similar to mine that have larger families.

  48. Re:ROFL!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and lots of Funko Pop! figurines under my futon!

    I kick myself for not hoarding Hot Wheels cars when I was a kid in the 70s.

  49. Re:But UBI? by murdocj · · Score: 2

    If you don't want to work, don't work.

  50. Or you could just write OSS software by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    or volunteer. Or get involved in politics. Or play video games. Or build model airplanes. Or teach a community college class. Or do any one of a million things folks can do when they're not working all the time. There's plenty of ways to be relevant w/o working full time.

    Yes, there are some folks who don't know what to do with themselves if they're not working. But they myth that most folks are that way is, well, a myth. One I suspect the wealthy put in our heads like the old "Idle hands are the devil's plaything" bullshit.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  51. This is easily fixable by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    See here. Folks underestimate just how productive modern workers are. If anything we need fewer folks working, not more.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  52. Hot Wheels by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    You mean anticipating by 30 years which ones will be really valuable, and buying then storing them in conditions where the acid cardbord box stays pristine for 30 years...

  53. Re:But UBI? by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The option is to go back to existence before such tokens were invented.

    It was utterly brutal. Most children didn't make it alive to reproductive age. If they did, females were stuck doing nothing but doing the procreating for as long as their bodies held together, because if you wanted any security should you survive, you needed to have enough children alive at the end of your procreative cycle that survivors would be able to take care of you in addition to their other responsibilities. Because when you lack such tokens, there's no handy way to monetize any skills not directly related to either surviving, or supporting the immediate surviving. "Ideas, inventions and contributions" that did not serve such people were simply ignored as useless.

    Invention of money is one of the key breakthrough of human societies that allowed us to invent the "monetizing the future" aspect of work. Which meant that work that didn't have immediate impact on survival became doable without starving to death.

  54. Wrong. We're not wanted. by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the workplace, they provide emotional stability, complex problem-solving skills, nuanced thinking, and institutional know-how.

    Whether that's true, in the tech halls they DON'T actually want us. They throw us out for the latest naive fad lickers they can find. IT is based more on fashion than science & logic*, and younger people are stupid enough to fall for and act sufficiently enthusiastic about every trend that comes under a PHB's nose.

    Yes, there are exceptions, but I don't wanna hear them; and git off my lawn!

    * I rarely see any solid studies that the newer shit is better, only babbling theory that sounds nice on paper. It's always keep up with Jones' first, science later.

    1. Re:Wrong. We're not wanted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried that but it wouldn't let me. It just told me the following:

      git: 'off' is not a git command. See 'git --help'.
       
      The most similar command is
              diff

      Maybe you should git help?

    2. Re:Wrong. We're not wanted. by Targon · · Score: 1

      That has been going on since the 1990s. Unless you are a manager, being older is a curse when it comes to the job market.

  55. What an abitrary "crisis"... by Fringe · · Score: 1

    In general, corporate leaders have yet to invest the time and resources necessary to fully grasp the unprecedented ways that aging will change the rules of the game.

    According to the BLS, the average employee is at a company less than five years. So...

    1. Management really doesn't have to worry about this yet.
    2. This management will be long gone by the time it matters.

    Ten years ago, the software industry seemed a bit age-discriminatory, but even that appears to have reduced... for which I thank the participation awards given to fledgling Millenials, as they do seem to lack the confidence to try something that might not work, while expecting a Director or better position inside of two years. (This isn't their fault; I've hired several initially-entitled Millenials, and all but one turned it around within two years... but it does take work.) So as the young worker-pool shrinks and the experienced pool increases, I suspect adaptation will just happen. On a case-by-case basis until it's normal.

  56. It's actually more by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Tuition was $12k/year for years 1&2 and $16k/yr for the last two. Then there's books, food, rent, the car (got by w/o one for the 1st 2 years but after that she's got Clinicals for Nursing and unless she's got some sort of mutant teleportation power I missed all these years it's physically impossible to get from one to the other in time. They're across town. By bike it'd be an hour, by bus 2 hours). All told it's around $35-$40k/yr (depending on the year).

    I could save about $6k/yr if she lived at home, but I'm pretty sure she'd go stir crazy and do something stupid like try to get a job while going to school full time. It was made very, very clear by her counselors that the surest fire way for a kid to drop out is for them to try and work during their 300+ level courses. It'd be one thing if she could find a cushy job, but the one she found she had to quit because it conflicted with her school schedule. Oh, that's another thing. You don't pick your schedule like you did when I was a kid. They tell you what your schedule is and if you can't get to class then fuck you, drop out and go work at Walmart. There were 200 other kids in line for her 300 level courses this semester rocking 3.8 or higher GPAs, so they've got plenty of kids to replace her.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's actually more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just stupid. Why not skip college and go get some work experience instead?

      If she's going to be that in debt to start her career maybe she doesn't need education but needs just plain don't be stupid advice.

    2. Re:It's actually more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am curious as to why parents today feel compelled to pay for their kids to go to college. I graduated from high school in 1979 and my parents didn't pay for me to go to college. I had to pay my own way. And I worked full time. And I carried a 4.0 gpa, and yes, it was tough. They also didn't pay for my extracurricular activities in high school. Nor did they drive me to said extracurricular activities.

      Did I miss the bus on "good parents?"

      I payed for my ex-husbands law degree through working. Note he is my ex husband. Once he got his law degree, he didn't want anything more to do with me. However, he took with him his undergrad and graduate student loans. I graduated with no student loans. And his law degree was gratis from me.

      Are we all entitled to have someone else pay for our education? I really am curious about this.

      Regards,
         

  57. Those number get skewed by Community Colleges by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    major public universities are well north of $12k after fees. Community colleges OTOH are dirt cheap, but you won't get nearly as good a job with one.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Those number get skewed by Community Colleges by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Then maybe not major universities? A solid 4 year university should be considerably less...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Those number get skewed by Community Colleges by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Comparing the community college and the state university in the town I'm in ... unfortunately the COL stuff is a tad whacky since apparently this site figures you to live in a dorm if you are at the university vs. off campus housing at the CC (no dorms anyway...)

      http://www.collegecalc.org/col...
      http://www.collegecalc.org/col...

      Basically for the cost of one year tuition (much less books, etc) at UF you can get your complete AA at SF, which UF will honor 100% and so you will have no lower division gen-ed stuff to worry about.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  58. But on the brighter side... by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    in 30 years it won't matter. All those old people will be dead.

    1. Re:But on the brighter side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had/have relatives who retired at 65 and kept on going until they were in their mid to late 90's.

  59. I know at least one by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    72 year old who should have retired years ago.

  60. Re: But UBI? by lucasnate1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many of these self employed are actually employed by someone who makes them mark as self employed in order to evade some regulations?

  61. Re:But UBI? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll bite.

    I'm what most people would refer to as a communist, I'm actually a pragmatist. I believe that everyone should do their part and the ecosystem of the economy should be built to facilitate that. This means that publicly funded medicine is required because people have to be healthy to work. This means publicly funded schooling because without an education, I might as well just replace a person with a machine. I also believe strongly that most jobs are simply not worth paying a proper salary for, so the government has to be in a position to subsidize those workers since in a free market, why would I waste my time and money to employ someone if there's no possibility of making a profit?

    Also, I make a lot of money compared to most. I also pay 50% tax plus another 25% sales tax on most things I buy. I still have more disposable income that most.

    I just came to work at 2am on a Monday morning. I worked Saturday, I worked Sunday, I work pretty much all the time. I'm certainly not work shy. I raise my children with three core beliefs.

    - Treat other people the way you would want to be treated if you were them. (this is an enhanced version of do onto others since not everyone is the same)

    - If there's work to be done, don't try to figure out who to put on the job. Do it. If that means standing in a pile of shit with a shovel to make fertilizer, start shoveling but make sure to have a few more shovels around. When people see you... a person they will hopefully see as being "above that station in life" with a shovel working, they'll ask "Why are YOU doing this, surely you can get someone else to" and they'll respond "The job needs to be done and I had a shovel." and some people will realize... if for no other reason than being embarrassed to do otherwise will grab a shovel and help.

    - Nothing has ever been accomplished through competition that could not have been done better through cooperation. When we chose to go to the moon, it was a great achievement, but we would have done it faster and better if we combined the minds of the Americans and the Russians instead of having them work relentlessly in private from one another. If you absolutely must compete, try to outwork your competition and achieve more than they do. With competition as your motivation, we sent people to the moon... and we stopped because we won and said "screw it". With cooperation, we put a space station into orbit and it's been there A LONG TIME and keeps getting better. It has been a major contributor to further cooperation that will bring us back to the moon and further on to Mars because we've cooperated to find a common cause. Never use competition as a motivation. It's ok to measure your performance in comparison to someone else. It's also ok to be proud that you are doing well. But it is NEVER acceptable to compare yourself to someone else and consider yourself better than them because you have managed to achieve more. Instead, it makes it your duty to help them increase their capacity.

    Economics are substantially more complex than "If this then that". Elderly can't retire because people don't die. That's a far accurate though grossly incorrect observation. We all need to work because we all need money. We all need money to become worth less to allow us to digest the high debt we incur to buy things which used to be much cheaper when people needed less money. Inflation is a necessity to allow people to prepare for retirement.

    I bought a house 15 years ago for about $400K at today's exchange rate. My neighbor with precisely the same house (they're town houses) sold theirs for $900K this past week. The house hasn't doubled in size. The neighborhood didn't get an attraction to increase demand. The house simply increased in monetary value because the money has deflated in value by a considerable amount. In fact, the house is really worth less since we bought the houses brand new and now they're 15 years old with wear and tear on them. People paying $900K would have paid a million except they nee

  62. Several orders of magnitude off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Hundreds of statisticians just read your statement and blew their brains out when they realized that their work is in vain.

    Thanks for demonstrating how bad predictions work :)

    What actually happened is that you got someone with a math degree (yours truly) to slap their forehead.

  63. Re:But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    High taxes on cheap Chinese shit will level the playing field. I wouldn't worry about it unless you're Chinese or a Demonrat in their pockets.

  64. Re:But UBI? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    Just who do you think is filling those wastebaskets? Robots?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  65. Re:But UBI? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

    I also believe strongly that most jobs are simply not worth paying a proper salary for

    A job not worth paying for is a job not worth doing; it's something the result of which is less than the resources consumed in doing it. It's not worth doing; it's a drain on humanity. It's something that should not be done. It's something that will be done, over and over, if government controls the economy.

    The same sort of foolishness pervades the rest of your post.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  66. Re: But UBI? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

    So it's impossible for you by logical inference.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  67. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing i was able to retire at 50. I still do side IT work to keep busy.

    -geekpoet

  68. Re: But UBI? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Yes. I see them all the time holding a sign saying "Please Help." on the median. The cops run them off a lot though because free speech isn't really a thing anymore.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  69. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May I vote for you in 2020?

  70. My Dad had his retirement wiped out by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    Yes, the Dow is up a lot over time. But as a worker you don't invest the full amount of your retirement savings 20, 30 or 40 years ago. You put a little in each year. You put less in at the start of your career because, well, you probably earned less. Meanwhile inflation and fees eat away at that little. Matching funds compensate for some of it.

    The real problem is the cyclic nature of our economy. We have a boom/bust about every 8-12 years. e.g. there's been a major crash every 8-12 years since I was born. My Dad's retirement happened to land during one of those crashes, and the way most retirement programs are structured if you retire during one of those busts you get screwed.

    The inventor of the 401k is on record saying his program is being abused. That it was never meant to replace pensions. That it was a tool for high income earners to shore up their savings. This is because even he understood that the stock market is a gamble. You're not gambling on companies. You're gambing on when the next crash is gonna be.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:My Dad had his retirement wiped out by Drethon · · Score: 1

      And the crashes on average come every 10 years or so (looking for the next one soon, riding it out again). When you are within 20 years of retirement, time to have a good chunk of your retirement out of the stock market, at 10 years from, better have anything you need for the next 10 years at least out of the stock market. I'm over 20 years away at the moment and have less than recommended in stock, in fact I will probably shift more away soon.

    2. Re:My Dad had his retirement wiped out by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I plan to keep nearly everything in the market even once I retire. I'll put 2 or 3 years worth of money in stable investments like treasuries. The rest of the money can stay in the market earning higher gains. Every month when I get my allowance from the stable account I'll replace it with money from the market portion, unless the market has crashed within the last year or two. If we have a crash the stable money should be relatively unaffected and provide for my needs while the market recovers. Depending on how large my 401k is when I retire, I might opt for more like 5 years worth of safe money.

      The only reason I can see for people to put the majority of their investments into low earning low risk stuff as they near retirement is if their plans need them to have a huge wad of cash at retirement. Perhaps they want to purchase annuities or buy a small island.

  71. Actually... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Slaves cannot quit and choose a different employer. You can.

    Actually, there are plenty of people who cannot withstand a disruption in employment. This is a problem that UBI seeks to fix.

    Slaves cannot choose where they live. You can.

    Actually, some people do not have enough money to move. This is a problem that UBI seeks to fix.

    You like having things, like clothing, food, electricity? Well, somebody has got to produce all of that for you.

    Actually, automation has gotten to the point where the efforts of a dozen people can feed thousands of people. It won't be long until it's down to just one person. Clothing is almost entirely made by machines. Electricity? Well damn dude, that shit is provided by the Sun.

    You think THEY want to work for free?

    You do know that some people do things just for the betterment of the world right? I write code and give it away so that other people don't have to.

    No, you MUST give something back for all the effort they have put forth on your account.

    Who said people didn't want to give back? If you provide people with that which they need to survive then they can make better decisions about their future.

    Yes, we have a problem wherein too much wealth and power are concentrated among too few people.

    And what is your solution to this problem? Should we just hope the wealthy have a change of heart? We tried labor unions and look what happened to those. You are standing in the way of progress. Be careful because it may run you over and drag you with it.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Actually... by yes-but-no · · Score: 2

      Yes, we have a problem wherein too much wealth and power are concentrated among too few people.

      And what is your solution to this problem? Should we just hope the wealthy have a change of heart? We tried labor unions and look what happened to those. You are standing in the way of progress. Be careful because it may run you over and drag you with it.

      Those in power want to have power. It's basic human nature or rather power's nature to ensure power exists and not annihilate itself into thin air, just like in nature xyz wants to ensure the existence/survival/expansion of xyz (itself).
      As long as a human enjoys pushing down another human, we will have the power pyramid. You can automate everything, still you will find a human doing power-play on another human (likely this game will go on eternally) like controlling the other on how the other spends his/her time/attention/energy.
      The only way a slave becomes a non-slave is when this alone becomes his/her goal - n becomes the goal (ie becoming a non-slave; it's even ok to die free but not continue this being a slave)

    2. Re:Actually... by Optic7 · · Score: 1

      Clothing is almost entirely made by machines.

      You appear to be misinformed on this, or your claim was unclear. If you're speaking of manufacturing textile cloth, i'm pretty sure that is extensively automated. But (nearly?) all clothes that we buy today are still sewn by human hands.

      Here are a couple of sources (from last year, couldn't find anything newer on a quick search):
      https://www.economist.com/scie...
      https://www.fastcompany.com/30...

    3. Re:Actually... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      But (nearly?) all clothes that we buy today are still sewn by human hands.

      This is a merely a matter of cost optimization. It's a better short-term business decision to exploit cheap human labor in foreign countries than to invest in automation that will only pay for itself over the course of 20 years. Simply change the rules so that minimum wage applies when outsourcing to other countries and suddenly they will automate it because it will be the cheaper option.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  72. you're looking for scapegoats by DavidMZ · · Score: 1

    couple of family member illnesses hit in 2006. Then the 2008 crash wiped me out when I started getting back on my feet.[...] The double whammy of Clinton Democrats and the GOP both siding with mega corporations against me left me screwed. H1-Bs flooded the market and my wages plummeted. I think the Berniecrats will eventually fix it, but I'm pretty sure I'll be dead by then.

    Don't blame the H1B. The horrible money-extracting system American people call "heathcare" is at the source of your situation. It is leading more workers to bankruptcy than any single-payer system that is the norm in other OECD countries.

  73. Decling birthrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reliable sources claim that the World's birthrate is declining below the population replacement level. This means we can look forward to a reduction in human generated pollution across the globe. It means that women are getting smarter.

    It means that we don't have to double our global food production every couple of generations.

    It means that we don't have to have regional wars over water scarcity in the future.

    It means that the consumer oriented economic model will fail in the end, because the total number of consumers will decline. It means that the World will have to migrate to some other economic model, yet to be determined.

    Fewer and fewer people aged 18-65 will be supporting more and more elderly people over the age of 65. Consequently, China has changed its population policy to allow a women to have two children, instead of one.

    Over the past decades the United States and Western European countries have relaxed their immigration policies.

    With jobs being lost to automation, it doesn't make sense that advanced economies should be alarmed by the prospect of having more and more robots supporting fewer and fewer people.

  74. Fuck that-DevOps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Humble Bundle DevOps.

    https://www.humblebundle.com/books/dev-ops-oreilly?

  75. It's calling a spade a spade by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    The horrible money-extracting system American people call "heathcare" is at the source of your situation.

    Insurance is a ripoff, but it's not suppressing people's wages. H1B's are, by increasing the size of the labor pool so corporations can pay their work force less money.

  76. Re: But UBI? by war4peace · · Score: 1

    The answer ranges from "zero" to "all of them". There you go.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  77. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation please?

  78. Re:But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To have an intelligent discussion, we need to dispel some common misconceptions.

    1) Much is said about "jobs Americans won't do" and "who is emptying your trash cans and sweeping the floors after hours". People seem to have forgotten that such jobs have historically been how many people - particularly those who don't get a college degree - first enter the workforce. Such jobs don't pay very much because the value-per-hour isn't worth very much, but it gets people started and gives them experience from which they can grow. What other kind of first job do you expect a high school dropout, or a fresh immigrant just learning English, to get?

    2) These entry level jobs are not (necessarily) supposed to earn a "living wage". Their very name describes their function - they are starter jobs to give the young and the as-yet inexperienced a chance to get started in the workforce and gain experience. By definition, entry level jobs are not supposed to be the pinnacle of your career, but the start of it.

    3) Trying to "fix" item #2 above by artificially biasing the pay for entry level jobs (often called "minimum wage") simply makes the young and the as-yet inexperienced **legally unemployable**. Artificially defining a "minimum wage" does not suddenly, magically make their labor worth a certain amount per hour, and no reasonable business operator is going to pay more than something is worth, so the effect of a "minimum wage" is to legislatively create a group of people that employers cannot legally employ. If you're in a rural environment, this probably doesn't matter so much because there are always odd jobs around ranches, farms, and agricultural operations that can use raw manual labor (which, if they are entry level candidates, is all they really have to offer until they gain the aforementioned experience). But what happens when you make it illegal to hire inner-city people in their teens and early-20's? What alternative opportunities will they be forced to turn to? Is creating a legally unemployable class of teens and 20's REALLY the best way to help inner-city youth who might otherwise be ready and eager to enter the workforce?

    I totally understand the desire to help those who are in the lower tiers of the workforce. But nothing about that situation is new. Even before the industrial revolution teens and young adults had to start somewhere, and that somewhere was generally what folks like to call "menial labor". There was no shame in such jobs; they were the pathway to greater things. And until recently absolutely no one anywhere claimed such jobs were meant to "support a family" or be a "career".

    We need to stop mischaracterizing the role of entry level employment, and GET OUT OF THE WAY of teens and early-20's who need and want such entry level jobs by not artificially pricing them out of the market. They will go a lot farther a lot faster if we let them take these "menial jobs" and grow them into something that CAN support a family and be a career, just like countless generations of their predecessors did.

    Rant away if you wish, but just because your really want your misguided psuedo-political fantasies to be reality doesn't make them so.

  79. The difference in generations by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    Back in 1986, there was a hit song, "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades", by Timbuk3
    In 1990, there was "I'm Free" by the Soupdragons.

    Decidedly hopeful songs about the future.

    In 2016, the song "Stressed Out" by 21 Pilots was a radio hit.
    In 2013, the song "Royals" by Lorde was a radio hit.

    Much darker outlooks about the present and the future.

    Economists are looking for easy answers. I always chuckle when Krugman goes to his IS-LM graphs and equations, and I think, "You really believe those describe the entire system?" The reality is simple yet difficult and chaotic. Unless you're creating things that people value, like Germany for example, you're not going to have an improving standard of living. But economists can't control that - politicians do. And there's a chaotic element about whether your population will be able to create things that improve the standard of living. Economists can only print money and inject it into the financial sector and government, and hope it has a beneficial effect on the economy. But it doesn't. The economy grows around those sources of money, which aren't geared towards addressing people's needs and wants. They wonder why productivity hasn't improved.

    I saw a really interesting debate between David Frum and Steve Bannon ("The Munk Debates" series) about whether populism is the future. Frum was arguing for the old, happy talk globalist (37 genders, open borders and the US as the world policeman) system which held sway till about 2008. Bannon said the future belonged to populism, and the only question is whether it will socialist populism (Bernie Sanders), or capitalist populism (Trump).

    Capitalism with controls was good because it was self-sustaining and self-organizing. The value you provided was in line with the remuneration you obtained, with minimal interference by political gatekeepers, who can be easily corrupted. But as the production of value becomes more and more consolidated, as the production of value is off-shored, and money corrupts/warps our political system, gatekeepers have grown in power (via crony capitalism and socialism for the wealthy) and they are not like AI's - they are highly influence-able and corruptible. As in any system where a gatekeeper hands out largesse.

    I think going forward, there's a strong push towards socialist populism. Unless we can come up with a system that is again self-sustaining and self-organizing that allows people to create value and which fairly pays people for their labor. The view is dimming for the latter.

    1. Re:The difference in generations by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I always chuckle when Krugman goes to his IS-LM graphs and equations, and I think, "You really believe those describe the entire system?"

      Considering he always says it does not describe the entire system, that's a rather odd thing to say if you're actually reading what he writes.

      . The economy grows around those sources of money, which aren't geared towards addressing people's needs and wants. They wonder why productivity hasn't improved.

      Except productivity has improved. The US, despite that whole "death of manufacturing" thing, is producing 3x the goods we made in the 1980s.....we're doing it with a lot less people because productivity has vastly improved, which is the one of the primary sources of that "death of manufacturing" thing.

      I think going forward, there's a strong push towards socialist populism. Unless we can come up with a system that is again self-sustaining and self-organizing that allows people to create value and which fairly pays people for their labor. The view is dimming for the latter.

      So, your first option is to invent a new economic system that will be highly stable because.....reasons.

      Your second option is democratic socialism as practiced by most of Europe. Including Germany that you laud as successful in your post.

      There's precisely zero reasons we can't do the latter in the US. The barrier has been the "Me Generation". And they're gonna die soon.

    2. Re:The difference in generations by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      I always chuckle when Krugman goes to his IS-LM graphs and equations, and I think, "You really believe those describe the entire system?"

      Considering he always says it does not describe the entire system, that's a rather odd thing to say if you're actually reading what he writes.

      Krugman's NYT column is called "The Conscience of a Liberal." Nate Silver and Krugman had a public dispute when Silver left the NYT to form FiveThirtyEight. Silver said, about Krugman, "Plenty of pundits have really high IQs, but they don’t have any discipline in how they look at the world, and so it leads to a lot of bullshit, basically,” Silver said in that interview."

      Economic models are data fit to curves. See the 'Philips curve' and 'the breakdown of the Philips curve'. However, this data exists in the context of other systems. "All Models Are Wrong" of course, but it seems to me many economists don't appreciate the error in their models and are willing (and paid) to make grand pronouncements based on highly error-filled models. Often in support of one social narrative or another.

      . The economy grows around those sources of money, which aren't geared towards addressing people's needs and wants. They wonder why productivity hasn't improved.

      Except productivity has improved. The US, despite that whole "death of manufacturing" thing, is producing 3x the goods we made in the 1980s.....we're doing it with a lot less people because productivity has vastly improved, which is the one of the primary sources of that "death of manufacturing" thing.

      Yes, it has since the 1980s, but it started stalling around 2005, and that is the point of curiosity. Here are other links. This is a basic, widely discussed topic.

      I think going forward, there's a strong push towards socialist populism. Unless we can come up with a system that is again self-sustaining and self-organizing that allows people to create value and which fairly pays people for their labor. The view is dimming for the latter.

      So, your first option is to invent a new economic system that will be highly stable because.....reasons.

      No, not because 'reasons'. Because of its fairness and resistance to corruption, cronyism and favoritism. A system which is self-organizing and automatically rewards people based on their contribution would be fair; but then it could lead to vast swaths where people cannot contribute anything of value because offshore labor or machines can do it more cheaply and efficiently. That would be bad for humanitarian reasons and it can lead to social unrest.

      Your second option is democratic socialism as practiced by most of Europe. Including Germany that you laud as successful in your post.

      There's precisely zero reasons we can't do the latter in the US. The barrier has been the "Me Generation". And they're gonna die soon.

      Don't conflate all of Europe as one.

      We don't want to emulate France, Spain, Portugal. They have high unemployment and lower standards of living and more volatile economies. We're not like Norway in which we basically rely on vast oil deposits for our national wealth. Not in Europe but

    3. Re:The difference in generations by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Krugman's NYT column is called "The Conscience of a Liberal." Nate Silver and Krugman had a public dispute [mashable.com] when Silver left the NYT to form FiveThirtyEight. Silver said, about Krugman [talkingpointsmemo.com], "Plenty of pundits have really high IQs, but they don’t have any discipline in how they look at the world, and so it leads to a lot of bullshit, basically,” Silver said in that interview."

      Economic models are data fit to curves. See the 'Philips curve' [google.com] and 'the breakdown of the Philips curve' [google.com]. However, this data exists in the context of other systems. "All Models Are Wrong" [google.com] of course, but it seems to me many economists don't appreciate the error in their models and are willing (and paid) to make grand pronouncements based on highly error-filled models. Often in support of one social narrative or another.

      Hey look! Chaff!

      That's an awful lot of words to avoid facing that Krugman repeatedly says his simplistic models are not complete and not supposed to be complete.

      Yes, it has since the 1980s, but it started stalling around 2005, and that is the point of curiosity.

      It's not all that curious. There are plenty of plateaus in productivity in our history. Finding one, especially in an asset bubble that was sucking up a ton of capital, is not all that weird.

      No, not because 'reasons'. Because of its fairness and resistance to corruption, cronyism and favoritism.

      That you can not actually design beyond high-level platitudes.

      Don't conflate all of Europe as one.

      Don't skip over the word "most".

      So that leaves Germany.

      You apparently think Europe consists of 6 countries, one of which is located in South America. Also, you want to warn people to not over-generalize Europe.

      We're not as homogeneous as Germany for sure, or even the UK so our population has a different temperament, values and intelligence

      And why am I not surprised racist bullshit appears.

      Socialism is highly corruptible because there are gatekeepers who play a large role in distributing social wealth

      And why am I not surprised you are unable to differentiate Social Democracy and Socialism because of the name.

    4. Re:The difference in generations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Krugman's NYT column is called "The Conscience of a Liberal." Nate Silver and Krugman had a public dispute [mashable.com] when Silver left the NYT to form FiveThirtyEight. Silver said, about Krugman [talkingpointsmemo.com], "Plenty of pundits have really high IQs, but they don’t have any discipline in how they look at the world, and so it leads to a lot of bullshit, basically,” Silver said in that interview."

      Economic models are data fit to curves. See the 'Philips curve' [google.com] and 'the breakdown of the Philips curve' [google.com]. However, this data exists in the context of other systems. "All Models Are Wrong" [google.com] of course, but it seems to me many economists don't appreciate the error in their models and are willing (and paid) to make grand pronouncements based on highly error-filled models. Often in support of one social narrative or another.

      Hey look! Chaff!

      That's an awful lot of words to avoid facing that Krugman repeatedly says his simplistic models are not complete and not supposed to be complete.

      Krugman: "In the aftermath of the Great Recession, I went with my models and they always worked!" Unfortunately he missed biggest economic event of the past 80 years, the Financial Crisis while a few others did not (side note, he had a feud going with that guy who predicted it).

      Yes, it has since the 1980s, but it started stalling around 2005, and that is the point of curiosity.

      It's not all that curious. There are plenty of plateaus in productivity in our history. Finding one, especially in an asset bubble that was sucking up a ton of capital, is not all that weird.

      You're surprisingly making a bit of sense here. But your assertion that this is not a puzzle in economic circles is wrong.

      No, not because 'reasons'. Because of its fairness and resistance to corruption, cronyism and favoritism.

      That you can not actually design beyond high-level platitudes.

      Nothing I said is a platitude. Work on your literacy, there are many good educational aids out there.

      Don't conflate all of Europe as one.

      Don't skip over the word "most".

      So that leaves Germany.

      You apparently think Europe consists of 6 countries, one of which is located in South America. Also, you want to warn people to not over-generalize Europe.

      Your reading comprehension needs work. I specifically said Venezuela was not part of Europe, in the part you cut out.

      I know you're trying, bless your heart, but try harder.

      We're not as homogeneous as Germany for sure, or even the UK so our population has a different temperament, values and intelligence

      And why am I not surprised racist bullshit appears.

      Nothing I said is racist. One of the reasons the term 'racism' is losing its power in suppressing discussion is because people like you bandy it about too much whenever you disagree with something. It's an incontrovertible fact different groups have different temperaments, intelligence and values. Look up the UN indices on national corruption. Look up national IQs. You know what "Boko Haram" means? Educate yourself, you'll appear less foolish per

  80. You seem a bit confused on some things by raymorris · · Score: 1

    >> I see no reason to trust ERISA Laws; if the company running your 401k wants to spend the money they made on your money on hookers and blow they gosh darn can

    ERISA regulates *pensions*. It has nothing to do with 401k accounts. *You* choose your investments in your 401k. Generally, you should choose an index fund with low expenses, definitely less than 1%. Vanguard has good ones.

    --
    we looked at the most recent 401(k) benchmarking data, ...
    About 40% of companies contribute 50 cents for every dollar employees contribute up to 6% of their pay. Another 38% match employee contributions dollar for dollar.
    --
    Investopedia.com

    1. Re:You seem a bit confused on some things by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      For ETFs 1% is stupid high as there are good ones with an expense ratio of 0.03% yes that is .03 percent and not a typo. There are plenty of good options that come in under 0.1% look at the SPDR family of funds that do a really good job of tracking the market and are dirt cheap.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  81. Your dad either didn't have a 401k, or panicked by raymorris · · Score: 2

    *You* choose when to sell stocks amd bond in your 401k. You do NOT need to sell all your investments the day you retire, and it would be stupid to do so.

    You have to withdraw a little bit (of cash, not stocks) after you turn 71 1/2, but basically you decide when to sell.

    As you stated, the economy and the market are cyclical, on a cycle of about ten years. If your dad decided to sell everything at the bottom of the market, I feel for him. That really sucks. He made a really bad decision, probably based on fear.

  82. At least two big lessons there by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Well you asked for the advice, so I'll give you some.
    The scenario you mentioned hits on two big things you should learn in your first few hours learning about investing.

    First, balance your investments. The percent you have in bonds should be *very roughly* equal to your age, so he should have had over 70% in bonds, which don't lose value. In fact they can increase with the stock market goes down.

    Second, don't panic and sell everything at once when there is a dip. If the market is headed down from a high and you're worried, sell 10% or even 15% Typical recovery time is about 18 months, so stay cool. After a year, if you feel you must, you can sell another 10% to protect some gains in case it stays down for a long time.

    1. Re:At least two big lessons there by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Well you asked for the advice, so I'll give you some. The scenario you mentioned hits on two big things you should learn in your first few hours learning about investing.

      First, balance your investments. The percent you have in bonds should be *very roughly* equal to your age, so he should have had over 70% in bonds, which don't lose value. In fact they can increase with the stock market goes down.

      Second, don't panic and sell everything at once when there is a dip. If the market is headed down from a high and you're worried, sell 10% or even 15% Typical recovery time is about 18 months, so stay cool. After a year, if you feel you must, you can sell another 10% to protect some gains in case it stays down for a long time.

      Well you asked for the advice, so I'll give you some.

      But you are preaching to the choir here. As for my question, it was intended as more than just nuts and bolts.

      The scenario you mentioned hits on two big things you should learn in your first few hours learning about investing.

      First, balance your investments.

      But people don't seem to work that way - which is the (admittedly roundabout) point of my question.

      The mechanics of building a portfolio for future living expenses are pretty simple. I learned from 2 mentors, my father, and my first financial advisor, who was strictly no-nonsense. But both noted that if someone wants you to get too complicated, it's time to bail pronto. All of my risk was borne in the early years of saving and investing. I would have stretched that longer, but I also pay attention to which Political party is in power. Based on research, one party tends to precipitate downturns, and it isn't who most think. So I had to get the money into a safer place.

      Next I took advantage of every possible program available to me. That's how I ended up with 3 external and one internal retirement account. Gotta have a good ecosystem. Now I can live off the interest.

      But that isn't how the greater percentage of people act. Witness the 30 year mortgage. Lower monthly payments, to hell with the total paid amount.

      Refi refi refi, reverse mortgage. Witness how many people fall for Bernie Madoff scams. Witness how many people spend way too much time listening to "experts" telling them to do this or that. And of course, the risky investment addiction, usually leading to failure.

      It really isn't difficult, this money thing. Keep it simple, take any risks early, then move to conservative, Pay the retirement account before you eat, and for gawd's sake pay attention to the total amount saved and/or spent, and not the low low monthly payments. Now I'm probably preaching to the choir too. 8^)

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:At least two big lessons there by raymorris · · Score: 1

      > Based on research, one party tends to precipitate downturns, and it isn't who most think.

      I did a chart intending to look at something else, and noticed something very interesting about that. I had intended to look at whether economic growth is better with Republican presidents or Democrat, but I ended up seeing something else in the chart, something I hadn't expected. Economic growth is all over the place - we've had good and bad while both parties were in office. Something interesting was obvious from the graph, though.

      I figured a president's first budget takes effect a year after they take office, and anything else they do tends to have economic effects *after* they do it, so a I graphed based on budget years - a president gets credit / blame starting after they've been in office a year and their budget goes into effect. That's not perfect, but nothing is. Crediting or blaming them for the state of the economy on the day the take office certainly wouldn't make sense.

      What I found is that the growth rate *always* got worse under Democrats and *always* get better under Republicans, except for 2008. I found that very interesting. There have been good and bad under both parties, but it was always worse at the end of a Democrat's term, and always better at the end of a Republican's term. (Except for 2008)

      There is something else interesting, though. That transition year makes a big difference. It may be that whenever the economy is down, Republicans get elected president, then when the economy improves Democrats get elected. The economic trends may swing elections, as much or more than elections influence the economy.

      Given the data seems extremely clear based on the methodology I thought would be fair *before* seeing the results, it looked like Republicans we're way better for the economy. But not so fast - the results are very sensitive to exactly when you assign blame or credit - blaming a president for the condition the economy is already in on the day they take office gives a different result (and probably a wrong result). So I can then look at one other thing to help me understand.

      Subjectively, Democrats tend to be more idealists, "wouldn't it be great if we could ...". They like the government to provide everyone with whatever. Republicans tend to be more pragmatic, asking how much it will cost, and whether it will actually work. Common sense is that asking how much things cost, and whether things actually work as opposed to wishing, would be better for the economy. It might be that the Democrats arw better at improving social justice, while the bean counter Republicans are better at the economy. It's an interesting topic.

    3. Re:At least two big lessons there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonds can, and do, lose value. If inflation takes off, existing bonds paying 2-3% are going to be worth a small fraction of their initial value.

  83. Re:ROFL!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still trolling for creimer's attention? Sad. Fucking sad.

  84. Re:But UBI? by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

    You like having things, like clothing, food, electricity? Well, somebody has got to produce all of that for you. You think THEY want to work for free? .

    humans not not produce those. Machines/automation can do it. Just like oxygen for human consumption is made by something (likely so) less intelligent living things called plants/trees.
    The crux of the issue is lot of human activities is doing totally irrelevant/unneeded things. Like counting number of sand grains or building 100m meter statues for some human

  85. exactely ! by aepervius · · Score: 2

    I am waiting for retirement to finally be able to do all my hobbies and project. Project : a few game idea I have (both as board game and as computer games). Hobbies : board games, rpg (pen and paper) , computer games, card games , cycling a lot, returning to my passion of QM calculations and following the newest advancement there, and I pass on minor stuff like from time to time I do my own furniture for fun and shit and giggle (I build a house for my cats, 3 floor, with little ramp to go , and an openning for me to retrieve cats for veterinary visit :-;), reading a lot of books. I haven't time nowadays due to needing to work to earn enough money to eat, rent, live. But if I am allowed to retire in a financially stable way.... Here we go my pretties. I doubt I will be bored any seconds. I think I would probably complain "I have not enough time".

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  86. Re: But UBI? by David+Gould · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But, see, if you cherry-pick the cases of good behavior among people on your side, and equally cherry-pick the cases of bad behavior on the other side, you can turn it into "proof" of your side's moral superiority!

    --
    David Gould
    main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
  87. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  88. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to be confusing political leaning, with other traits which are not correlated.

    You mean like you did with racism?

  89. and consumers by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    you are insane. I am quite far from retirement age and i already do not want to buy anything beyond what I need dearly.

    It's not "consumption" it's back to industrial production age of production of people of 80 will actually NEED.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  90. pros and cons and stats by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    What's the current median age of fully employed in US?

    One of the cons of having old people on payroll is health issues. I work in the organization that is aging very quickly, almost at one year per year rate. In two Agile projects I work on (do not get me started why it's not just one) there are not a single person who is younger than 40 and majority is older than 50.

    Health issues are a real problem to Agile development. You can't plan shit if you are only 75% sure people will actually work four days per two-week Agile cycle of their half time on the project. "Whatever you can do, John, whatever you can do" is not a ticket type.

    they provide emotional stability, complex problem-solving skills, nuanced thinking, and institutional know-how.

    That is very true. Except that young managers do not value that. Heck they do not even value "Technical Debt". All is about short term planning. Half of the code is git-blame-dated by ten years ago, yet "Technical Debt" is never important and is considered a knitting activity at your home while you are waiting for Three's A Company re-run on your CRT television after supper and glass of warm milk. As one of the greatest managers I have ever met said about that type of thing (he did it more than anybody else in his free time) said: "it's therapeutic".

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:pros and cons and stats by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You must have people in much worse than average health, then. Around here there are plenty of over 50s, and there's hardly any sick days. We have no problem planning. Only being 75% certain that people will be well enough to work four days per cycle sounds like you have a catastrophically unhealthy workforce at any age.

    2. Re:pros and cons and stats by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Health issues are a real problem to Agile development. You can't plan shit if you are only 75% sure people will actually work four days per two-week Agile cycle of their half time on the project. "Whatever you can do, John, whatever you can do" is not a ticket type."

      This isn't the case, there are ways most agile development methodologies handle this, but in particular with SCRUM you assign a utilisation percentage to either individual resources or the team. We are a healthy (but I wouldn't say young) team and we only run at 60% utilisation because people fall ill, get distracted by random bullshit, have to fix their children, and god knows what else.

      If you're doing SCRUM then you should have a backlog of tickets, and assigned to each ticket you should have a points value following the fibonacci sequence, one of the biggest mistakes people make in estimating with points is assuming they're a measure of time, they're not, they're a combination of risk and time. If something is short and zero risk it'll be a 1 point story, if something is short but high risk it might go up to 5 points, if something is long and high risk, it's probably not well enough understood to go into sprint, and so would have a points value sufficiently high for you to make it clear you can't complete it cleanly in a sprint - break it down and/or get more clarity before starting it. The points you assign are relative and personal to your team, there isn't a fixed definition, so what I've said may differ for your team, but essentially the point is this - you reach mutual agreement on how many points a story is by deciding between you in backlog refinement how many points should be assigned to that story. If you're just starting out with it then take a whole bunch of stories, write them on post it notes and juggle them around on a wall or table in order of size, then categorise them - 1 point, 2 points, 3 points, 5 points, 8 points, 13 points, 21 points, (TFB - too fucking big). Do this for a few sprints and you'll get comfortable in your team rapidly stating how many points you think should be assigned to a story. The whole point of points rather than hours, or something else is that they're not bound to a specific measure, and so can evolve with your team to become a measure for your team.

      Once you're happy doing that, the next step is to start figuring out how many points you can do in a sprint - try maybe 30, if you easily hit that two sprints in a row then up it to 35 or 40, if you still find it easy keep increasing until you don't. If you have carry-overs, stories you didn't finish then consider dropping again your target points for the sprint.

      This gives you the ability to cope with that degree of risk you're talking about - some sprints you may over-perform, but you don't have to increase the points at this time if on average you still only do less, sometimes you'll have a good sprint and do more, but track it on a graph and watch the trend. If it's an outlier ignore it, if there's a trend to doing more by pulling stories in because people have nothing to do then increase it, if there's a trend towards carryovers then decrease it.

      That gives you the solution you need to the average amount of work you're able to do in a sprint and planning off the back of that - you plan for your average, you point out your backlog and say "We do 30 points a sprint average, so it'll take us 18 months to complete the backlog as is". Because you're not trying to measure time, and you're measuring based on the arbitrary metric of points, you'll be able to predict. Utilisation can be adjusted for holidays and other planned absences, so if you know half the team is on holiday and you normally run at 60% utilisation, then cut it to 30% and drop your points in half in sprint planning for that sprint.

      I actually sympathise because the last thing people want to hear about agile is "you're doing it wrong" to the point it's become a cliche, and a meme, but a lot of people do do agile wrong because it's something they've had to implem

  91. And finally world population will start to decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1- Older people will die in a decade or two and finally population starts to decline: earth will have a great benefit
    2- Life is not only working, I hope to be able to retire as soon law will allow it
    3- Working in IT should be considered as weary work, I don't see myself working in this schizophrenic world until I will be 65 years-old (and more)

  92. And we still see age discrimination by Targon · · Score: 1

    What we also see is employers who discriminate against anyone who is over 40 years old, outside of the retail sector. Once you hit 40, unless you are a high level person, if you find yourself out of work, getting interviews for even junior level positions ends up with very few responses. Employers don't want to admit that they discriminate against applicants based on age because they would face lawsuits. Many companies also try to get rid of their older employees because they know that people with family responsibilities are more prone to family emergencies, or needing to go to a doctor, or other issues that come with age. In the USA, due to the way the health care system is broken, older employees may cost the employers more money due to providing health insurance.

  93. benefits of minorities by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Over the past decades, companies have recognized the economic and social benefits of women, people of color, and LGBT individuals in the workforce

    There are no additional benefits of having these categories at work. Zero, nada. It absolutely does not matter for work what you are privately, unless you are giving birth every you, caught AIDS by shagging in bar restrooms of gay clubs or a no-good-for-anything affirmative action byproduct.

    Age is different. Age is coming to all of you unless you die young and we dying young is a privilege that becomes more and more rare with progress. It comes to everybody including Afro-American lesbians.

    And it contrast to all these celebrated minorities age DOES provide benefits if you read the article.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:benefits of minorities by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Age is different.

      Yes, it's the one that affects you.

    2. Re:benefits of minorities by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Of course. I am glad it does not affect you, from the Clan of Jeffs.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  94. half of whose workforce is over 50, by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    The National Institutes of Health, half of whose workforce is over 50,

    Google Search "The National Institutes of Health total number of employees" 20,262 (not including contractors and contractors are typically younger)

    Shocking

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  95. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No this is just how great America is becoming. Those fucking lazy elderly fucks are finally earning their keep

  96. we need a party of old people by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    rule: you can be a member if you are above median age of voters (currently median age, period, is about 42). This age will be fixed at the current value.

    Please do not start making jokes about existing parties.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  97. Re: But UBI? by BytePusher · · Score: 1

    And yet, it seems those who work the LEAST have the most tokens. When can we admit these tokens no longer represent hard work, but class and capacity for exploitation? When can we admit we have built a system of UBI for the very wealthy? Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. That is the great achievement of western culture.

  98. Young = exploited by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    Clearly there will be fewer older workers willing to work 60+ hour weeks, just as there are fewer 'natives' willing to match the occasionally-terrible hourly rates of migrants.... so how do we stop older folk being penalised because they won't work for peanuts? Part-time work is probably preferable but it needs to lose the stigma.

  99. Re: But UBI? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    That's the problem of work scalability and has nothing to do with "exploitation". In society with monetization of the future, more scalable work is rewarded more than less scalable work. Basically the work that handles "ideas, inventions and contributions" that scale in such a way that single person can keep working in a way that will generate more and more as his career progresses.

    It has nothing to do with UBI or "exploitation", that trendy Marxist buzzword that is applied by various Marxist schools of thought for every aspect of human life where competence allows for wealth generation beyond their personal hegemon, the "worker".

  100. Re:But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you are a self admitted globalist communist. I would add you are a jerk that cant see past the end of your nose that thinks you can give away other peoples birthright because you are so inherently wonderful.
    Really you need to get over yourself.

  101. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...or someone trying to make it in this dump system baby boomers created for us where even when you want to support local economies, you need to eat, etc.

    For some reason, people keep pushing trickle down economic models at the polls like they work, but all the historical evidence (and the basic sanity tests) point the other way.

  102. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You, seem to be, using, the Shatner comma.

  103. Re:But UBI? by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

    High taxes on cheap Chinese shit will level the playing field

    And result in high taxes on cheap American shit being sold to China. Like soybeans. We used to make a lot of money selling those. We had a natural monopoly since it cost too much for other countries to catch up to us - gotta buy a lot of expensive equipment to match our productivity.

    Then Trump decided Mercantilism was a good idea. (Hint: We figured out it was a terrible idea in the 1600s).

    Now the US has given away it's soy monopoly. And it will still be gone even if Trump declares victory and cuts tariffs, because we created a window for other countries to catch up to us. So now we will make less money selling soybeans forever.

    Trade is hard. If your solution to any trade problem is "so simple", you are wrong and going to make the situation worse.

  104. Aren't or can't? by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

    Is it because these people *aren't* saving enough for retirement or is it because they *can't* save enough to retire? The difference lies in whether one assumes most of these people are finding meaning and satisfaction in their work or whether they are stuck in a cycle they hate and have no means to change or affect. The appropriate solution to deal with this shift very much depends on which of the two you think is happening.

  105. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's interesting because some slaves were allowed to refuse quite a bit on paper.
    I hope you end up deep in the system as an old man. Then you can get a little taste of the bad life before you go.

  106. Newsflash: Boomers Invented the Internet by mspohr · · Score: 1

    My favorite quote from TFA:
    Some companies are pushing back: In a recent video, T-Mobile’s John Legere took on the topic of ageist stereotypes while promoting a T-Mobile service for adults age 55-plus. He chided competitors for what he called their belittling treatment of older adults in marketing campaigns that emphasize large-size phone buttons and imply that boomers are tech idiots. “Degrading at the highest level,” Legere calls it. “The carriers assume boomers are a bunch of old people stuck in the past who can’t figure out how the internet works. Newsflash, carriers: Boomers invented the internet.”

    (Also, computers, etc.)

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  107. The difference a decimal point makes by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Yes, that should be "definitely below . 1%". 0.1, not 1.

    Thanks.

  108. Sadly many folks can't enjoy retirement by Space+Grrrl · · Score: 1

    I know several people that could easily retire comfortably right now. They are healthy enough to likely live for years but they won't because the have zero interests outside "work". No hobbies or interests. They will sit behind a keyboard till they drop.

    Myself I cannot wait for the day I figure out the finances to stop working (I may never manage that :-( ). I have several hobbies that would fill my every waking minute. I will not be bored!!

    How folks exist today without hobbies or interests makes me sad for them. I am even happy to accept that "coding" is their hobby/passion but when I suggest they do it for themselves I get blank stares back. Oh well.

  109. Social Security isn't the safety net by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's retirement. If you find yourself out of work sick for a while (or caring for a loved one) you'll burn through your retirement savings and everything else you have until you or they either get better or die. Then you'll find yourself in your 40s with little or nothing to your name. Meanwhile if you follow the other two links I sent you'll find folks trying to end Medicare and Social Security. They claim only for folks under 55, but it's naive to think they'll stop there. It's too much money, and they want it for themselves.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Social Security isn't the safety net by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      When I retire (just a couple months from now), I'll be caring for her, as pointed out above, and not burning through my retirement funds because she's mostly covered by SS and Medicaid. Multiple surgeries for her have not changed matters since my dad passed in '12. So, my point stands, how much more of a safety net do we need? None of the links you provided address this...the first was about welfare, the second was a typical Madow hit piece (Republicans have targeted SS because many people like myself don't need it), and the third was pay walled. Don't pretend you're some kind of mind reader..."they pretend...blah, blah, blah". Point to actions and evidence.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  110. That's what makes it insidious by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    In the literal sense of the world ("proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects.").

    You don't have to do those thing, but you'll be pressured until you do. Your boss will harass you to sleep with him and you'll do it to keep your job. There aren't any different employers because mergers and acquisitions mean there's few companies left. The cop'll beat you if you get uppity and demand change. You can't buy nice homes because of zoning.

    The wealthy of North figured out what the South didn't: Slaves are a raw deal. You spend money on a slave. You tie up capital in a slave. Better to have a completely disposable workforce with the illusion of freedom but none of the actual power that comes with it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That's what makes it insidious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think we should get rid of the illegals too.. Holy hell I think we all died! rsilvergun has come to her senses...

  111. Re:But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose

  112. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately for people like us that's politics these days..

    --Highdude702

  113. On good days, I can still remember when I was 65 by mcswell · · Score: 1

    "the population is getting old. Very old. Globally, the number of people age 60 and over is projected to double to more than 2 billion by 2050 and those 60 and over will outnumber children under the age of 5. In the United States, about 10,000 people turn 65 each day, and one in five Americans will be 65 or older by 2030..." I'd like to know what their definition of "very old" is. I'm 68, do short runs of 5 miles a couple times a week and (usually) a longer run, and I think I'm still cognitively... um, can't remember what I was going to say, but I think it was something good. Anyway, I hope you youngsters keep working to pay for my eventual retirement.

    My only wish is that I could find a job I could do from some remote location, where the trails start at my back door. For now, I seem to be tied to a desktop in someone else's office in a somewhat boring state.

  114. Re:But UBI? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    The crux of the issue is lot of human activities is doing totally irrelevant/unneeded things. Like counting number of sand grains or building 100m meter statues for some human

    Or sitting around trying to look busy for 7 hours reading /. because you can get all your shit done in 1.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  115. Re:But UBI? by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

    The crux of the issue is lot of human activities is doing totally irrelevant/unneeded things. Like counting number of sand grains or building 100m meter statues for some human

    Or sitting around trying to look busy for 7 hours reading /. because you can get all your shit done in 1.

    In that case, he should use the 7 hours to gain the knowledge to reach escape velocity (financial independence / retirement/ simple or frugal living). Then all waking hours are available to pursue passion/hobby (if already have one or the passion will find him) with full space/time freedom (not needed to be in that morning meeting)

  116. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe, just maybe, you don't know what's going on in these people you say work the least.

    Im in such a position now, and sure as shit dont work as much as my admin or sales whom i oversea.

    But they come to me with problems, quandaries, issues and so on, and I settle it so they can focus on their work.
    Labels missing in shipment? I know who to talk to, and how(multiple levels of rank) , to get it sent by dhl tonight.
    2 suppliers offering equal quotes for a service we need? I know the questions to ask to weed out the superior supplier.
    Need a loan for your house roof repair? Do this, word the email like this, gather some kpi data, and tadahhh, its approved by the upper mgmt cos I work the system.

    All you will see is me sitting at the sofa, playing with my phone, tapping on the dell laptop, have relaxed meeting with various individuals, sipping refillable coffee the whole time. I probably actually worked 1 hour, spent 2 hours crunching numbers n thinking, and about 3 hours waiting for results or some deliverables to come and 2 hours for lunch n toilet.

    But im paid more. Cos i deliver and can do problem solving in purchasing, sales, sales admin, logistics with some chem QA thrown in.

    But sure looks like im lounging the whole day, I admit i do look the part on purpose some days.

  117. Re:But UBI? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    I also believe strongly that most jobs are simply not worth paying a proper salary for

    If you don't think a job is worth paying a proper salary for how do you expect to get anyone to do it? Lots of jobs don't bring in profit. Cleaners for example. I bet they're one of the jobs you don't deem worthy of a proper salary yet you probably expect someone to spend 40+ hours per week doing it for you. A full time job, regardless of what its doing should pay at least the bare minimum required to get by and it definitely should not be subsidised by government. If you want your lobby clean you'll fucking pay for it and you'll pay properly or you can just fuck right off.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  118. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know my 50th "employee" will be a contractor in order to avoid triggering all of the small business equal opportunity and healthcare laws.

  119. Re:But UBI? by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

    Yes, I remember how hard Obama fought the GOP when they wanted to cut Gov subsidies to companies with offshored factories... Oh wait, I got that backwards

  120. which was the point of the Trust Fund by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    People keep talking about this as a looming disaster, instead of an even that was planned for more than 30 years in advance.

    The Social Security trustees forecast that the ratio of workers to beneficiaries reaches 2.2 by 2035 when the baby-boom generation will have largely retired.

    By 2035 baby boomers will largely be dead and not collecting any benefits.

  121. Re: But UBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A job not worth paying for is a job not worth doing; it's something the result of which is less than the resources consumed in doing it. It's not worth doing; it's a drain on humanity."

    Ur making unconnected statements to sound smart
    Firstly, with minimum wage, there is a floor price. In a place without a high min wage, american expats have a maid, a gardener, a driver and a nanny (possibly a security guard) for their household when stationed overseas. Everyone loves to work for em cos the usd300/month is way more than the local pay of 150usd/month (min wage being usd250/mth)

    That poster was saying people are overpaid

    Secondly, LOTS of things is worth less than the resources consumed. Worth is subjective. Should we just kill all the special needs people? Can you show how statistically and with numbers, 1000 mixed special needs people who use up x resources(medical, financial etc) create the equivalent to the same amount of non special needs people who need medical/financial resources? What are you saying, lets throw em off the cliff ala sparta?
    Ur worse than the other guy, and foolishness does pervade thru your post.