Good advice. I've been independent contractor for 23 years. At one of my major clients (a Fortune 500 MegaCorp), there is a steady steam of grey-haired workers being marched to the door by security. At the same time, every day a new H1B or other type of foreign worker shows up to fill an open position. They make the switch quietly, a few workers at a time, so as to not get noticed by the press.
If you can hang on until you are 55, you can start to draw down your 401k when you leave your employer. If they kick you to the curb before that, you need to find something to do until you are 59 1/2. In any event, being able to work beyond your early 50's isn't a sure thing.
I was thinking that the economic impact of long life would be very substantial.
The power of compounding interest enables savers to retire comfortably after a few decades of saving. If people continued to work (and save), within a couple of hundred years, these folks would be billionaires.
A couple things might happen:
(1) Inflationary pressures. You have a few extra centuries to pay off that house, why not add on that million dollar addition? Also, population growth would drive up the prices of resources.
(2) Social upheaval. The haves (savers of considerable age) would have tremendous wealth and power, while the have-nots (young folks, or those who haven't saved) would be about where they are now. At worst, it could lead to class warfare. More probable would be a tax system to transfer some of the income on that wealth back to the have-nots.
With today's lifespans, people tend to be most wealthy later in life. But when they die, their heirs (and the IRS) tend to consume most of that wealth. This cycle would obviously slow down considerably with longer life spans.
Interesting essay, but I would have a few comments:
Robots, like any other machines are tools. Tools have been steadily increasing mankind's productivity at ever increasing rates for thousands of years. Higher productivity has never lead to high unemployment -- even today's 6.4% rate is historically very reasonable.
During the past hundred years, despite ever increasing productivity, the American economy has absorbed millions of immigrants. Additionally, women have entered the work force by the tens of millions. Yet we have enjoyed ever increasing standards of living and low unemployment.
A more likely alternative to high unemployment, in my opinion, is that the work week would drop to 30 or 20 hours, we might return to single working parent families, the retirement age would become less, and the flow of immigration would be decreased.
Another thing to consider is that highly automated nation could potentially have huge competitive advantages due to the low cost of labor. All the labor intensive, commodity oriented jobs (such as textiles and manufacturing) would return home since our labor costs would be ever smaller.
Slashdot Mirror
"Max out your 401k as soon as humanly possible".
Good advice. I've been independent contractor for 23 years. At one of my major clients (a Fortune 500 MegaCorp), there is a steady steam of grey-haired workers being marched to the door by security. At the same time, every day a new H1B or other type of foreign worker shows up to fill an open position. They make the switch quietly, a few workers at a time, so as to not get noticed by the press.
If you can hang on until you are 55, you can start to draw down your 401k when you leave your employer. If they kick you to the curb before that, you need to find something to do until you are 59 1/2. In any event, being able to work beyond your early 50's isn't a sure thing.
I was thinking that the economic impact of long life would be very substantial.
The power of compounding interest enables savers to retire comfortably after a few decades of saving. If people continued to work (and save), within a couple of hundred years, these folks would be billionaires.
A couple things might happen:
(1) Inflationary pressures. You have a few extra centuries to pay off that house, why not add on that million dollar addition? Also, population growth would drive up the prices of resources.
(2) Social upheaval. The haves (savers of considerable age) would have tremendous wealth and power, while the have-nots (young folks, or those who haven't saved) would be about where they are now. At worst, it could lead to class warfare. More probable would be a tax system to transfer some of the income on that wealth back to the have-nots.
With today's lifespans, people tend to be most wealthy later in life. But when they die, their heirs (and the IRS) tend to consume most of that wealth. This cycle would obviously slow down considerably with longer life spans.
Interesting essay, but I would have a few comments:
Robots, like any other machines are tools. Tools have been steadily increasing mankind's productivity at ever increasing rates for thousands of years. Higher productivity has never lead to high unemployment -- even today's 6.4% rate is historically very reasonable.
During the past hundred years, despite ever increasing productivity, the American economy has absorbed millions of immigrants. Additionally, women have entered the work force by the tens of millions. Yet we have enjoyed ever increasing standards of living and low unemployment.
A more likely alternative to high unemployment, in my opinion, is that the work week would drop to 30 or 20 hours, we might return to single working parent families, the retirement age would become less, and the flow of immigration would be decreased.
Another thing to consider is that highly automated nation could potentially have huge competitive advantages due to the low cost of labor. All the labor intensive, commodity oriented jobs (such as textiles and manufacturing) would return home since our labor costs would be ever smaller.
Roger