|
|
|
|
|
|
by bongobongo
2551 days ago
|
|
|
You're papering over all of the policy arguments that have been made over the past 30-50 years to convince people to give up pensions, unions, contracts, severance, etc., most of which boiled down to "not only will this new system be better for you, but it will be more efficient and cost less." Ignoring the consensus that is required in order for their to be any stability will lead you to conclusions like the ones you've just made. With monopsony and other anti-competitive distortions being the name of the game in the labor market, using the "labor market" as a good indication of anything is also pretty useless. There is no labor market, for the most part, at least not in the sense that anybody means by "market." By the way, the median first-time homebuyer in 2019 is 32 years old. With 30-year terms being the most popular, that means that they can expect to pay back their mortgage at about the same time they are paying a great deal more for medical insurance, life insurance, prescription drugs, medical treatments, etc. And if you think you stop paying for children when yours grow up, allow me to introduce you to the concept of "grandchildren." |
|
|
Calling them "policy arguments" is way too charitable, and I'm not papering over anything. The excuses are irrelevant. The fact is that student loans exist. Mortgages often get paid off way before 30 years (less than 10 in my case). Not everyone even gets a mortgage. Children grow up. Some don't even rely on their parents to support grandchildren, and we'll be coming back to that. Some people remain healthy later into life. Cost of living does not uniformly get "much more expensive" as people age. Your claim, so you prove it.
> monopsony and other anti-competitive distortions
Those are very serious problems and I even alluded to them before, but to claim they're so bad that the laws of supply and demand have become inoperative is inane. Not even worth engaging on.
> With 30-year terms being the most popular
When you talk about 30-year terms, you're papering over (a) people who rent instead of buying, (b), the 20% of home purchases without any mortgage, (c) mortgages for shorter terms, and (d) people who pay off early. Cherry-pick much? Then you ignore mortgage-interest deductions, make a ton of assumptions about older people's health, and treat insurance and medical costs as strictly additive without substitution effects. To top it all off, you assume substantial support for grandchildren. That's actually damn rare. Most of us manage to raise our kids to be self-sufficient and support their own kids. I'm sorry if you didn't, but that doesn't change the statistical reality.
The fact remains that salary based on need is not a thing for purposes of this discussion. There's no rational expectation that employers will, out of the goodness of their hearts, pay older workers more because they need it. The same employer who you claim have completely rigged the game and advanced bogus arguments to cheat workers out of pensions? Your argument isn't even consistent, let alone credible.