[abellerose]

> But are these life-endings [of a young person and an old person] equivalent? Perhaps, on a philosophical level, they are. On a practical level, however, the death of an 85-year-old person from a preventable cause has cost them a few years at the end of life, while a 25-year-old has, on the same calculation, lost over 60 years of life, including their most active and event-filled years.

Every time I think about the USA, I get a strong feeling that the current structure of systems are designed for the old to flourish and at a heavy cost of the young. I would be surprised if my feeling is actually wrong and everything isn't actually designed for the older population to continue flourishing the longest at the cost of the young. I'm curious what HN thinks. I personally think the value of the young should be set higher to flourish than the old and the systems of society should be designed that way.

[lumost]

The more accurate picture is that the US is designed for the wealthy to flourish. As it happens, the wealthy tend to be older for a variety of reasons.

A wealthy 25 year old is unlikely to face any significant risk that they will miss out on a medical procedure vs. an older adult, or ultimately face any existential risk for that matter.

How many billionaires have had multiple bankruptcies?

[EchoAce]

I don’t understand the logic here. Yes, of course a wealthy person will be able to pay for procedures and avoid going broke. Isn’t this universally true? Perhaps you meant the US is poorly designed for poor people, which is not something you can say about every country.

[joe_the_user]

Older people in the US seem in better shape because earlier generations were on average wealthier and had higher incomes, hence greater savings.

The present generation is not headed towards a happy retirement at the expense of the present.

Edit: As another poster mentioned, the US values the lives of the rich and more of the old are rich, for now.

[closeparen]

The previous generations got a lot of stuff for free by promising each other pensions and not funding them. Obviously they were better off than we were: we don't have access to this trick anymore, and have to make actual sacrifices today if we want to retire in the future. To say nothing of the taxes we will have to pay in exchange for services long gone.

[joe_the_user]

Nah,

Corporations (and the mob) generally stole the funds of the pension and used them. And they were promised pensions in line with prevailing wages, which were higher.

[ozborn]

My impression of the US in the pandemic era is that the value of the old is not held in high regard. Even prior, culture was focused on the young. However the value of money (which on average the old may have more of?) and catering to those who have it is definitely real and may be what you are suggesting.

[ndiscussion]

I believe there's a reason the old people are more rich, and it's caused by these very policies.

When boomers were 30, they were many times richer than millennials.