[green_man_lives]

My point is that it should not be up to an individual to save for their own retirement (right to exist after they are no longer useful as a laborer). If someone works their whole life, society should sequester some of the profit they generate and keep it to pay for them to life fairly comfortably until they die. That's the idea behind social security.

Hell, even if someone doesn't spend their whole life working we should still afford them that comfort. But to spend your whole life working and consuming and helping push forward the engine of the economy to only be left out in the cold is a real gut punch.

[iopq]

They are already getting taken care of. They chose to live in a high cost of living area. You don't get to complain that you retired in NYC or SF and Social Security doesn't pay your rent.

[green_man_lives]

I never understood this kind of thinking. When 50-60% of humanity live in urban areas why is this an argument that people use? Should people live in cities and then move out to the country when they retire? Shouldn't the answer to this be to make these cities more affordable by building additional housing?

For housing in a city, it makes sense to me to always increase supply such that every place in the USA costs the same. This allows people to move freely, it allows people to congregate with other smart people and have "intellectual density", it allows wealthy investors to live next to struggling bohemian artists, and allows the average Joe to experience all of this just by virtue of existing in that place. I understand there are constraints on land but it's bizarre to me that people have accepted the idea that these places are just naturally "HCOL" locations and not that they have been homogenized and sanitized into this type of place.

> They chose to live in a high cost of living area.

Millions of people are born in HCOL areas and make their lives there. We shouldn't ask them to leave.

[iopq]

Yes, you should build more housing. But if you're retired, you have to deal with the situation you have now.

> Millions of people are born in HCOL areas and make their lives there. We shouldn't ask them to leave.

then they should make more money

[green_man_lives]

You are describing how the should operate given the current situation and assuming it doesn't change. I am saying the current situation is bad and needs to change. I think that what you are saying is unproductive because it gives off the impression that you think that "bad things are good/acceptable, actually".

> then they should make more money

Like this, this is such an incredibly simplistic response that it feels more naive even than a statement like "everyone should be able to live in a big city". If everyone simultaneously makes more money it just changes who is priced out. The current game is zero-sum, I am saying it should not be.