[lotsofpulp]

The problem with these discussions is the errant use of poor/middle/upper/top as class identifiers.

The more useful identifiers would be roughly young and/or working, and old and/or non working. The latter category also covers the beneficiaries of wealthy people (who are among the old and/or non working).

The USA (and many countries, especially democracies) has a situation where your expected quality of life is lower (or not sufficiently higher) for the young and working than the young and non working for those not lucky enough to be born to the right families or prudent enough to make the right choices in school, etc.

The incentives should always be such that expected quality of life is always greater for those working than non working.

Note that this is a different topic than whatever the floor for quality of life should be.

[hobs]

You are saying this with completely forgetting that the vast majority of the people who are old and non working are in fact, retired, sick, on medicaid, and generally just not that great at working in the first place because they already (most of the time) spent 40+ years working.

Why would the person who spent 40+ years working have a worse quality of life than someone whose spent 10 years working? The incentives you put up basically say "as soon as you are done we're sending you to the glue factory."

[lotsofpulp]

> The incentives you put up basically say "as soon as you are done we're sending you to the glue factory."

Those are the incentives nature puts up.

>Why would the person who spent 40+ years working have a worse quality of life than someone whose spent 10 years working?

Depends how much they earned and saved. Current workers (proxy for young) know they will not have a quality of life as good as those that have already worked decades past, so where is their incentive?

>because they already (most of the time) spent 40+ years working.

But they (at least these first few generations) are receiving healthcare worth far more than the work they did, tenable only due to the higher total fertility rates of many decades ago.

At its root, these deferred benefit schemes were either never sustainable for modern lifespans and healthcare consumption, or they depended on unrealistically high total fertility rates. One could even say they played a role in causing lower total fertility rates, as society de-coupled raising one's own productive children and having a good quality of life post working age, since you could now depend on others' productive children.

Money, savings, and other wealth abstractions that legislators can easily bring about don't materialize the goods and services one might want to buy.

[Workaccount2]

The whole point of retirement saving is so that you can still support yourself after your mind and body can. Just about everyone is aware of this, yet many still save nothing because "society will deal with it" when they get older.

When I was younger I had an easy time buying into "everything is too expensive to save money", now that I am older, past the "you must start saving now" age, I know way way too many people who don't save for retirement and live stupidly beyond their means.

"We don't have any retirement savings because how could we give up eating out 1-2 times a week, $250 monthly beauty appointments, $90 gym membership (they have clean warm towels!), and our annual Disney vacation and our family Lake Tahoe trip. And no way will you catch me in a 5 yr old used car, sorry I cannot sacrifice my new car leases!"

I know so many more people who recklessly spend money than people who honestly are trying but cannot make it.

[olyjohn]

Cool anecdote.