| > 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. |