[SchemaLoad]

The math still has to check out. Yes I agree getting rid of the ultra wealthy improves the situation a lot and should be done. But at some point you still have too many retired people for the working population to support.

At that point it's going to have to be considered that a 60 year old is still perfectly capable of working low physical demand jobs rather than spending 10-30 years on cruise ships.

[Buttons840]

Has technology improved our productivity in recently decades? How come a people with ever improving productivity can no longer support retired people?

[SchemaLoad]

Partially went to rich peoples yachts and space programs, partially impacted by an aging population/declining birth rates, and partially went to the fact people consume more stuff and live longer.

[jmyeet]

Social security spending is currently about $1.5T a year, with receipts slightly lower than that and reserves of ~$3T [1].

US corporate profits are around $4 trillion a year [2].

I view that $4T as the exploitation of surplus labor value. Put another way: it wouldn't exist if it wasn't for labor. A mere 10% of that would make a significant difference to Social Security.

As for your contention that a 60 year old is capable of working. Doing what? The prospects are already dire for people who are laid off in their 50s. You want them to be cashiers at Safeway at minimum wage? Minimum wage isn't even a living wage.

Many of these people have done physically demanding but completely necessary jobs their entire lives. Their bodies can be wrecked.

I don't know your circumstances but generally speaking I see a lot of "tech-hubris" on HN. People who skew younger and are very privileged to work in tech. The hubris part is being young, many think this will go on forever. The reality is ageism is rampant in tech. The other part is thinking you won't be impacted by automation (and AI).

Will you be bagging groceries until you're 67-69 because Amazon made an AI that now does your job?

[1]: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

[2]: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_corporate_profits_quarterl...

[lenerdenator]

> As for your contention that a 60 year old is capable of working. Doing what? The prospects are already dire for people who are laid off in their 50s. You want them to be cashiers at Safeway at minimum wage? Minimum wage isn't even a living wage.

Not to speak for the other commenter, but if you want to see some real change in people's voting patterns, do exactly that.

As far as their bodies being wrecked, well, that's the actual intention of OASDI, more popularly known as Social Security. Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. If we stopped giving out checks to people just for getting to 65, we might be able to preserve that safety for future generations. After all, it's in the name: insurance. You don't get to collect any other sort of insurance just for being alive past a certain time, because that would make that insurance fund unsustainable.

[xboxnolifes]

> As for your contention that a 60 year old is capable of working. Doing what? The prospects are already dire for people who are laid off in their 50s. You want them to be cashiers at Safeway at minimum wage? Minimum wage isn't even a living wage.

Certainly not all 60 year olds, but plenty of 60 year olds are still actively working in trades. There is a massive gap between, say, doing the building and installing of carpentry related things, and being a grocery store greeter.

It not unreasonable for people to take on a more teaching side of their job and doing much less of the heavy lifting parts. Being in a position to pass on knowledge and technique to the next generation is probably the best things for society and even for many of the individuals as a sense of purpose. The majority of the people I know around me don't know what to do with themselves when they aren't working, so still having something to do isn't a bad thing to them. They just don't want to keep working 40 hours a week to live paycheck to paycheck.