|
|
|
|
|
by bradleyjg
14 days ago
|
|
> Someone in their 60s is supposed to be doing better than someone in their 20s. That’s an incredibly new, and probably temporary, phenomenon. Across the vast majority of space-time the non-working elderly are poorer than their still working children and rely on them. As late as the Greatest Generation senior discounts weren’t a sick joke. |
|
1) Not enough young people can contribute to make social security payments to the elderly, across most of the developed world. A typical pension in Belgium is almost comparable to a typical young person’s salary.
2) At a young age, the previous 2–3 generations could afford social mobility levers, i.e. a house and car.
Note that I’m not commenting on the management, investment strategy, returns, or sustainability of social security (point 1).
“Across the vast majority of space-time”, the elderly also somewhat contributed to the tribal/community needs, trained their replacements, cared for grandchildren, and so on. Oh, and everyone was poor, so the range in standard of living was reasonably tight.