Populate OR Perish...
Population wise, the writing is on the wall for most western countries including most of Europe, USA, Canada, Australia and other "westernised " countries.
We are looking down the barrel of a massive increase in people reaching retirement age over the next 15 years. Amongst the repurcussions :
This will mean a massive increase in pensions..mostly coming from the public purse, along with public health costs blowing out.
The fiscal strain of increasing tax on a shrinking worker base is a recipe for social & economic disaster.
Unless we start accepting massive numbers of migrants NOW..and I mean NOW..we are looking down the barrel...
We may feel comfortable sitting in our deckchairs..but below the waterline..the ship that is called " Western nations " is already taking on a serious list that threatens to drown us all.
For those of you thinking that you should fight the " illegals " ..think again.....your eventually going to be too old to fight them off...& they'll just walk in..
But rather than wait for that time..I'd prefer to meet them half way and massively boost our migrant intake..
Sure, there will be short term problems..but human capital is our only hope....
At the end of the day it's " populate or perish. "
We are looking down the barrel of a massive increase in people reaching retirement age over the next 15 years. Amongst the repurcussions :
This will mean a massive increase in pensions..mostly coming from the public purse, along with public health costs blowing out.
The fiscal strain of increasing tax on a shrinking worker base is a recipe for social & economic disaster.
Unless we start accepting massive numbers of migrants NOW..and I mean NOW..we are looking down the barrel...
We may feel comfortable sitting in our deckchairs..but below the waterline..the ship that is called " Western nations " is already taking on a serious list that threatens to drown us all.
For those of you thinking that you should fight the " illegals " ..think again.....your eventually going to be too old to fight them off...& they'll just walk in..
But rather than wait for that time..I'd prefer to meet them half way and massively boost our migrant intake..
Sure, there will be short term problems..but human capital is our only hope....
At the end of the day it's " populate or perish. "
Comments
Originally posted by Aquafire
Population wise, the writing is on the wall for most western countries including most of Europe, USA, Canada, Australia and other "westernised " countries.
We are looking down the barrel of a massive increase in people reaching retirement age over the next 15 years. Amongst the repurcussions :
This will mean a massive increase in pensions..mostly coming from the public purse, along with public health costs blowing out.
The fiscal strain of increasing tax on a shrinking worker base is a recipe for social & economic disaster.
Unless we start accepting massive numbers of migrants NOW..and I mean NOW..we are looking down the barrel...
We may feel comfortable sitting in our deckchairs..but below the waterline..the ship that is called " Western nations " is already taking on a serious list that threatens to drown us all.
For those of you thinking that you should fight the " illegals " ..think again.....your eventually going to be too old to fight them off...& they'll just walk in..
But rather than wait for that time..I'd prefer to meet them half way and massively boost our migrant intake..
Sure, there will be short term problems..but human capital is our only hope....
At the end of the day it's " populate or perish. "
The pyramide of ages have changed definitively in rich countries, because life expectancy has raised, due to better confort, and more efficient medecine.
Increasing population canno't solve everything, because it only deplace the problem (because this population will also retire some decae laters).
To my humble advice, immigration is necessary for rich countries to stabilise the numbers of people, and an adaptation of the retirement policie is needed.
For example most european countries have choose to deplace the age of retirement later, or to find new funds.
If I were to point fingers (for the sake of discussion), I'd say why aren't more old people able to live off their "nesteggs". Why such a great propensity for people to need social security to live? Is it because poverty is creeping up to a larger and larger percentage of people? For those who can afford to live w/o SS benefits, should there be an option to "opt-out" of receiving benefits (even though they paid in), in the interest of alleviating the draw on the SS fund? If people earned more, and in turn, more was put into the SS fund per capita, could the problem finally be out-distanced? Put in a different way, is what we have now a matter of too many people earning too little, and thus less makes it into the SS fund overall, so when they all retire the SS fund is too meager to service everybody even though everybody paid into it- just not enough.
I'm certainly not suggesting people should pay more out of what they currently make into SS, either. That's only going to get people pissed off even more, not to mention make things rougher than they already are in the meantime for people to make a living. So the solution that stands out for me is simply that more people should earn more for the work they do now. I'm not talking about the $60k, 80k, 100k+ a year people either. Obviously, they'll be able to take care of themselves. It's the hundreds of millions of "Joe-averages" that can use a little more leverage. As for those "union workers" that earn $40k-60k and only put in maybe 4 hrs a work a day, well that's another story... There's a lot of things that need some "adjustment" to get us back on track, AFAIC.
My Dad was at a party a few years ago. He began talking with a group of people. After awhile, he became aware of this woman in the group spouting off about SS. She was going on and on about how it wasn't enough and we needed more and so forth. My Dad was silent (unusual!) as she went of about this and other government programs that needed more. She finally says" My father is retiring next year and going to be 65. His SS will not be enough....what is he supposed to do"? My Dad, unable to stand anymore, finally said: "Let me ask you a little question: My grandfather died on the job at 92 years old....and do you know why?". "No", the woman replied..."why"? My Dad: "Because he needed the money". He then queitly walked away.
It's a perfect example. This woman's father was able bodied and minded. He was retiring because, according to the woman, "that's what you are supposed to do". And that's the problem. People think they are OWED a retirement. SS was never intended to entirely provide for retirement. SS should be dramatically reduced to cover only those who are NOT able bodied and minded. There should only be a minimum tax to cover these expenses, not the combined 12% of worker's pay it is now. Beyond this, government should not be involved in retirement AT ALL. Retirement is a relatively new concept in society anyway. But now, it's expected.
As for those "union workers" that earn $40k-60k and only put in maybe 4 hrs a work a day, well that's another story...
I'm no union fan....but I don't know anybody like that.
"People think they are OWED a retirement. SS was never intended to entirely provide for retirement. SS should be dramatically reduced to cover only those who are NOT able bodied and minded. There should only be a minimum tax to cover these expenses, not the combined 12% of worker's pay it is now. Beyond this, government should not be involved in retirement AT ALL. Retirement is a relatively new concept in society anyway. But now, it's expected. "
That's a good set of points there SD.
Personally, I made the decision " Never " to retire.
Hell, I've got too much life in me to be wanting to be become an old fart.
That's why I chose to be a painter..I'll be painting ( God willing ) every day I can till the good lord calls me to pull up stakes..
Besides, I'm still waiting on my ultimate commission..Repainting the Sistine Chapel..
I reckon old Mick's had his day..time to shove some new paintwork up on those walls...
Originally posted by Randycat99
For those who can afford to live w/o SS benefits, should there be an option to "opt-out" of receiving benefits (even though they paid in), in the interest of alleviating the draw on the SS fund?
This is definitely a problem. The richest of those contributing come away with the biggest checks and need the least. Happened with my grandfather. He lived off of SS while year after year splitting up his savings and giving them away to his kids, tax free of course.
SDW, that story about your dad makes him look like an ass. A self-righteous, self-important ass. Sorry, but a good point can be rendered worthless when made by a jerk.
Problem solved by a horrible solution
I could understand wanting to retire between 55 and 65, if retire meant working even 20 hours a week instead of 40 or 50. But otherwise, it's going to cause a monumental problem.
"Dear Ndugu...."
Originally posted by Moogs
SDW is essentially correct. SS has become something it was never intended to be -- everyone's early retirement nest egg. There are many people under the age of 70 who retire when they really shouldn't. Not only for SS' sake, but for their own. How many millions of formerly industrious, intelligent men are out there, having retired around the age of 60? Doing basically nothing, living a life of shear boredom? It's insane.
."
Well the problems that most companies tried to remove their old employees. Try to find a job, when you are over 55 years in the industrie (except if you have a very important job). Looking old is a serious issue when you are in the industrie.
Our society is paradoxal : we have problems with SS, and should keep people at work longer, but the society is not interested by these people.
Errr.....I think you referring to " Soylent Green "
Originally posted by Randycat99
What if SS benefits were "fixed" amounts, regardless of past incomes?
First, SS needs to be cut completely for those that have an income after they retire. Yes, I'm saying we shouldn't let the rich get richer and that you shouldn't get SS based on contribution, but need.
Originally posted by bunge
First, SS needs to be cut completely for those that have an income after they retire. Yes, I'm saying we shouldn't let the rich get richer and that you shouldn't get SS based on contribution, but need.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, at all, but that would certainly make it tough to convince them to pay into it in the first place, if the possibility exists that they might get none of it back when they retire.
I repeat, I don't think it is a bad idea to get things in the right direction, at all. It just might be a bitter pill to get people to swallow.
Originally posted by Randycat99
I repeat, I don't think it is a bad idea to get things in the right direction, at all. It just might be a bitter pill to get people to swallow.
Well, right now it's an extremely bitter pill for people who don't make much. That x% out of every paycheck is worth bitching about, and they do, but the government keeps on taking it. The backlash from the wealthiest y% isn't quite as urgent.
Besides, if you tell people that you pay now, but don't get any back if you're 'filthy rich', most people would take that bet. Either you win, or you win big. That's an easy proposition.
Maybe the society in Logan's Run got it right.
E A T
T H E
R I C H