Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Mostly because when social security was designed there was a retiree to worker ration of 1:130. Today it is closer to 1:3. Soon it will be 1:2.

We already allocate immense resources to the elderly (over 50% of US federal budget is for old people + national debt, where debt accrues for fungible reasons but the biggest explosion is money transfers/healthcare to the old). We have a few levers we can pull there - we don't have to give money transfers to the wealthiest members of what are, in fact, the wealthiest generation by taking from younger people. We could maybe means-test some of it. But they are politically hairy and come kind-of late. All that debt is essentially already borrowing from people who don't yet exist to pay off the old of today.

So it would be somewhat nice to have more people in the future because we have already borrowed their money (or if you are 30, our money).

That makes things difficult. Even if we did not set up the entire USG to do this, having more retirees than workers makes it hard economically. You could imagine a decade where every 4th person is working in a nursing home, basically.

But other than the massive looming financial crisis and the care problem, yeah, its not so bad.

 help



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: