This gets rid of workers, especially experienced workers.
Other countries won't do likewise. This gives them an advantage. They pull way ahead in economic power.
Because goods and services are traded across borders, the more-restricted economy sinks quickly. To put it another way, if your share of the work is smaller, your share of the benefits will be smaller.
75% of the under-50 workforce is serving lattes and trying to pay off student loans. Mom and dad spend their retirement savings in Florida, can’t support adult children.
Your thought experiment is a kinder version of Logan’s Run.
This shifts the labour market, making a lot more jobs available and making it much easier to get a job for new people or the jobless. I don't think it would work well though. Ideas such as job guarantees for everyone often come up in UBI conversation so this is a related concept.
Mandatory retirement means that you're prohibiting people from working. It's such an infringement on personal liberty that it's politically laughable to propose it. Keep in mind that most politicians are over the 50 year age limit themselves. It's just impossible to realistically implement.
That's on top of the massively increased cost of the newly retired people, mental health crisis from being prohibited to work for the last 25-40 years of your life, getting rid of the layer of the workforce with most experience and expertise. It's absurdly dumb.
Being in a job is not required for mental health. Women all over the world ...millions of them even..find meaning in life being stay at home moms and working moms quit their jobs to find meaning elsewhere. They don’t suffer from ‘mental health crisises’
Employment is not a right. It is an economic transaction. Translating labour to wages is not a given right either without a contract.
Every 50+ person would have the opportunity to make a living and the social contract should make way for the next generation to make a living too.
Between the ages of 25-50, the working population supports the youth. After 50, the youth will support them. There is no need to fret about massive costs. If anything costs will come down. More people die of stress, hyper tension and heart disease than boredom.
Can you explain this considering that you're adding 15 years of financial support that need to be paid for and also additionally increasing that cost by making it compulsory?
Every nation has an economic engine. If there is no refueling schedule, then the engine will cease to function.
There is no real contradiction. It’s rather simple..I don’t think an economic engine should operate to take care of mental health of its employees. It should function to keep the economy of a country going. That’s it’s prime directive.
Meanwhile: how do you think women for millennia have managed not to be employed and find meaning in life. No one owes anyone a job. Being called to employment from age 25-50 is a duty to an economy that has 1. Supported you till age 25. 2. Will support you after age 50.
The rest is just numbers. Social and corporate accounting. It’s not rocket science.
I know a lot of people who are ready to retire except they are worried about health insurance. If Medicare kicks in earlier than 65, then perhaps those who want to retire or semi retire will clear up bottleneck.
How about instead of ‘mandatory retirement at 50,I propose ‘retirement benefits kick in’.(Altho it won’t solve the problem..but gives people a choice to retire earlier without fear of being left without instance coverage)
I should have also clarified that this thought experiment scenario is for the United States only. Apologies.
14 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 40.5 ms ] threadOther countries won't do likewise. This gives them an advantage. They pull way ahead in economic power.
Because goods and services are traded across borders, the more-restricted economy sinks quickly. To put it another way, if your share of the work is smaller, your share of the benefits will be smaller.
We should also look at the age demographics. What is the ageing population and what is the youth..and the gender division.
Your thought experiment is a kinder version of Logan’s Run.
This makes so little sense that I have no idea why it's in the question at all and why it's compared to UBI.
I think UBI is a much better idea.
That's on top of the massively increased cost of the newly retired people, mental health crisis from being prohibited to work for the last 25-40 years of your life, getting rid of the layer of the workforce with most experience and expertise. It's absurdly dumb.
Being in a job is not required for mental health. Women all over the world ...millions of them even..find meaning in life being stay at home moms and working moms quit their jobs to find meaning elsewhere. They don’t suffer from ‘mental health crisises’
Employment is not a right. It is an economic transaction. Translating labour to wages is not a given right either without a contract.
Every 50+ person would have the opportunity to make a living and the social contract should make way for the next generation to make a living too.
Between the ages of 25-50, the working population supports the youth. After 50, the youth will support them. There is no need to fret about massive costs. If anything costs will come down. More people die of stress, hyper tension and heart disease than boredom.
Can you explain this considering that you're adding 15 years of financial support that need to be paid for and also additionally increasing that cost by making it compulsory?
Tell them that:
> Being in a job is not required for mental health.
> Employment is not a right.
Your entire argument is a giant contradiction.
There is no real contradiction. It’s rather simple..I don’t think an economic engine should operate to take care of mental health of its employees. It should function to keep the economy of a country going. That’s it’s prime directive.
Meanwhile: how do you think women for millennia have managed not to be employed and find meaning in life. No one owes anyone a job. Being called to employment from age 25-50 is a duty to an economy that has 1. Supported you till age 25. 2. Will support you after age 50.
The rest is just numbers. Social and corporate accounting. It’s not rocket science.
How about instead of ‘mandatory retirement at 50,I propose ‘retirement benefits kick in’.(Altho it won’t solve the problem..but gives people a choice to retire earlier without fear of being left without instance coverage)
I should have also clarified that this thought experiment scenario is for the United States only. Apologies.