BTW, what was the age of mandatory retirement in the Soylent Green dystopia?
Monday, June 04, 2012
Celebrating 80? You are invited to visit Soylent Green Corp.
BTW, what was the age of mandatory retirement in the Soylent Green dystopia?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
I don't know about 80 but in the US when the social security system was designed, retirement age was 65 and average lifespan was 70, so average person could expect to receive pension only for the last 5 years of life. Now people collect pensions for 15,20 yrs or more. On the other end, people stay in school until they are 30. So somehow in the small window between 30 and 60 you have to support not only yourself but pay for the education of the generation before and the retirements of the generation after - the numbers just do not add up.
People are resentful because they feel that they are not getting that which they were "promised" but whoever promised this stuff lied - there are just not enough resources to allow people to live a life of leisure for 2/3 of their life (1st and last 3rd), no matter how you tax the "rich".
K
In the kibbutzim there is no retirement age. In fact, there is no retirement. The founders never thought that they will age once. People work till carried to the Gan HaHayim, the Garden of the Living.
How old will he be when he retires?
Probably, however, he is a workaholic and would find retirement a nightmare.
Anon
See this link
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/01/gov-walkers-sin/
Retirement at age 65 (or in the case of Greece, 52) was in fact just a transitory phase. But entrenched institutions (which in the West means leftists) always want you to see the current state of affairs as permanent - whatever you have now is a "right" and must go one forever. What Marx called "reification". Nothing lasts forever.
The nature of work itself has changed. One can do heavy labor only so long (though my Jamaican carpenter is well into his '70s and he is as strong as an ox). But mental work such as drawing plans - if you do not become senile you can do this for a long time.
My late father in law was squeezed out of engineering work for various reasons - he put all his eggs in one basket - a company that was supposed to build a product that he invented. Had it succeeded he would have made a lot, but it did not. When it liquidated, he was too old to get a job elsewhere. He never adapted to computer technology. He spent his later years playing golf, traveling, all the usual fruits of retirement. I think he would have been happier if he had been able to continue working and contributing to society.
K
"But mental work such as drawing plans - if you do not become senile you can do this for a long time."
That isn't true for most ocmputer programmers because the hiring and promoting powers value youth and familiary with the latest, greatest technology. Only the best programmers don't obsolesce, but not everyone can be the best. Likewise, I'm not sure that my fairly specialized field will support those of my age cohort for 40-50 years until we reach 80. Are we all supposed to retrain/re-degree in our 50's or 60's?
It was a ponzi scheme. it could not have worked, math does not allow it.
I could see close by how a pay as you go system works. a direct transfer of resources from the active towards the retired.
It's very simple and easy to understand. Theft is almost impossible.
Of course when the retired become more numerous and the active less so pensions become smaller. Sometimes they are suplimented buy the state, sometimes not.
But the private pension funds are a different animal. It's a sort of " you gimme 'da money and I'll give you more sometime in the future " - that is the marketing but in essence - so that I can have a niced skyscrapper full of nice ladies with laptops and short skirts. And I can buy a yacht, and move around between my palaces with the nice ladies using private planes and limos etc etc.
Of course as in any scheme of this sort when the funds have to pay something back they just say a clear "f..ck off" to the hopeful clients.
It was extremely predictable from the begining, no cuantic physics just simple arithmetics.
The supporters of this scheme are of 2 kinds in my opinion.
Payed ones - whom I understand and respect, too bad I'm not one of them - and dumb ones - you can add what the opinion about them might be.
As a personal prediction, I am using similitude with other cases when society encountered social problems very marginally simmilar.
The states will offer some social welfare so that the clients of the private pension funds will not starve as they deserve. Meager social welfare but still undeserved.
The money got lost or appropriated by the administrators and their helpers , be they activists in the political domain, media activists called journalists or other types.
So pretty predictable what is happening and also what will happen. But interesting to observe from a sociological point of view.
We can't do anything anymore so looking to the bright side we could at least enjoy the show. That is all we can do anyway.
The reasons above go a long way towards explaining Russia's "capital outflows" – and they are largely describing activity which reflects the country's growing economic strength. The detailed breakdown of the CBR's outflow data, such as it is, suggests that, of the $35.1bn of outflows in the first quarter of 2012, the corporate sector – flows linked to company loan re-financing and overseas M&A – accounted for $19bn, with the banking sector taking $16bn. While the latter category may capture some personal "capital flight", it also includes the far more significant practice of Western banks tapping their Russian subsidiaries for cash.
"Capital outflows" also need to be seen in the context of Russia's huge current account surplus, which was 5.5% of GDP in 2011, up form 4.8% the year before. During the first quarter, the surplus reached $42.3bn, 37% up on the same period in 2011. Capital outflows are natural for a surplus country
I have no idea why he writes the way he does.
He either has no idea , not even a vague one , about the subjects he touches or hmmmm he's well hmmmm sorry hmmm lying.
I chose to comment on this subject because the energy one is much more complex. On the capital flight it's just simple numbers. No way any alfin can misinterpret them.
On the energy subject his approach is exactly the same, but being a much more complex geological/mathematical model with a degree of malintent you can sabotage any debate by creating noise. Useless to get involved in one with such characters.
Russia's recent "capital outflows" can be largely explained by the following factors:
1) Re-financing by Russian corporates
With the Western banking sector looking shaky, many Russian companies have been swapping their expensive dollar-, sterling- and euro-denominated overseas loans for ruble-based credit with stronger local banks. This often provides Russian firms with cheaper finance and a less erratic and more reliable creditor. Prosperity Capital Management estimates that Gazprom repaid at least $5bn of foreign debt in 2011, while Bashneft redeemed $1bn. The wider availability of domestic credit also means most of the large food retailers we know have also now paid-off their foreign debts. Redeeming an overseas loan obviously involves sending money abroad, scoring on the CBR balance sheet as a "capital outflow".
2) Subsidiary borrowing by foreign banks
Cash-strapped foreign banks are routinely borrowing from their Russian subsidiaries. Given that Russia has an open capital account, the only large EM that does so, the Ministry of Finance has committed itself not to oppose this practice. The numbers show, though, that in several months over the last year, such operations – western banks accessing liquidity from their better-regulated Russian subsidiaries – accounted for half of Russia's capital outflows.
3) Outbound M&A by Russian firms
As the strongest Russian companies grow and prosper, many are expanding overseas - which often involves sending money abroad to buy foreign firms. Far from being a weakness, such "outflows" are a sign of strength. Last year, TNK-BP spent $772m on a Brazilian oil and gas stake. Sberbank bought part of Austria's Volksbank for $585m. Russia-based Digital Sky Technologies sent $563m to the US in return for 10% of Twitter. Mechel spent $412m on Ukraine's Donetsk Electro-Metallurgical Plant (DEMZ). Such transactions, all of which took place in 2011, are registered as "capital outflows". Yet all of them are the result of companies generating profits in Russia and then expanding their interests abroad.
4) Overseas retention of Russian earnings
When Russian companies earn money abroad, and such earnings are retained overseas and then reinvested, they also appear on the CBR's balance-sheet as "capital outflows" Given that domestic real interest rates remain low and many Russian firms (especially in the energy sector) are investing heavily overseas, retained earnings also account for a significant share of the outflow data. Again, those, such flows reflect the legitimate commercial activities of successful Russian multi-nationals.
So why was mr Fin lying is a mistery for me.
It takes minutes to study the subject if you have an internet connection.
So he either does not study the subjects he writes about at all or hmmm something else happens.
Any idea? I saw you commented there and thought to make things straight for you, at least on this very small subject.
and the end.
Western executives who make decisions about FDI into Russia are generally much better informed about the relative merits of doing business here than portfolio investors, the latter tending rarely even to visit the country, making them far more susceptible to 'fads' and alarmist newspaper headlines. It is interesting, then, that FDI into Russia is rather higher than is commonly supposed. Figures from the UN show that while China attracted $465bn of FDI between 2006 and 2010, Russia placed second among the BRICs with $240bn, well ahead of Brazil's $173bn and the $145bn that was channeled to India.
In terms of FDI per head, Russia attracted twice as much money as Brazil, five-times more than China and 13-times more than India during this period. This reality, with Russia more than holding its own as an FDI destination among the BRICs, isn't reflected in the relative portrayal of these markets by the Western media.
I could see close by how a pay as you go system works. a direct transfer of resources from the active towards the retired.
It's very simple and easy to understand. Theft is almost impossible.
Of course when the retired become more numerous and the active less so pensions become smaller. Sometimes they are suplimented buy the state, sometimes not.
But the private pension funds are a different animal. It's a sort of " you gimme 'da money and I'll give you more sometime in the future "
You have it exactly backward - the PAYG's, such as US social security, are the REAL Ponzi schemes. When it is time for the current working generation to retire, their money will be long gone and the next generation will not be big enough to pay. But the current generation of politicians will be dead by then, so they don't care. "Supplemented by the state" makes no sense - the "state" has no money , it must come from the current generation of taxpayers.
In a properly set up private scheme, whatever money I invest I get back later, so there can be no Ponzi. Of course the money must be invested wisely - it's up to me to figure out what that is.
K
Likewise, I'm not sure that my fairly specialized field will support those of my age cohort for 40-50 years until we reach 80. Are we all supposed to retrain/re-degree in our 50's or 60's?
Possibly. The other alternative is that you are laid off from your current profession and spend the rest of your working career as a Walmart greeter or some such. It's really up to you - either you maintain your skills at a level that the market demands or you find other less skilled work.
K
K,
I'm not sure that my field will exist in 50 years. If it does, it may be automated to the point that relatively few humans are required. And my field is not alone. Some aspects of law, medical diagnostic specialties that don't involve direct patient contact, surgery (robotics assisted), skilled machinist jobs, etc. may all be automated. What fields should we re-train in? We can't all be Wal-Mart greeters. If that scenario happens and only a small fraction of the population is working and drawing real income, who will have money to spend in Wal-Mart, much less any nicer stores?
I can't answer you except in general terms. Capitalism has created more wealth than ever existed in all of history thru the process of creative destruction. The destruction part is easy to predict - much of that which exists now will be obsolete - you are probably right in your predictions (up to a point). But nobody can tell you what the "creation" part will be - if they could, they would be rich. 50 years ago, no one could have told you that there would be such a thing as a internet, today millions of jobs have been created by it.
K
K,
If the new job creation occurs primarily in the tech sector, most people displaced will not be able to retrain to take advantage of it. First, the programming aspect strongly favors the young, not old has-beens. That is built into the hiring models. People who haven't done advanced math in 30 years or (even more common, given average IQ) who never had math ability will not be able to work in the engineering and hardware design side of the industry. The factory work is increasinly automated as well.
Somebody had damned well better figure out how to keep all of the surplus people housed, fed and occupied. It will not be a pleasant world otherwise. J doesn't think that the lowest lumpen are capable of organized violence (based on a previous discussion), but I'm not so sure. Certainly, a gifted rabblerouser can make use of them for violent purposes. Even if that doesn't happen, it will not be pleasant to live in a nation that is more than 50% slums. You know inner-city Philly, K. Imagine if most of the counry looked like that, Detroit or Baltimore. Half Sigma has raised the idea that people might be payed to play video games. Maybe that or a system like in the Matrix movies will be necessary.
I have worked in a few hi-tech factories in Israel and Europe, and I was unimpressed by the cognitive level of the workers. Fabs like Intel in Kyriat Gat, Israel, are chock full of fat menopausal secretaries, cleaning ladies, a large administrative section, public relations people, a large kitchen and restaurant, and also water engineers. My colleges worked mainly in maintenance or implementation of foreign equipment. The intellectual work is done in development centers alone. Also flash memory factories are manned by hardworking ladies in a
nice air conditioned shop floor. The most populous department is in the service sector, like kitchen and so on.
The actual people who need to think is very few. But donkeys are necessary everywhere.
As for me, I am not worried. Except my Mother in Law, my people seem resistant to serious cognitive decay. I see myself in 2042 enjoying free coffee and cookies in the bank private investors VIP room, watching the tape and discussing with other mathusalems the chances of the Euro III vs the old-new sheqel.
"J said...
As for me, I am not worried."
There is another reason for you to have no reasons for worry.
Your profession. In "clasic" engineering an old experienced person is not easily replaced by younglings. It's one of the reaons I chose soimething of this kind. If you read and keep learning, you also accumulate experience in time and become more valuable.
And nothing changes, water and air, fans or pumps, they are the same.
For other professions of course it's much more complicated.
I would not worry anyway because if society has problems and starts cutting welfare hypermortality follows like we saw in former SU.
Hypermortality in the former CCCP is a consequence of alcohol, more than anything. From your posts I see you are not that kind of mujik.
Hmmmm trying to be optimistic.
Hypermortality would make society sustainable. Maybe we should be encouraged to start drinking :)).
You are right it was due to alcoholism.
I thought about this and it's a very new problem due to the decay of family life. Of traditions and of the traditional approach.
Normally an old person - usually female - lived with a younger family, usually of the older child. Took care of kids, prepared food etc.
Old people are not expansive to support per se.
Modern approach is unsustainable of course. From all points of view.
Having small children and no old people around is very hard for young couples and leads to a collapse of fertility.
Supporting old people to live alone in individual houses is also very hard for society.
In conclusion we - as a society - have spitted on all traditional values. We invented feminism, nuclear family and a lot of other unsustainable ideas. As long as we consumed the accumulated human capital created by our more traditional ancestors it worked. We wasted the inheritance and imagined that we are smarter then grandpa.
:)))))
I have lived through this myself.
When grandpa died we - my parents - took my grandmother to live with us.
She had a pension so it was not because of financial problems, but she could not live alone. And it was quite OK she is alive now and has a sense a purpose.
When I changed cities I moved with an older aunt with no kids. Then married etc moved and took aunt - very close relation, very, she invested in the relationship - with us - us meaning me and wife. Had kids etc.
I know what taking care of the older family members means. That is the normal human behavior.
One of the goals of socialism is replacing your family with the state. Once you have destroyed the family, the power of the state is unlimited.
K
"One of the goals of socialism is replacing your family with the state. Once you have destroyed the family, the power of the state is unlimited.
K"
Yeap. But not only socialism. As soon as society can maintain a complex administrative structure it attempts to control all aspect of human behavior.
It normal social/political behavior.
As long as you consume human capital created by the traditional family oriented society which got replaced by the new form it's OK.
And you can have corrupt activists like Hillary roaming happily around. But hmmmm as any resources of capital which is not replaced according to the consumption rate well it becomes scarcer.
For the individuals is very very nice. Low responsability towards the older and the younger members of family. Sometimes not at all , old ones to the asylum and young ones can be aborted so that they don't interfere with the nice hedonistic life of their would be parents.
It's great life.
But this happy times last as long as you have enough high quality people to burn ,brought to life and educated by the generations which will be thrown in asylums with the nigerian nurses.
Painful correction is inevitable. And coming to town right now. It is knocking at the door.
The happy hunting lands are on the other side, in afterlife.
Of course it's a little bit more complicated because we also burned a very concentrated and easy to obtain energy source.
It was a sort of temporal subvention we received from the '50 and the cretacic. Of course we thought we are very smart and we deserve what we have and more while we burned the inheritance.
It's not socialism , it's human behavior. Ideological approach just masks our behavior which is usually the same. We are ambitious and vicious pack animals, with mindset from the jungle.
We use ideology to somehow cover and justify our actions.
Post a Comment