• MattR@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    They will couple the retirement age to life expectancy and this parameter will drop in future. I’m pretty sure we are currently around the peak value of how old the average person will get. Climate change will result in millions of premature deaths every year worldwide. Heat waves will get much more deadly, more pandemics, more extreme flash floods, tornados, storms will kill additionally. Fungi already kill a lot of old people and nobody really knows that or cares about it, despite the WHO’s warning of 8 very harmful species of fungi and their urge to invest more in prevention. Global food and water supply will get pretty precarious. More toxins accumulate in the environment. We see more wars and violence, less stable economies, more social unrest… How can any sane person expect people will live longer under those conditions? Just because conditions have improved for decades doesn’t mean it will never get worse again.

  • Melchior@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    To be fair pension with 70 in 2090 might actually be a decent idea, but way too far into the future to plan for anything.

    The real headline should be the end of pensions with 63. The most births after WW2 in Germany were in 1964. So they could start to retire next year. That obviously is going to stress the pension system. However it also means that the baby boomers are at an age, where death is much more likely. So this will be naturally solved in a decade. However obviously the labour market is going to be worse for employers.

      • the_wise_wolf@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        38
        ·
        3 days ago

        Because the current system is unsustainable and if it isn’t adjusted, it can only end in a disaster.

          • P1nkman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            My body is aching, and I’m not even 40. Couple of weeks back I listed something not that heavy, but my back went out and I could not walk for three days (all fine now). Knowing that I might not be able to work until I’m 70 the cist of living etc., there’s a high probability that I’m going to take my own life. It’s been fum while it lasted, though.

            • kuerbiskernoel@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Save up and get out if you dont like your job. I know someone who stopped at 50 and now just works as a skiing instructor and wine farmer

          • gian
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I suppose it depend on the work you do, but it is inevitable that if we live longer we somehow work longer.

            • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              Lmao no it is not. This is not a rule of physics or nature. This is a condition willfully brought upon us by the rich.

              • gian
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                So, let me understand. You consider a situation where we live longer, we (want to) work less and we keep the same living condition (after retiring) possible.
                Care to explain how ? Don’t come up with the “tax the rich”, they must pay their fair share of taxes but that does not means that they should pay for the longer retirement of everyone else.

                While I agree that the higher productivity of the work should be paid more, I don’t see how this difference can offset 15 or more years of additional retirement, even less if, like you suggest, we want to work less years.

                • kossa@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  explain how

                  Productivity gains.

                  that does not means that they should pay for the longer retirement of everyone else

                  Why not, though?

                • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Well the root problem is of course money, as always. We are already producing enough to feed everyone on earth for example. But since number must go up, the metric for rich assholes isn’t actually productivity or needs being met, but growth.

                  For decades and decades we have automated more and more and yet work has not become less. Where do you think this surplus of value, created by automation and additional work by the working class ended up? I don’t want to just “tax the rich”, that is merely the first step. The goal has to be abolishing a system which not only allows for this concentration of wealth but is designed to do so.

          • the_wise_wolf@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            3 days ago

            And people are getting older (and stay healthier). Something has to give. Boomers are the largest generation in German history. Since then every generation has shrunk. Fewer workers have to support more retirees. We have been seeing this demographic shift coming and still have taken on more and more dead. And yes, I desperately want the rich to pay taxes, but that alone will not fix the issue. Not by a long shot.

            • ranzispa@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 days ago

              We also have much better technology and produce much more stuff with significantly less labour.

              This is not really about the rich people paying taxes, it’s more about the fact that if we have better technology and production why do people have to work more?

              Indeed, boomers are more; but I think we are able to sustain their lives without them having to work.

              • gian
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                if we have better technology and production why do people have to work more?

                Because you pay people for the time they work, not for what they produce. You work 8 hours a day and you are paid for these 8 hours basically without taking into account of how much you produce.

                In the end in a sane system what you set aside while you work should be what pay your pension when you will stop working (but it is not true anymore). You cannot expect to work less or equal and live longer and keep the same standard of living

                Indeed, boomers are more; but I think we are able to sustain their lives without them having to work.

                No, we cannot. Many pension systems have been designed thinking that for every retired person there will be more than one worker. It worked at the time, when families had 3 or more children, it not work now when families have just one or two children, if even.

            • starchylemming@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              boomers aee already mostly retired you idiot

              its us who will pay for their early retirement while we wont get the same

              and since we will work forevrr, our kids won’t have kids because they have no grandparents to support them during their retirement

              nobody will care for us when we are old

            • BigShammy80@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              A few people have so much money, they could easily pay for elderly support and rent if you tax them

              But no, let the poor idiots work till 80… you see how this is wrong?

        • GenosseFlosse@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Why is it currently unsustainable?

          • Because 50% or your salary are instantly taken out of your paycheck for other taxes, which you cannot invest in your own savings or towards your own house?

          • Because Germany does not let foreigners in to work and contribute to the retirement fund, because foreigners are very scary?

          • Because taxing the rich and preventing tax fraud would instantly increase the budget by a few billion euros that could be given to the retirement fund?

          • Because rents and home ownership are unaffordable because a lot of homes are in the hands of investment firms and rich people who try to get the most money out of renting, leading to raising costs that eats more than 50% of the renters remaining income each month?

          • All of the above?