• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Baby boomers are what's wrong with America's economy

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
JSt0rm said:
So all this talk of SS becoming insolvent and unable to payout by 2050 is bullshit?
Click to expand...

Yep. It’s all based on this silly idea of a trust fund that is completely meaningless. (The ‘trust fund’ is treasury bills, meaning money the government borrowed from itself) The payouts you and I will get in 2050 are policy choices, not accounting choices.

In 2050, just as in 2017, we will have (basically) the sum total of human production in the United States to care for our citizens. Using 2017 production to support boomers doesn’t do anything to change 2050 production outside of capital investment of course, but there’s already a surplus of investment cash looking for things to do.
 
FIVR said:
He's going to tell you yes because he thinks the US economy will grow forever. Trump told him 4% and he believes it, in his heart. Even if he won't admit it. He LOVES 'murica and 'murican military expansionism.
Click to expand...

Lol, how does it feel to be entirely, comically wrong?
 
FIVR said:
I said you would agree that it is bullshit. You said "Yep!". Your actual rationalization is what I was talking about, not the crap you type. I know your real feelings about it so I was easily able to deduce your answer.

How does it feel to entirely, comically wrong yourself?
Click to expand...

So even though what I wrote had nothing to do with what you said you know you were right anyway because you can see into my heart.

I find this response very funny.
 
fskimospy said:
So even though what I wrote had nothing to do with what you said you know you were right anyway because you can see into my heart.

I find this response very funny.
Click to expand...



Nothing to do with it? I stated your reasoning is the false belief that US economic output will continue to grow forever. In your answer you talk about economic output in 2050. Are you saying that you think economic output will be higher in 2050 than it is now? Why? What if it isn’t? What if economic output is half of what it is now because of climate change?



Even if my reading of your obtuse rationalizations is wrong, your statement that I was “entirely, comically wrong” is comical in itself considering the first 3 words of my response “He will say yes” were completely correct. Unless you would like to argue that “yes” is not the same as “yep”. LOL
 
FIVR said:
Nothing to do with it? I stated your reasoning is the false belief that US economic output will continue to grow forever. In your answer you talk about economic output in 2050. Are you saying that you think economic output will be higher in 2050 than it is now? Why? What if it isn’t? What if economic output is half of what it is now because of climate change?
Click to expand...

I said absolutely nothing about what output would be then. I simply said that what we had available to pay seniors then has almost nothing to do with what we pay them now.

I don’t know how I could have been clearer.

Even if my reading of your obtuse rationalizations is wrong, your statement that I was “entirely, comically wrong” is comical in itself considering the first 3 words of my response “He will say yes” were completely correct. Unless you would like to argue that “yes” is not the same as “yep”. LOL
Click to expand...

Oh, okay.
 
fskimospy said:
I said absolutely nothing about what output would be then. I simply said that what we had available to pay seniors then has almost nothing to do with what we pay them now.

I don’t know how I could have been clearer.



Oh, okay.
Click to expand...

Ok so I guess we will find out if you are right or not. OR at least I will.
 
JSt0rm said:
So fski you think we can do nothing and everything will be ok?
Click to expand...

I don’t know what you mean by ‘ok’, all I’m trying to say is that it’s not like paying boomers less now is going to make it so we can pay ourselves more in the future.

Let’s put it this way: say we cut boomer SS by 20% today. What do you suppose we do with that money? Since we are talking about things on a national scale the only assets we can accumulate that change this fundamental calculation are foreign ones and if the US goes on an international buying spree there are a lot of other problems that crop up.

I mean what does social security being insolvent even mean? That the obligations the government made to itself have been exhausted? If you loaned yourself $1,000 and ‘paid it back’ $100 at a time has anything really changed for you after you paid off your ‘debt’?
 
I think that more people should adopt the Donald J Trump chocolate cake and ice cream health care methodology. That's right folks - now you can eat your way to a more beautiful and healthier you without and enjoy every step of the process.😀 By the time you get to be the size of a beached whale you'll be too lazy to get off the couch saving authorities time and money tracking you down.😛
 
fskimospy said:
I said absolutely nothing about what output would be then. I simply said that what we had available to pay seniors then has almost nothing to do with what we pay them now.

I don’t know how I could have been clearer.
Click to expand...

Since you don't seem to be able to parse questions when they are in the form of a paragraph, yet still feel the need to post I will parse them for you. Please answer them, so I can see whether you do in fact believe that economic output will grow forever (and that SS will be thus payed forever).


1. Do you believe economic output will be higher in 2050 than it is now in 2017? If so, why?

2. Do you believe there will be more or less humans eligible for SS in 2050 than in 2017? If so, why?

3. Do you believe that climate change will have any effect on economic output of the US?

4. If there are the same (or more) seniors, but there is less money to pay them with because of economic stagnation or wars or climate change, how will they get payed?

5. Do you believe printing money (QE) is a way to solve these problems?
 
FIVR said:
Since you don't seem to be able to parse questions when they are in the form of a paragraph, yet still feel the need to post I will parse them for you. Please answer them, so I can see whether you do in fact believe that economic output will grow forever (and that SS will be thus payed forever).


1. Do you believe economic output will be higher in 2050 than it is now in 2017? If so, why?

2. Do you believe there will be more or less humans eligible for SS in 2050 than in 2017? If so, why?

3. Do you believe that climate change will have any effect on economic output of the US?

4. If there are the same (or more) seniors, but there is less money to pay them with because of economic stagnation or wars or climate change, how will they get payed?

5. Do you believe printing money (QE) is a way to solve these problems?
Click to expand...

I feel no need to respond to a series of non-sequiturs from someone who wasn’t smart enough to understand what I wrote the first time.
 
fskimospy said:
I feel no need to respond to a series of non-sequiturs from someone who wasn’t smart enough to understand what I wrote the first time.
Click to expand...

Just the answer I would expect from somebody who is obviously way, way smarter than me.
 
FIVR said:
Just the answer I would expect from somebody who is obviously way, way smarter than me.
Click to expand...

I have no idea if I’m smarter than you. (It was a figure of speech) I do know that I’m not so invested in the outcome of this discussion that I’m going to act like you are.
 
sorry, just skimming this but does someone actually believe the US economy will grow forever? because that is literally impossible
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
This is true however, that precept is what every single business model and financial policy both, public and private, is built on.
Click to expand...

yes because they all think short term. everyone of them will tank at some point but that doesn't matter except to the poor bastards holding worthless stock at the end and the employees of the companies.

IMO it's better to reset the whole doomsday clock of pensions now or at least begin now and spread the pain over 30 years or so. the alternative as i see it is to have the whole thing become a cluster fuck in decades time with millions of people without jobs and no resources to buy food let alone afford somewhere to live meaning crime is the only alternative. but of course this won't happen as like companies our governments think short term too. as in "i only give a shit about the period *I* am in office".
 
Moonbeam said:
Do you dig ditches. A lot of laborers are be broken by their jobs long before they reach seventy. How about only white collar has to work to eighty and people with physical jobs to fifty.
Click to expand...

LoL. I come from farming stock, certainly not easy work. My granddad worked his farm into his seventies. ALL of my dad's brothers save one are still working their farms and they are all in their 70s. My moms brother in law is still working his farm and he is in late 70s. I believe able bodied adults should work until they are 70. If their bodies are shattered by physical labor, they should be excepted from this and taken care of. This happened to my wife's dad who was a mason.

I am simply running the numbers. As we approach 2 workers per retiree and fall below that number, what kind of benefit can those two workers provide for the one retiree while still earning enough to live on themselves? If we maintained a retirement age that locked at least 3 workers per retiree, wouldn't the system be more sustainable? If we continue as usual, won't retirees either have to take a cut in benefits or the government begin taking out debt to pay them? Those two options should be repugnant to people who care about America's children and American's retirees. The most humane option is that those of us capable of working an extra year or two go ahead and work an extra year or two.

The most difficult part of this is convincing corporations to keep employees after they reach the age of 65 as they tend to want to get rid of old people. This all falls apart if that doesn't happen.
 
bshole said:
LoL. I come from farming stock, certainly not easy work. My granddad worked his farm into his seventies. ALL of my dad's brothers save one are still working their farms and they are all in their 70s. My moms brother in law is still working his farm and he is in late 70s. I believe able bodied adults should work until they are 70. If their bodies are shattered by physical labor, they should be excepted from this and taken care of. This happened to my wife's dad who was a mason.

I am simply running the numbers. As we approach 2 workers per retiree and fall below that number, what kind of benefit can those two workers provide for the one retiree while still earning enough to live on themselves? If we maintained a retirement age that locked at least 3 workers per retiree, wouldn't the system be more sustainable? If we continue as usual, won't retirees either have to take a cut in benefits or the government begin taking out debt to pay them? Those two options should be repugnant to people who care about America's children and American's retirees. The most humane option is that those of us capable of working an extra year or two go ahead and work an extra year or two.

The most difficult part of this is convincing corporations to keep employees after they reach the age of 65 as they tend to want to get rid of old people. This all falls apart if that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

Or we can raise taxes at the top & take in more working age immigrants.
 
bshole said:
Raise the retirement age to 70. That would solve the problem straight up. I have no problem working to that age. If I have to work an extra five years to help out my kids and my grand kids, I consider it the very least I can do for them. The mathematics of Social Security are broken at a retirement age of 65, long life spans and a population that is not growing.
Click to expand...

To draw full SS retirement at 65 years old you would have been born in 1937 or earlier. I don't think that applies to many here.

If you were born after 1960 the full SS retirement age is already 67 years old.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/agereduction.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top