Planetarion Forums

Nusselt · 2 Jul 2003, 20:26

{X}

on the one hand i suppose id get bored in retirement (actually i wouldnt retirement is like being a student with money) but bloody hell working till you're 70.

Muslim · 2 Jul 2003, 20:28

but at your first job, say at a age of 21, you might trip and fall on the elevator shaft of your office and retire, receiving full wage
what about that?
its a lot like a lotterie, see?
(talking about cacophony)

Nusselt · 2 Jul 2003, 20:32

one of my friends is planning to fake senile dementia when he reaches 60.

the average life expactancy of the british male in 2000 was 75. Im going to spend the last 5 years of my life as i did the first 5. An angry violent driblling git.

Woof · 2 Jul 2003, 20:32

Does your average Brazilian have a life expectancy of 70 years Muslim?

Scoot951 · 2 Jul 2003, 20:35

My goal in life is to retire, and has been since I was about 13.

Nodrog · 2 Jul 2003, 20:53

hahahahaha

"age discrimination" is the new "our welfare state is falling apart whatever shall we do????"

Ragnarak · 2 Jul 2003, 20:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Nusselt

the average life expactancy of the british male in 2000 was 75.

someone had best get round to organising the party for DM now

Dante Hicks · 2 Jul 2003, 21:51

The social democratic model of capitalism doesn't work.

When the pension system collapses entirely it'll be interesting whether something will replace it. Two main options I see :
(i) take in more immigrants primarily from the third world to support an ageing white population with an ever dropping birth-rate, who paradoxically will get more racist as their number declines into irrelevence.
(ii) try and change the system a bit.

I bet on (i) for now.

Either way, the idea of working until 70 is utterly ****ed up, and is certainly something I wouldn't want to do.

Kumnaa · 2 Jul 2003, 22:04

loads of people already work till they're 70, I dont get what the problem is

Dante Hicks · 2 Jul 2003, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumnaa
loads of people already work till they're 70, I dont get what the problem is

Do you have a job?

Kumnaa · 2 Jul 2003, 22:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Do you have a job?

yes

Dante Hicks · 2 Jul 2003, 22:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumnaa
yes

Would you like to be "forced" (economically) to have to do it for the next 40/50 or so years?

If so, can I have your job

Kumnaa · 2 Jul 2003, 22:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Would you like to be "forced" (economically) to have to do it for the next 40/50 or so years?

If so, can I have your job

7 more years at this point in time does not bother me, if you're sensible you'll have setup some kind of fund so that you can take early retirement. They dont put you in prison if you're not working at 70.

Dante Hicks · 2 Jul 2003, 22:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumnaa
7 more years at this point in time does not bother me, if you're sensible you'll have setup some kind of fund so that you can take early retirement. They dont put you in prison if you're not working at 70.

This is true, but I think the point is that the economic system is currently configured to ensure people work for a long period of time.

I personally don't want to eight hours a day, 5 days a week for the rest of my life slaving away just to make ends meet. Fortunately I'm "smart" so I'll get by. My concern is for those who aren't as "smart" as me and thus will find it harder.

It's not like a private pension is a sure thing (recent developments have shown this). Most private schemes you get penalised for retiring early, so presumably the default age for most pensions will be 70 (and potentially 75).

The whole idea of our entire civilisation working for most of their natural lives seems rather empty. What the hell was the point of those geeks inventing all this cool technology stuff if I'm going to have to work longer than my god damn grandfather (who was an Irish drunk anyway, so probably didn't work a day in his life)?

Nodrog · 2 Jul 2003, 22:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
. Fortunately I'm "smart" so I'll get by. My concern is for those who aren't as "smart" as me and thus will find it harder.

breaking the law isnt cool, dude

Nusselt · 2 Jul 2003, 22:29

im with nodrog here breaking the law isnt

on the other hand tell me what you're up to so i can join in.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 2 Jul 2003, 22:32

working to 70 would be cool if i was in a great job like being a porn star or a spy. but if i was in a **** job like the man who picks up the horse **** after it did a dump in the road, or the guy at the sewage works who has to fish out the condoms and tampons, then it would suck.

Nusselt · 2 Jul 2003, 22:38

Quote:

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
working to 70 would be cool if i was in a great job like being a porn star or a spy. but if i was in a **** job like the man who picks up the horse **** after it did a dump in the road, or the guy at the sewage works who has to fish out the condoms and tampons, then it would suck.

being a porn star at 65 when your livelyhood depended on you getting an erection would take all the fun out of my life.

Kumnaa · 2 Jul 2003, 22:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I personally don't want to eight hours a day, 5 days a week for the rest of my life slaving away just to make ends meet. Fortunately I'm "smart" so I'll get by. My concern is for those who aren't as "smart" as me and thus will find it harder.

Those people already work for as long as they can, this will make little difference to the majority of people.

Dante Hicks · 2 Jul 2003, 22:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumnaa
Those people already work for as long as they can, this will make little difference to the majority of people.

"Most" people, retire when they can. Which is usally 65 (for men).

Some people do keep working for as long as they can though. If that's out of choice, then that's cool. If it's out of necessity, I don't think that is cool.

queball · 2 Jul 2003, 23:36

Quote:

The social democratic model of capitalism doesn't work.

When the pension system collapses entirely it'll be interesting whether something will replace it. Two main options I see :
(i) take in more immigrants primarily from the third world to support an ageing white population with an ever dropping birth-rate, who paradoxically will get more racist as their number declines into irrelevence.

What happens when the immigrants become old?

Quote:

(ii) try and change the system a bit.

I bet on (i) for now.

The average person cannot produce the same amount and expect to consume more than his ancestors. No amount of system-rigging will allow more to be consumed than produced.

Quote:

Either way, the idea of working until 70 is utterly ****ed up, and is certainly something I wouldn't want to do.

So kill yourself on your 70th birthday.

People react to progress by having a higher standard of living. You can talk of "empty" lives, but it's far more empty to do nothing all day (or spend other people's money?).

Some people today earn very little and work short hours, for example street sweepers, and buy very little and that's fine. I don't know much about your lifestyle but I'd guess your Irish grandfather lived in worse conditions.

Avril Lavigne. Pot Noodle. The charitable joy you get from your income going towards the poor and needy. The primitive human thrill of exploration happening as we speak with the ESA's Mars Express Mission. Couldn't you drag your seventy year old arse out of bed to contribute to this great society?

Dante Hicks · 2 Jul 2003, 23:45

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
What happens when the immigrants become old?

Since the "first" (obviously not actually the first) lot of immigrants are definitely mainly dead, and the next lot (West Indies) are all old the answer is obvious. More immigrants.

Quote:

The average person cannot produce the same amount and expect to consume more than his ancestors. No amount of system-rigging will allow more to be consumed than produced.

I don't consume all I produce. In fact, what do I consume? Electricity, certainly (oil, gas, etc). Food, yup. So they're two fixed costs. Some physical goods (my PC, mp3 player, etc). What about everything else I "consume"? Mainly it's intellectual property these days. Music, books, films, games, software. I'm not sure if these need to be produced in a traditional work environment.

Quote:

So kill yourself on your 70th birthday.

Gee, there's an option.

Quote:

People react to progress by having a higher standard of living. You can talk of "empty" lives, but it's far more empty to do nothing all day (or spend other people's money?).

Or read Plato, or Nieztsche, or stroll through the countryside and take in beautiful scenery? Empty? Hardly. Why don't I do that now? Because the work environment is structured in a way that's difficult to work part-time and rent is at a level where part-time work is uneconomic. Otherwise I would, believe me.

Quote:

Avril Lavigne. Pot Noodle. The charitable joy you get from your income going towards the poor and needy. The primitive human thrill of exploration happening as we speak with the ESA's Mars Express Mission. Couldn't you drag your seventy year old arse out of bed to contribute to this great society?

I probably would as a voluntary effort, but the fact it's necessity, no I don't want to. I'll glad volunteer my efforts towards human emancipation but please don't try and force me.

My labour goes towards various things I don't want. On some sort of abstract level I "choose" to fund TV advertising (or any advertising) for instance. But it's bloody hard to opt out. It's kind of like a quasi-voluntary taxation system which you don't have to pay if you fill out the right 5000 pieces of paperwork.

As for Avril, she can produce her wonders without my contribution. If she wants to come stay at my pad for a little inspiration, she's welcome. [Fresh Prince]You know what I'm saying?[/Fresh Prince]

queball · 3 Jul 2003, 00:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I don't consume all I produce. In fact, what do I consume? Electricity, certainly (oil, gas, etc). Food, yup. So they're two fixed costs. Some physical goods (my PC, mp3 player, etc). What about everything else I "consume"? Mainly it's intellectual property these days. Music, books, films, games, software. I'm not sure if these need to be produced in a traditional work environment.

And a load of public services. OK, and what do you produce? Surely your incoming equals your outgoing? Letting tax and rent be the cost of your education and police etc.

Quote:

Gee, there's an option.

Or read Plato, or Nieztsche, or stroll through the countryside and take in beautiful scenery? Empty? Hardly. Why don't I do that now? Because the work environment is structured in a way that's difficult to work part-time and rent is at a level where part-time work is uneconomic. Otherwise I would, believe me.

IMHO empty and hedonistic/solipsistic.

Quote:

I probably would as a voluntary effort, but the fact it's necessity, no I don't want to. I'll glad volunteer my efforts towards human emancipation but please don't try and force me.

Is this particular to retirement? Aren't you economically :eek:'"forced"':eek: to work now?
I'd be interested to hear how much you make and the hours you work. I'm a jobless student of course.

Quote:

My labour goes towards various things I don't want. On some sort of abstract level I "choose" to fund TV advertising (or any advertising) for instance. But it's bloody hard to opt out. It's kind of like a quasi-voluntary taxation system which you don't have to pay if you fill out the right 5000 pieces of paperwork.

Yeah, it's a compromise. Advertising is a shameful example, I hope technology will make it obsolete. It's not a huge cost to you though is it?
Also, notice how the BBC puts in loads of ads even though it doesn't have to? That sucks. And this is relevant becau

Dante Hicks · 3 Jul 2003, 00:17

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
And a load of public services. OK, and what do you produce? Surely your incoming equals your outgoing? Letting tax and rent be the cost of your education and police etc.

You're thinking in monetary terms again, which is where we always run into disagreement. Ultimately everythings a mess at the moment. Yes, it all does balance out (sort of, we "import" labour through importing goods and migrants) but as mentioned previously it's almost impossible to account for anything. Obviously my outgoings to balance with my incomings - but that strikes me as a truism (i.e. you could count savings as an outgoing). But as I say, there are various pieces of labour I am indirectly funding which I can't even account for through my personal decisions. I am also directly funding armed killers who go to other countries to shoot brown faced people.

Even where I do agree with the service (for instance, water or electricity) - where is my funding going? Sure, the wages of those working, etc. What about the shareholders of these companies? Or the directors? Oh it's OK, because I can just choose to use a workers co-operative water company....oh.

Yes, I am "forced" (in a very loose sense) to work now. I earn £17k a year. That equates (after tax) to about a grand a month. My rent (shared with my wife) comes to £400, then once you've taken other bills (council tax, phone bill, etc) I've got about 400 left. I'm paying back twenty grand debt (not every month, thankfully) so basically I've got money for food, and that's about it, plus a couple of luxuries. No biggie tho, I'll live. I can't tell you whether the amount I'm paying in debt is a fair reflection of the cost, nor can I tell you whether it actually costs the bank £30 to write to me to tell me my direct debit has bounced. But I digress.

My only point about retirement is that jesus, we need a break some time. I'd prefer people worked part-time until they were 80 (i.e. their whole time), rather than full-time until they were 65, but making this full-time period even longer sucks.

As for what I'd do with my time, obviously it wouldn't just be that. But don't knock hedonism, if that's what I choose to do, then cool for me. What I'd probably end up doing is writing, participating in projects with friends, participating in charity work, etc. I might even end up doing my current job.

But it's the Von Humboldt thing : When we see a gardener tending a garden as a job "we admire what he does, but we hate what he is" (i.e. a slave). My argument is not against labour, for that truly is the finest thing a man can do. It's the souless "forced" labour that the majority of humanity is pressed into.

queball · 3 Jul 2003, 01:06

I don't think I'll ever understand the slave to the wage concept. Even someone who works to pay the rent and pays high rent to live in the only place with jobs doesn't seem like a slave. Only as much as people living in Zion with the machines in the basement.

I gather that firms have traditionally given their employees increases to give them an incentive to, well, work harder than they otherwise would for the same wage. It's then uneconomical to keep people on past 65. There's also the percieved need for young blood which is what the anti-ageism crowd are concentrating on. Perhaps as well as medicine we should concentrate on ways to extend the job prospects of the elderly.

The reasons touted seem largely aimless on either side. Retirement is nice but to get the same rest as before we need to increase retirement age. I heard a funny theory from a leftie type: when cotton machines were invented, the cotton businesses should have given their employees the same wage and shortened their day by the time saved. At the risk of sounding conservative I don't think that was realistic. Technology doesn't make lives easier. Technology makes everyone's lives better from a utilitarian, useful point of view (err, sometimes. and this is kind of meaningless).

A good argument is that pensioners do useful things like looking after children, dispensing advice, and being generally nice chaps. Unfortunately as true as this might be in other places and times, the only thing I've ever got out of my grandparents that I appeciated was money. So I don't honestly feel they should be subsidised in any way. Even if you don't think much of the current economic system, clearly any non-working pensioner will mean work for some working-age people. The question is the balance between working and not. And if we could do the post-scarcity thing and everyone was truely free to rest we'd have bordeom with prosperity and a reactionary movement and be back to where we are.

If you're good Christian, Heaven will be your reward and final resting place. And in a Christian society there's no pressure to work on the Sabbath. Anyway, couldn't you adopt some random afterlife philosophy to fulfill your dreams of rest?

Dante Hicks · 3 Jul 2003, 07:32

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
Anyway, couldn't you adopt some random afterlife philosophy to fulfill your dreams of rest?

No.

Also, aren't you a bloody student? Don't you sit on your arse doing nothing useful for society anyway saying the rest of us should work until we drop otherwise we'll have a reactionary revolution? The cheek of it!

Radical Edward · 3 Jul 2003, 08:57

it's like everything, it will just go wrong and people won't have a choice other than to work till 70. look at all the freedom that women have... all well and good, but it is now almost imposible to support a family unless one of you is a professional, or both have full time jobs. "great" I can see this being similar, in fact it almost is, as Dante said you will just end up being economically forced to work until you are 70, well that being said it won't be a problem after all the baby boomers kick the bucket, because then there will be a revolution and the UK will become an islamic state anyway.

CrashTester · 3 Jul 2003, 10:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumnaa
loads of people already work till they're 70, I dont get what the problem is

For those who do its mostly through choice.

Kumnaa · 3 Jul 2003, 13:28

Quote:

Originally posted by CrashTester
For those who do its mostly through choice.

You clearly havent worked with the same people I have.

vampire_lestat · 3 Jul 2003, 13:36

"This is not about forcing people to work until they are 70, but this is about giving people much more choice,"
^you dont have to work till your 70, you just can if you want

^