The developments of modern medicine created a need for old-age pensions. People live longer and can now count on two decades or more of life when they can no longer work but still need to cover their living expenses.
For some strange reason, we are acting as if the same medicine that made old-age pensions necessary will not develop any further. Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that medicine will keep developing and turn old age pensions into a short-lived curiosity?
All developed countries, without exception, are basing their long-term policy on the belief that the future will be the exact replica of the present in every possible way. Entire cultures are being thrown away for the goal of preserving these old-age pensions. There is zero evidence that this cultural holocaust will actually help do that. Neither is there any evidence that we have exhausted medical and scientific progress.
Clarissa's Blog 
The problem is more that pensioners are the dominant voting block.
LikeLike
“created a need for old-age pensions”
I read some time ago (FYI only) that originally Social Security was just meant to cover the last couple of years from when a person couldn’t physically work anymore.
I find the idea of decades of pensions to be…. not good. This is also part, I think, of the baby bust. At some unconscious level people realize that increased life spans with increased health means fewer young people are necessary.
I’m all for long pensions for those in physically punishing jobs on oil rigs or mines or what have you, but retire at 65 from an office career? or teaching? It doesn’t make much sense to me.
LikeLike
This is one of the reasons China will probably survive their baby bust. They don’t have such a generous pension system so they will just keep working.
LikeLike
Hearing loss becomes a major issue for teachers that age tbh. Still, these things can be navigated individually to a point
LikeLike
When Canada’s pension plan began in 1965, payments began at age 65, men typically lived less than three additional years, women slightly more than 10. My Algebra teacher described it as a Ponzi scheme ;-D
LikeLike
I agree completely. It makes absolutely no sense that I should be able to retire with a very enviable pension and exceptional benefits at the age of 57. It’s no wonder that Illinois is broke with these kinds of welfare provisions. We have an excellent health care system. There is absolutely no reason for people to check out of productive life at 57. Nobody is remotely old or infirm at that age.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My dad was only just, this year, persuaded to stop working. He’s 80.
What I expect will be ‘solved’ is simply that our healthcare system is bloated beyond all sustainability, and We will see people not living so long in poor health in the near-ish future, because we no longer have the resources to spend on keeping them alive at huge public expense. I uh, know people who work in ICU and one of their chief gripes is families who keep their elders ‘alive’ even with zero chance of ever recovering, because the medical care is ‘free’ and too many people are depending on that person’s social security check. I am not in any way, shape, or form in favor of MAID, but there’s an opposite extreme that’s also unhealthy.
ethyl
LikeLike