quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

Because I addressed your post even before you posted it, you're not some genius who's going to come up with some new proof or idea that counters my outside the norm however logically coherent position. On the face of it where I stand economically, and effectively politically most people can't even conceive of such a thing because they've been lead around by the nose by statists, just like you have been.

In short Yes, I very much meant what I said, but you're to busy being a California scold to take a minute and think on it. If you'd like to come back around once you've learned a thing or two I'm more than happy to help you.

quote:

It’s not the existence of government that is the problem, it’s the existence of bad actors that is the problem. How does anarcho-capitalism ensure accountability when people like you game even simple discussions? It doesn’t. The nature of bad actors will exploit any system much like the scorpion stinging the frog carrying it across the river.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
The general message from younger generations that boomers screwed up the world, so now screw them, reminds me of what I experienced working in seniority based jobs. One was union, the other non-union but with a collective agreement.

Young new hires would immediately decry seniority as unfair. They'd complain that seniors were hogging all the goodies. Mind you, these were not assembly line jobs where the new guy did exactly the same thing as the experienced one.

But after gaining a decade or two of seniority their perspective changed. They'd paid their dues. They'd worked holidays and been junior manned to crappy assignments.

While most everyone recognizes the system is not ideal, it is the system in place. When the juniors gained enough seats on the board of the pilots association they abandoned the seniors in concessions to management. Think of it as analogous to severely means testing SS/Medicare to stay relevant to this thread.

A whole lot of us retired early or switched to other jobs. The company lost a lot of loyal experienced employees. The juniors? The system they put in place of the previous one did more damage than good. They've realized there's no reason to stay long term and are moving on to where their future seniority is protected.

Change may be desirable or even necessary, but we should be mindful of the old saying about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

quote:

Originally posted by Warhorse:
i don't give a rats ass what younger folks feel about us "boomers" collecting Social Security, we all paid into it while working our whole life.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
Joining the union is a choice, taxes are extracted at the barrel of a gun.


And hey do you remember when the pension plan was killed for new members but you got grandfathered in? I sure do.

quote:

Originally posted by Warhorse:
i don't give a rats ass what younger folks feel about us "boomers" collecting Social Security, we all paid into it while working our whole life.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
Joining the union is a choice, taxes are extracted at the barrel of a gun.


And hey do you remember when the pension plan was killed for new members but you got grandfathered in? I sure do.

I'll break this response into 2 posts for clarity. For the record, I've never had a pension. My last job was non-union where I retired after a quarter century, if that matters.

My post had really a couple of main points, perspective and unintended consequences.

1) Perspective:
A) Nobody likes paying dues, whether it is tax money or the truly shitty lifestyle of juniority (e.g. working every holiday for years when your kids are young).

B) After living up to their side of the deal with society (or the fellow employee group), one expects the other side to live up to their promises.

Both perspectives are equally valid. Any workable solution will have to respect both groups.

2) Unintended consequences. In the case of the pilot association, they had a rare opportunity to make very positive changes for everyone, especially the younger cohort. The older cohort wouldn't be there long enough to greatly benefit. Instead they fell for the "hate the seniors, get what we can today for ourselves" route, actually verbalized as a more egalitarian (meaning socialist) system. But what they did was poison their own well, making the long term unappealing enough that they all leave asap. Which also has the negative consequence of a lot of moving the family to a different state for a new job, and now suffering juniority at the new job.

Now consider just flipping the switch to OFF for SS and Medicare. You may not even see an increase in your paycheck. Your employer may not send their portion of FICA to you. You will have to pay, through new taxes or the tax of even higher inflation, for the millions of seniors who move from SS/Medicare to welfare and Medicaid. The economy will be seriously hurt by the sudden cessation of discretionary spending by seniors. Younger people will suffer significant unemployment. I suggest, too, that the push for real socialism might succeed under this scenario.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

So your solution to the socialist system that's failed because socialism always fails, is more socialism?

SS, welfare, Medicare and medicaid, ALL should be eliminated.

quote:

1. So your solution to the socialist system that's failed because socialism always fails, is more socialism?

2. SS, welfare, Medicare and medicaid, ALL should be eliminated.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Part 2:

Can you dig down into what it is that is making you angry about the situation?

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Well this discussion has mainly been finger pointing and listening to fender trying to impress us with academic economic theory. Sidebar: I always love listening to economists pretending they work in a hard science. Oh brother. If it was a hard science we would all have cold fusion Deloreans.

A lot of things can be true at the same time. Stopping SS cold would be disastrous. It not only is the primary income for old people in this country it will be the same for the younger generation as well. Those “uppity” people aren’t saving at some massive uptick than their predecessors.

Whether you call it a contract or not it has long been understood to be exactly that. A contract. I pay my SS taxes, my employer pays my SS taxes and someday I get a SS check. Semantics aside, it’s a contract. Would it hold up in court? Probably not but after the revolution nobody would care what Ketanji Brown thinks about anything anyways.

How about we continue to actively seek out and stop obvious waste, fraud, and abuse across the board. Root out enough of that and we might make real progress. Figure out a feasible way to deliver healthcare equitably (not in some woke manner but a true same stuff should cost about the same much closer than it does today) and we might actually close in on money in = money out.

Instead of some ridiculous “let’s burn the system down” and start from scratch idea that literally could lead to revolt and is a nonstarter in a dozen ways how about we fix low hanging fruit and go from there? There is pushback to that as well but more people understand abuse of public funds more than paying taxes for 45 years and then being told fuck you.

There is a reason economic theories abound in academic settings. They never actually have to work or to be correct.

quote:

As society, imho, we do need to have some welfare for those truly unable or temporarily in trouble. I believe in compassion for those with life-long serious disability and those who are contributors who need a short term helping hand.

quote:

It doesn't need to be a federal program, and there are some private sector solutions which could be more cost efficient.