Harper's Dystopian "vision" for Canada

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Slumberjack

DaveW wrote:
 well, the question of a "reasonable age" as you said above, is being negotiated, everywhere, as funding does not cover the emerging pensionable bulge of population 

That's what I just said.  Deficit spending on the other hand is covering someone's bulge nowadays. They're using public indebtedness to prop up corporations, the US war machine through purchasing US T-Bills, and to cover banking losses at the European crap shoot. Then with all of that generosity they cry that we can't afford the grand folks anymore....or provincial transfers...or the public service...among other things. But we're getting new F35s, and new security arrangements with the American basket case, 10 years and counting in Afghanistan, the Libya debacle, Syrian sabre rattling, and on and on.

Gaian

DaveW wrote:

back to the subject of pensions ( and since we are nearing the end of this thread, perhaps "pensions"" needs its own thread...)

I work in Europe, am within  a decade of the compulsory retirement here at 62 and much of my career planning is how to avoid that abrupt end; one option, return to Canada and keep working legit through 65 or go freelance...

in any case, French like all European retirement ages, are going up, in Sweden gradually to 67;

despite all the ha-ha ridicule, Sven is right that the human ageing process has changed hugely in recent decades -- people live much longer, decades longer for most, and consequently are in better health at the compulsory retirement ages;

when FDR introduced Social Security in the US, it had a retirement age of 65, which was a sad joke because most of the American population DID NOT LIVE to 65... average lifespan was about 61 years, as I recall;

today that is closer to 91, meaning 2-3 full decades that the State has to partially provide for a large group of citizens basic needs;

it is not unreasonable to ensure that this be fully funded, and if that means more people contributing longer, Canada will do it too -- regardless of the party in power

 

 

 

 

Dave, I wish you well in your retirement, but some folks working in very sweaty sigtuations, are not going to live that long. You speak as though "work" is the same for all. My Polish immigrant neighbour, a survivor, has bought a little property in Nova Scotia and is determined to be living there by age 60, living off a huge garden and a wonderful trout stream nearby. A master machinist, he now works in an oil saturated atmosphere in various shifts, and knows that that won't get him to 70.

And, finally, you KNOW why "workers" are suddenly faced with going late into their "golden years". The finance capitalists who brought us to dire straits, in PET's famous phrase. And they are still going to be doing the 55 and out. The pensions under review don't matter a fiddler's fart to them. And they can expect to live far longer than those folk whose "average" life expectancies you use.

Don't go Svenish, making only shortsighted,libertarian,materialist, made in the shade comparisons, please.

Unionist

DaveW wrote:

 

when FDR introduced Social Security in the US, it had a retirement age of 65, which was a sad joke because most of the American population DID NOT LIVE to 65... average lifespan was about 61 years, as I recall;

today that is closer to 91, meaning 2-3 full decades that the State has to partially provide for a large group of citizens basic needs;

 

[my emphasis]

I appreciate your desire to bolster your argument, but the life expectancy for a male child born in the U.S. in 2010 (latest available figures from the [url=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf]Center for Disease Control and Prevention[/url] was 76.2, and for a female, 81.1. The average for total population was 78.7 years - not 91.

Must have been a typo in your post.

 

 

KenS

Not sure either about the median life span being 61 at the time of the New Deal.

Possibly average life span- though not even sure of that. But average life span rather than median would include the changes in the substantial drops in infant and child mortality that came with substantially better health care and availability of sufficient food.

Median life span is what is relevant when comparing old age income security issues across times with significantly different child mortatilty.

Gaian

Averages and medians are, of course, paramount considerations when your job is mucking out a mine. :)

Unionist

KenS wrote:

Not sure either about the median life span being 61 at the time of the New Deal.

Possibly average life span- though not even sure of that. But average life span rather than median would include the changes in the substantial drops in infant and child mortality that came with substantially better health care and availability of sufficient food.

Median life span is what is relevant when comparing old age income security issues across times with significantly different child mortatilty.

I'm no expert, but it appears to me from scanning [url=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_09.pdf]the CDC data[/url] that their mortality assumptions relate to median age at death - and of course it's a prediction for newborns - and I imagine that the age fluctuates for that cohort with time as well in unpredictable ways based on advances in health care, lifestyle, catastrophic events, etc. etc. Who knows.

But to your first point, the table on page 53 does indicate that the average life expectancy in 1935 was 61.7 years.

ETA: I'm really relieved DaveW's age 91 statement was wrong - otherwise, when I die at age 78, I'll feel totally cheated!

 

Slumberjack

Say...wasn't it Gingrich who said the tots should be mopping up floors..certain ones anyway...the same candidate who recently fetishized over the Harper agenda.

Unionist

Yeah, Harper's got it all wrong. Instead of raising the age of retirement, he should be reducing the age of child labour. Then once the 65-year-olds have finished training the 10-year-olds, they can leave.

 

KenS

Let alone mucking out mines....

The human body is not designed for repetitive human labour... whether it is wing in a hoe or shuffle or just an electrician going up and down step ladders for decades.

Our bodies happen to be good at 'civilized' manipulation of tools, but not designed for maintenance at it.

When the labouring classes- most people- died by their 40s or 50's, body breakdown was not such a big issue.

Life expecantancy increases by the 1930's already made sheer breakdown a common issue, let alone now.

The construction trades are a lot less physicaly taxing than most people think. But they are as physicaly repetitive as they were 100 years ago. So people are falling apart in their 50s if not earlier. Then there is forestry and agriculture, where the economics are even more brutal.

Then there is what a hot item 50 and 60 year olds are whose livelihood of decades is gone.

So tell me exactly what increased life expectancy is supposed to do as a cure all for personal economic 'deficiencies'?

DaveW

Unionist wrote:

DaveW wrote:

 when FDR introduced Social Security in the US, it had a retirement age of 65, which was a sad joke because most of the American population DID NOT LIVE to 65... average lifespan was about 61 years, as I recall;

today that is closer to 91, meaning 2-3 full decades that the State has to partially provide for a large group of citizens basic needs;

 

[my emphasis]

I appreciate your desire to bolster your argument, but the life expectancy for a male child born in the U.S. in 2010 (latest available figures from the [url=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf]Center for Disease Control and Prevention[/url] was 76.2, and for a female, 81.1. The average for total population was 78.7 years - not 91.

Must have been a typo in your post.

yes, average expected age of death is today 81 not  91, although steadily rising

( in point of fact, my statement is not wrong: average age of death today IS "closer to 91" than to 61, the point of reference in the '30s)

and yes, bizarrely,  average age of death in US used to fall before retirement benefits could begin ...

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Long thread! Go: here.

Pages

Topic locked