zlacker

>>rntn+(OP)
I always see the words pensions in civic deficit news. I'm early 30s and pensions are a concept that nobody my age or younger will ever benefit from yet is footing the bill for.

>>kyleho+mc
You’ve already benefited from them, by getting government services at a lower up front cost by acquiring labor with the promise of them on the backend.

(And, barring those promises not being fulfilled, plenty of people your age and younger have already been working in jobs that qualify them for pensions when they reach a certain age, or have a relative with such a pension with survivorship benefits, and will benefit from them as beneficiaries.)

>>dragon+zd
Most of today is the result of stealing from the future, and that strategy is running out of steam.

>>toomuc+de
> Most of today is the result of stealing from the future, and that strategy is running out of steam

If you "calculate the net present value (NPV) of benefits received minus taxes paid for US generations born 1850 to 2090," you find "all generations 1950 to 2050 are net gainers, while many current elderly are losers" [1].

("There are two peaks in net benefits. The first peak was centered on the cohort born in 1908 which experienced the large windfall gains from the start-up of social security but missed much of the windfall losses from the expansion of public education funding. On net, the 1908 cohort received net transfers amounting to 5.7% of lifetime earnings. The second peak in net benefit is centered on the cohorts born in 1993-94 which experienced the positive benefits of the educational expansion funded by previous generations and which are projected to avoid the looming net costs of paying the social security and Medicare implicit debt. On net, these cohorts are forecast to receive net benefits amounting to 5.6% of lifetime earnings.

There are three sets of cohorts which experienced net losses through the transfer systems. Those born before 1880 experienced net losses due to the expansion of the public education system. Those born between 1930 and 1947 also experienced net losses. While these cohorts did receive large windfall gains associated with the start-up periods for Social Security and Medicare, these were more than offset by windfall losses from the expansion of the public education system. Cohorts born after 2060 are expected to incur increasingly large net losses via the public transfer systems as Social Security and Medicare overwhelm the gains through education.")

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2840408/

>>JumpCr+5k
NPV of deferred payment being less than the equivalent payment is not sufficient to demonstrate savings. 1) you must know the market clearing rate of the up front payment. 2) This sidesteps the difference in payer.

$100 today and $100 is cheaper than $200 today, but not if the alternative is $101 today. Similarly, you might not agree is a good deal if I offer $100 today instead of $200 and leave you the $100 debt. Beneficiaries are not the same as the debt holders.

Lastly, deferred payment is a good deal if I invest the present savings. If I dont, the NPV calculation benefit calculation isn't applicable.