alt Hacker NewsThat would introduce a new problem of all of those seniors suddenly becoming more dependent on their younger family members, which is exacerbated by kids moving all over the country in search of greener pastures.
There's not really a solution that doesn't involve heavy restructuring in one place or another.
Replies
jen20 • today at 3:45 AM
They could work longer.
In the UK, for example, the retirement age was set to 60 for women and 65 for men, when life expectancy was substantially lower than today. On the current trajectory, a large number of "boomers" at death will have only "paid into" the system for half their lives, while extracting most of the economic reward of the last 70 years.
>That would introduce a new problem of all of those seniors suddenly becoming more dependent on their younger family members, which is exacerbated by kids moving all over the country in search of greener pastures.
That's how it always was. It used to be your kids were your retirement safety net.
What's different now than 100yr ago is that those working generations also have the state taking a 20-50% cut which used to be available to be sent home to help out mom and dad.