The Caring Generation

[Da Skinna]

With the economy looking dire with no end in sight, could a new generation arise, not out of war, but of the caring of our seniors?

World War 3 won't solve our problems, so is its opposite, the caring for people, become a profitable and enduring business?

Can the business of war's opposite be a viable option?

Nurses, caretakers, doctors and hospital attendants, nursing home attendants, orderlies, etc be the new generation in a First World where the fastest growing demographic are seniors and those ABOVE 85?

I should hope so.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I think we will end up euthanizing our elderly before that happens tbh.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

I think we will end up euthanizing our elderly before that happens tbh.

Which will create more jobs

[Aetius]

I think we will end up euthanizing our elderly before that happens tbh.

Thats a horrible thing to say, and you should be ashamed.

We are all rather youthful here, and look at old people as just "them".

Do you ever realize that one day you will be old? Do you want to be killed? I doubt it.

I will help old people in the hope that one day I will be helped, this is the way of life.



Or at the very least invent robots to do the work....

[Hilarion]

I doubt it. I for one would gladly serve in any kind of military operation before caring for the elderly.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

I doubt it. I for one would gladly serve in any kind of military operation before caring for the elderly.

Hmm getting shot at or Changing adult diapers..I choose being shot at.

[Bokks]

I think this thread will be much happier in the Academy. (and I'm not the only one! )

Thread Moved.
Continue, and have fun!

[2-D Ron]

With the economy looking dire with no end in sight, could a new generation arise, not out of war, but of the caring of our seniors?

World War 3 won't solve our problems, so is its opposite, the caring for people, become a profitable and enduring business?

Can the business of war's opposite be a viable option?

Nurses, caretakers, doctors and hospital attendants, nursing home attendants, orderlies, etc be the new generation in a First World where the fastest growing demographic are seniors and those ABOVE 85?

I should hope so.

Not to mention, sons and daughters having to move back in with their parents; Could bring families closer together?

[Scar Face]

With the economy looking dire with no end in sight, could a new generation arise, not out of war, but of the caring of our seniors?

World War 3 won't solve our problems, so is its opposite, the caring for people, become a profitable and enduring business?

Can the business of war's opposite be a viable option?

Nurses, caretakers, doctors and hospital attendants, nursing home attendants, orderlies, etc be the new generation in a First World where the fastest growing demographic are seniors and those ABOVE 85?

I should hope so.

Well presumably when we can no longer afford to throw them in a home, or let them take care of their own affairs economically, there parents will have to take care of them. So yes, the depression will probably tighten the family unit in that sense. Though I wouldn't call it the caring generation, because as most people I think understand, caring about the problems of others is a luxury for the prosperous- we will probably see better families and communities on the local level, but less donations/interest in foreign problems. Always a trade off.

Edit: One thing you hear pretty commonly from people who suffered through the great depression was, that while it was incredibly hard to get by, it was one of the happiest times of their lives. They were always with their family, always together.

[Scar Face]

It will probably just be like Japan. When the Old get too Old, they move in with their family and thats that. Why the hell would you euthanize an individual for the minor economic/time sacrifice needed to ensure they have a decent life in the end? Hell, most people are decently close to their Grand parents, so it's not like there wouldn't be clear positives.

[George W. Bush]

It will probably just be like Japan. When the Old get too Old, they move in with their family and thats that. Why the hell would you euthanize an individual for the minor economic/time sacrifice needed to ensure they have a decent life in the end? Hell, most people are decently close to their Grand parents, so it's not like there wouldn't be clear positives.

Good on you Scar Face. I oppose euthanasia, and we should take care of our elders to the best of our ability.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

I think the elderly should take care of themselves to the best of their ability. That is to say a person must have the foresight to save for their needs in old age.

To propose and do otherwise to to jump into a bottomless pit of debt, which is just what has been done and is happening with Social Security in the USA and various welfare programs across the world. Providing unending service to those that do not reciprocate with fair payment cannot be profitable to society.

[That Damn Robot!]

World War 3 won't solve our problems

Why not? If a country was to throw itself full pelt into arming for war, it would create loads of jobs and start to revitalise their economy.

Not that I'm saying war would be a good thing, nor would it be a panacea.

Providing unending service to those that do not reciprocate with fair payment cannot be profitable to society.

Although I accept that you're correct regarding the financial trouble that large state pension schemes can create (I think it was in the 1910 budget that the British government were stunned to find their fledgling old age pension system was costing them £1,000,000 - an astronomical sum by the standards of the age), and the startling level of younger people who have no itention of starting a private pension fund, I fail to see how it can be more beneficial for society to leave its more vulnerable members destitute because you've decided they didn't prepare thouroughly enough for their old age.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Although I accept that you're correct regarding the financial trouble that large state pension schemes can create (I think it was in the 1910 budget that the British government were stunned to find their fledgling old age pension system was costing them £1,000,000 - an astronomical sum by the standards of the age), and the startling level of younger people who have no itention of starting a private pension fund, I fail to see how it can be more beneficial for society to leave its more vulnerable members destitute because you've decided they didn't prepare thouroughly enough for their old age.

The more important question to ask is of what benefit is to society to have a social support system that leaves the entire population destitute?

It is false to suggest that if no formal pension system existed that a significant number of elderly would be destitute. First if the elderly had not been raped by the pension system when they were younger, they certainly would be in much better condition to save for themselves. Second is family. When did we decide that it was not the obligation of children to care their own parents. The symmetry of that system served humanity well for countless generations. But it does not work so well if we insist on every elderly parent be given a pension beyond the means of the average child, especial in a time when there are fewer and fewer children. Third there have long been many formal support structures for the those that are not cared for by the first two methods, churches and charity.

[That Damn Robot!]

The more important question to ask is of what benefit is to society to have a social support system that leaves the entire population destitute?

That's a huge exaggeration.

It is false to suggest that if no formal pension system existed that a significant number of elderly would be destitute.

If the population continue to live longer, their savings will dry up faster. Besides which, elderly people who have been low-earners all their life may not be able to save for retirement or pay into a pension scheme. To link up to your second point, their family may be unreliable or unwilling to help, or they may have no living relatives. Surely even if you don't subscribe to a full state pension scheme, you must at least agree that something should be in place for the more disadvantaged people?

First if the elderly had not been raped by the pension system when they were younger, they certainly would be in much better condition to save for themselves.

The poorest people aren't taxed an awful lot, if at all. If you're leading a hand-to-mouth lifestyle then you're still not getting much left over to squirrel away whether you're being taxed heavily or not. Perhaps statistically they'd have more income to save, but 5% extra on top of bugger all is still bugger all.

Second is family. When did we decide that it was not the obligation of children to care their own parents. The symmetry of that system served humanity well for countless generations.

I entirely agree, but sometimes the family don't have the means. Would you consider some kind of family tax credit or benefit system for those looking after the elderly, rather than a pension?

But it does not work so well if we insist on every elderly parent be given a pension beyond the means of the average child, especial in a time when there are fewer and fewer children.

No, you're right, the system is becoming topheavy. However, there is the money out there with some creative taxation (I'm talking business rather than individuals), but I get the feeling you'd be heavily against that, too.

Third there have long been many formal support structures for the those that are not cared for by the first two methods, churches and charity.

They're not always available, reliable, or equipped with the means to deal with enough people. The state can do it better, if people want to instead direct their charitable donations to the pensions department, then part of the burden could be plugged.

I can see entirely where you're coming from, and you make very relevant points, but we're not going to agree. We're coming at this from completely opposite ideological angles and we'll struggle to find any common agreement at all, other than there are lots of problems that need solving.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

That's a huge exaggeration.

Not if we continue down the path of guaranteeing a income to all without demanding all work for it.

If the population continue to live longer,

If you live longer you should work longer. It is still within living memory that most people worked until the day they died or until no longer physically capable of doing so. A "retirement" to Florida (or wherever) is a very recent invention.

their savings will dry up faster. Besides which, elderly people who have been low-earners all their life may not be able to save for retirement or pay into a pension scheme.

We often confuse unwillingnesss to save with inability to save. There are many luxuries than we mistake for necessities.

To link up to your second point, their family may be unreliable or unwilling to help, or they may have no living relatives. Surely even if you don't subscribe to a full state pension scheme, you must at least agree that something should be in place for the more disadvantaged people?

The poorest people aren't taxed an awful lot, if at all. If you're leading a hand-to-mouth lifestyle then you're still not getting much left over to squirrel away whether you're being taxed heavily or not. Perhaps statistically they'd have more income to save, but 5% extra on top of bugger all is still bugger all.

An able bodies person is not disadvantaged. They only disadvantages they have are one they have created for themselves. I think it isa product of government eduction that has been designed not to produce self actualized individuals, but minimally competent industrial workers.

I entirely agree, but sometimes the family don't have the means. Would you consider some kind of family tax credit or benefit system for those looking after the elderly, rather than a pension?

I advocate a progressive consumption tax, not prodction.

No, you're right, the system is becoming topheavy. However, there is the money out there with some creative taxation (I'm talking business rather than individuals), but I get the feeling you'd be heavily against that, too.

As should you. First you should know that there is no such thing as a corporate tax that does not transfer 100% of that tax unto the people economically involved in that company, employees, owners and customers. A corporate tax does nothing more than makie a corporation a tax collector.

They're not always available, reliable, or equipped with the means to deal with enough people. The state can do it better, if people want to instead direct their charitable donations to the pensions department, then part of the burden could be plugged.

The state does nothing particularly well,. Think of all the interaction you have with government, whether it be getting a drivers license, building permit or so on. It seldom is pleasant.

I can see entirely where you're coming from, and you make very relevant points, but we're not going to agree. We're coming at this from completely opposite ideological angles and we'll struggle to find any common agreement at all, other than there are lots of problems that need solving.

I can think of at least one points on which we should be able to find agreement and if I had time I would list many others.

1. Educate people on the need to save for their future needs. People who save for themselves are tremdously better off than those that don't.

[That Damn Robot!]

Not if we continue down the path of guaranteeing a income to all without demanding all work for it.

But surely if the pensioner has been paying taxes all of their life, then it is an income preserved in advance, much like a private pension but from within the public sector?

If you live longer you should work longer. It is still within living memory that most people worked until the day they died or until no longer physically capable of doing so. A "retirement" to Florida (or wherever) is a very recent invention.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this point. I'm inclined to both agree and disagree.

We often confuse unwillingnesss to save with inability to save. There are many luxuries than we mistake for necessities.

You may very well be correct, but if people didn't take those luxuries to be necessities then economies would collapse. We have all been taught that we need things and to fritter our resources on them. Here the system is at fault rather than the general population.

Plus, of course, that is easy to say if you're somebody who has enough to afford necessities, luxuries and savings (not that I'm suggesting that you necessarily are), but if you're not then something has to give. There are also a sizeable minority of people who can't afford to buy many luxuries nor save a lot of money. What happens to them?

An able bodies person is not disadvantaged. They only disadvantages they have are one they have created for themselves.

I couldn't disagree more. I was looking just now at an article on the breakdown of the social classes of students at UK universities, and there is still a clear majority of Middle Class students over all other groups. It's not the best indicator, but disadvantage due to socio-economic and racial background is definitely (still) an issue in the developed world.

I think it isa product of government eduction that has been designed not to produce self actualized individuals, but minimally competent industrial workers.

Oh yes; education is there to produce workers and citizens, not to incubate informed people.

I advocate a progressive consumption tax, not prodction.

Given the right circumstances it could work.

As should you. First you should know that there is no such thing as a corporate tax that does not transfer 100% of that tax unto the people economically involved in that company, employees, owners and customers. A corporate tax does nothing more than makie a corporation a tax collector.

Tax on large corporate profits are harming nobody but owners/shareholders. Businessmen do what they do (mainly) to make money, and if a tax on their profit is enough to dissuade them from doing what they do then they can't have been a very good entrepreneur.

The state does nothing particularly well,. Think of all the interaction you have with government, whether it be getting a drivers license, building permit or so on. It seldom is pleasant.

On the contrary, it is unfair to suggest that the state can't do anything well. Even if you've had trouble with queueing or jobsworth civil servants then there will be others who have only known positive experiences. I've never had any trouble with driving licenses, passports, et cetera. The longest wait I've ever had to endure was for a Russian visa, which can't be blamed on the state because it's privately administered.

I can think of at least one points on which we should be able to find agreement and if I had time I would list many others.

1. Educate people on the need to save for their future needs. People who save for themselves are tremdously better off than those that don't.

Agreed. Anything else?

[Desperado †]

We'll have to follow Japan, and put the retirement age fowards a few years.

[Alkarin]

I don't know. i wouldn't mind being euthanized when it comes to the point where i can't even work or take care of myself. I would hate to feel helpless along with not being able to change my diaper..

[JNS]

Also a thing that you are forgetting is that due to the current crisis, even the people who were smart enough to save money for retirement are losing their life savings or are going to use those savings because they need that money now cause they lost their source of income. I know because my family is going through that situation right now.