Tulsi Gabbard

[_DoubtingThomas]

Well, that's an assertion.

Raising the retirement age could save billions of dollars, but one more year of stress can't be good for your health and heart.

[_honorentheos]

Well, that's an assertion.

Raising the retirement age could save billions of dollars, but one more year of stress can't be good for your health and heart.

It seems like you lost sight of the original reason this was brought up. The payouts from SS are projected to exceed contributions this year for the first time. And it's only going to get worse in that direction going forward. Working an extra year versus not having a retirement income do not seem like causes of equal degrees of stress when weighing trade offs. Telling everyone robots will take over production so let's drop the retirement age because robots is about the same as asking underpants gnomes to come up with your plan.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Telling everyone robots will take over production so let's drop the retirement age because robots is about the same as asking underpants gnomes to come up with your plan.

"These fears have been echoed by detailed analyses showing anywhere from a 14 to 54 percent automation impact on jobs. For example, a Bruegel analysis found that “54% of EU jobs [are] at risk of computerization.” Using European data, they argue that job losses are likely to be significant and people should prepare for large-scale disruption. Meanwhile, Oxford University researchers Carl Frey and Michael Osborne claim that technology will transform many sectors of life. They studied 702 occupational groupings and found that “47 percent of U.S. workers have a high probability of seeing their jobs automated over the next 20 years.” A McKinsey Global Institute analysis of 750 jobs concluded that “45% of paid activities could be automated using ‘currently demonstrated technologies’ and . . . 60% of occupations could have 30% or more of their processes automated.”[6] A more recent McKinsey report, “Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained,” found that 30 percent of “work activities” could be automated by 2030 and up to 375 million workers worldwide could be affected by emerging technologies. Researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) focused on “tasks” as opposed to “jobs” and found fewer job losses. Using task-related data from 32 OECD countries, they estimated that 14 percent of jobs are highly automatable and another 32 have a significant risk of automation. Although their job loss estimates are below those of other experts, they concluded that “low qualified workers are likely to bear the brunt of the adjustment costs as the automatibility of their jobs is higher compared to highly qualified workers.”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank ... utomation/

So what is the solution?

[_honorentheos]

The solution to what? To paying for retirement? I don't think decreasing the age because robots is the solution.

If you mean how to deal with job displacement due to automation, I don't see how sending people without a viable means of paying for things into early retirement without fixing the first problem is a good idea.

[_DoubtingThomas]

The solution to what? To paying for retirement? I don't think decreasing the age because robots is the solution.

If you mean how to deal with job displacement due to automation, I don't see how sending people without a viable means of paying for things into early retirement without fixing the first problem is a good idea.

The government could cut military spending by 50% and save 350 billion for retirement. There are about 47.8 million people over 65, so that is about 7,000-8,000 dollars per person. Sanders and Yang want to cut military spending. Increasing the retirement age by one year isn't the solution. We don't want more people with heart disease.

I think the government should cut military spending by 90% because the US doesn't need the most powerful military. A powerful military would be useless in a nuclear war.

[_honorentheos]

You are saying we should divert income taxes into the social security fund, increasing the SSI tax but balancing it by decreasing income taxes and defunding defense spending down to 10% of current spending?

[_DoubtingThomas]

defunding defense spending down to 10% of current spending

Yes, why not? Russia is only spending 69.2 billion, but is leading the hypersonic weapons race.

You are saying we should divert income taxes into the social security fund

No, but I guess that could work.

[_honorentheos]

Where do you imagine the money to pay for retirement as you describe will come from if not diverting taxes currently directed to defense into social security?

[_canpakes]

Well, that's an assertion.

Raising the retirement age could save billions of dollars, but one more year of stress can't be good for your health and heart.

Personally, I'm of the mind that I'd be more stressed knowing that a retirement age of 67, and required minimum distribution age of 72, would be forced upon me regardless of if I want to instead continue to work and save for a retirement past those ages.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Where do you imagine the money to pay for retirement as you describe will come from if not diverting taxes currently directed to defense into social security?

I am no tax expert, but I am sure there are a lot of ways to do things. So what is the solution to the automation problem? and do you agree the US is unnecessarily spending too much on the military?