Originally Posted by
Racer Ex
Compared to decreasing benefits slightly, or raising contributions slightly to adjust for a longer life expectancy, I'd argue that keeping an aging workforce working more years might be the worst of the three options.
Maybe that's why the college kids are striking in France...it goes against everything they learned in Econ 101.
That actually makes a lot of sense. I agree with that, but benefits being decreased does what exactly? People have to work again while retired? Maybe push to deduct x amount out of paychecks automatically to put towards retirement or such from after college, so the money grows for longer?
Originally Posted by
Greg180
Two different paradigms. Unless we redefine "work"
But this is a discussion not worthy of the twitter thread. So I'll stop here.
I was making that distinction
Work and contribution are two totally different things.