• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Pension plans?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Alizee

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 8
  • Location:MI

Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:59 AM


I was thinking, what would happen if the cure to aging happens in my life time. I go into a career that has pensions after retirement like police officer.

Do you think that will last indefinite amount of time?

#2 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,773 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:UK

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:53 PM

I reckon that if we cured aging, people would save up for retirements that wouldn't be permanent, say a decade or so. Perhaps new funds will grow out of pensions that help fund such things. This has been mentioned before and I for one think it would be ace to take time out to do something fun and then still be healthy and perhaps even consider a career change after that. :)

Okay you'd lose your job and so would I because I work in an industry that relies on people getting old and sick. However, if I've got a hundred or more years of saving up without that horrible biological clock cutting it short, I really wouldn't mind. :cool:

Edited by Droplet, 30 November 2012 - 12:54 PM.


#3 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,844 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:27 PM

I think it will be like Droplet suggests. If we discover some way to rejuvenate people, then they should not be able to live off of government pensions (social security in the U.S.) forever. The idea in the past was that people work for 30 or 40 years...they get old and cannot work as productively....they save money and retire...or in the U.S. nowadays they don't save money and just expect the government to take care of them. If people can be rejuvenated to perfect health, then they should not have indefinite retirement paid for by other workers. Maybe it would be more like a sabbatical. Work for 30 years and then have 5 years of "official" retirement, something like that.

Edited by Mind, 10 December 2012 - 03:39 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,773 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:09 PM

nowadays they don't save money and just expect the government to take care of them. If people can be rejuvenated to perfect health, then they should not have indefinite retirement paid for by other workers. Maybe it would be more like a sabbatical. Work for 30 years and then have 5 years of "official" retirement, something like that.

We have similar problems here in UK. Sometimes not purely because people cannot be bothered to save but that on minimum wage, it would just not be possible unless you were prepared not to eat. I think that rejuvenation would free up heck of a lot of funds and resources. After all in a way it's like a disability benefit that everyone eventually has to claim. Fix the disability then it cannot make people ill and therefore unproductive. :)

#5 starlight_starbright

  • Guest
  • 24 posts
  • 20
  • Location:north carolina

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:00 AM

Pension plans are not drawn from unlimited funds. They are underwritten by insurers that evaluate your lifespan vs expected payouts. If we all start living to 1000+ then all pension plans will have to fold and your payouts would cease. Not even government-backed funds would pay out for long in that situation!

#6 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,773 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:UK

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:06 AM

Pension plans are not drawn from unlimited funds. They are underwritten by insurers that evaluate your lifespan vs expected payouts. If we all start living to 1000+ then all pension plans will have to fold and your payouts would cease. Not even government-backed funds would pay out for long in that situation!

That's why they'd not be for permanent retirement if we live 1000+. Also as they would not be a neccessity, it would probably only be those who afforded to pay in that got a pension. Okay that is unfair but I'd rather be poor with 1000 plus years to make something of myself than have a pension guaranteed whilst I physically and mentally slide downhill due to some cruel mistake of nature.

#7 starlight_starbright

  • Guest
  • 24 posts
  • 20
  • Location:north carolina

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:19 AM

Right. In time perhaps we could all wake up to the power of leaving the love of money for the love of life. It would be a necessity for survival in the long term.

#8 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,773 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:UK

Posted 10 December 2012 - 01:18 PM

Right. In time perhaps we could all wake up to the power of leaving the love of money for the love of life. It would be a necessity for survival in the long term.

In time, we'll have possibly advanced so much technologically that we can all afford not to work for money and just enjoy life. :) At the minute though, one needs money to live at least to some degree. I will admit to being motivated by money because it can buy me enjoyable activities.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users