I'm not against working until a debilitating disease shows up, although I have a convenient job for older age (doctor). It would be better if a couple of things are met: advancing carrier, mostly from basic profession to managing people and projects, and capability to move somewhere else, depending of life stage and following the kids. Then working to the end is viable.

Taxation cancerously grows on all constraint edges. In this case you could calculate it as implicitly increasing to something nearer 90% ‡ (5 years retirement out of working from 20 to 80).

Voters want more of everything, and our systems encourage everyone within the system to want more.

We don't vote for reducing budgets, and politicians who try to economize get wasted. Everybody wants unlimited health services and the compromise we all select is to increase various tax takes.

Note everybody in the developed world is given relatively similar amounts of time. Yet most of us value our time poorly, since it is a resource we cannot replace.

‡ 90% taxation sounds silly, but it is closer to the truth than looking at $ or working hours. It is hard to choose what to measure - perhaps quality of life or alternatively (total disposable hours versus total waking hours). And choosing the basis of what is a fair amount of resources one person should receive is completely intractable.

If we do AI right, they may not have to work at all. Extrapolating temporary trends to infinity while ignoring the larger picture is an exercise in futility.

I'm a genx'r and working until death is my best available option.

Homeless retirement is the alternative. In fact it was my likeliest future until a just a few years ago.

I currently live with my 4 adult sons. In our 4-income economy, it's the only way each of us can stay housed.

https://archive.md/tUqvl

This is a certainty as absolutely nothing will change over 60-70 years. Politics and economics are immutable constants, just like the speed of light! Nostradamus was right! The Mayan calendar nailed it!

...These longterm forecasts are useless.

If you steal from the young for pensioners, you eventually run out of young people to pay for pensioners.

Pensions should be banned. The entire notion of a guaranteed income is unrealistic and incredibly expensive. People need to save and manage their own spending and savings responsibly. Taxes for redistribution make sense within some range of policies but simply telling people they’ll be guaranteed a certain income? With various loopholes to maximize pensions? It’s no surprise that many pension funds are in the red.

And the pensions mentioned in the article are an example of this. It mentions that two workers supporting each pensioner is a problem. How? If that’s the case wouldn’t these two workers eventually need four workers to support them as pensioners? What makes this different from a Ponzi scheme?