No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

[Hauldren Collider]

So the reason most societies don't ship their old people out on ice flows to die isn't due to morality (right vs wrong), but it is to prevent revolt? I think it's pretty clear the reason society supports senior citizens even though they're net drains (privately and publicly) is due to morality. It's one of those things people should not choose whether to do or not based on complex economic models.

This is not to say that I would recommend as low levels of welfare established by the Romans.

.

[Asher]

That's not what I asked.

[Hauldren Collider]

The reason we don't ship old people out onto ice floes is because NO ONE WOULD BE STUPID ENOUGH TO WORK HARD IF THEY KNEW THEY WERE JUST GOING TO DIE LATER.

That and the fact that it would probably piss everyone in the country off because most people care about their parents, but that's not even relevant given the astounding economic stupidity involved with mass murder.

Your argument has REGRESSED. You went from making the more reasonable claim that we should still have social security and medicare to the very ridiculous claim that I explicitly and repeatedly refuted.

[giblets]

This point has been brought up before. INCENTIVES. If people don't get anything in return for their work, THEY WON'T BOTHER TO WORK. This is why socialism and communism fail, and why the idea of killing people once they stop producing is retarded because why would you work hard enough to support yourself in retirement if you are never going to get to retire?

Hey genius, if you kill people when they retire then people have an incentive to work so they don't get killed. Most people would like to live.

Plus there are other incentives to working hard, like more money to spend on crap.

[Hauldren Collider]

Hey genius, if you kill people when they retire then people have an incentive to work so they don't get killed. Most people would like to live.

NO, they DON'T, because there is a certain point when people can no longer work as hard or at all and they won't ever bother to save up cash. By having retirement, people work hard while they are in their most productive stage of life and then stop working later as opposed to doing a constant level of mediocre work over a shorter lifespan.

[giblets]

NO, they DON'T, because there is a certain point when people can no longer work as hard or at all and they won't ever bother to save up cash. By having retirement, people work hard while they are in their most productive stage of life and then stop working later as opposed to doing a constant level of mediocre work over a shorter lifespan.

If you stop working then you're retired... so if retired people get killed why would anyone choose to stop working? That's suicide.

[Hauldren Collider]

If you stop working then you're retired... so if retired people get killed why would anyone choose to stop working? That's suicide.

You idiot.

I may start drinking before Kuci.

[Asher]

The reason we don't ship old people out onto ice floes is because NO ONE WOULD BE STUPID ENOUGH TO WORK HARD IF THEY KNEW THEY WERE JUST GOING TO DIE LATER.

That and the fact that it would probably piss everyone in the country off because most people care about their parents, but that's not even relevant given the astounding economic stupidity involved with mass murder.

Your argument has REGRESSED. You went from making the more reasonable claim that we should still have social security and medicare to the very ridiculous claim that I explicitly and repeatedly refuted.

I'm not making any claim there, I'm demonstrating inconsistencies with your arguments. My claim is morality is not in the domain of economics. We do things that are not necessarily economically optimal because of our morality.

NO ONE WOULD BE STUPID ENOUGH TO WORK HARD IF THEY KNEW THEY WERE JUST GOING TO DIE LATER.

But this is true. Everyone is just going to die later. Yet, people work hard.

Maybe people work hard to provide for their families, purchase things they like, etc? If anything, getting rid of people if they stop working is MORE of an incentive to have people keep working, no?

[Asher]

You idiot.

I may start drinking before Kuci.

He's making a very valid point, it's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

We keep old people alive even when they are net drains on society because it's the right thing to do, not because it economically makes sense.

The "incentive" argument is pretty stupid -- what choice do people have? You work, or you die...with or without the possibility of retirement.

[giblets]

If people didn't save for retirement, they could spend more money on their child's education.

[Asher]

If people didn't save for retirement, they could spend more money on their child's education.

Not to mention, saving is evil for the economy. Spend that money now, buy American!

[MOBIUS]

at this thread!

Is it any wonder that the spoon fed little riches kids have no concept of morals at all?

Why do you think the US and therefore the world is so ****ed up financially? Because they represent the next generation of an increasingly morally bankrupt cohort of professionals...

[DaShi]

If only todays schools of finance would teach its students about morals and ethics or at least have them pay lip service to some sort of oath.

[Dinner]

So why is public support for retirement an incentive, but public support for health is not?

What good is your retirement if you are dead?

Because he doesn't like universal health care, duh.

[DaShi]

Well, he'd find it easier to swallow if an old conservative white man was selling it.