You are getting downvoted, but it is true that young people are getting a very rough deal, and a lot of the people in my circle are looking to emgirate. Friends from other countries and students (mostly know them through academia), are also not looking for long-term opportunities here anymore, which was different 15 years ago.
I would be far less annoyed with paying very high taxes and social contributions (around 50% of my income), if the services provided worked. But this just hasn't been the case for me. The healthcare system is close to breaking apart, and after moving to a new city 6 months ago I have been unable to find doctors willing to take me in. Childcare is constantly closing down due to staff shortages, buying a house is unrealistic unless both partners have good jobs or you inherit, and the jobs market is incredibly rigid and inflexible.
Every single one of these points are worse for young people then for older ones, and the only thing the government seems to get done is giving weapons training to young people and gifting pensioners 180b$/year extra.
I can only explain the downvotes by people who assume I'm somehow against immigrants since I used the term or who actually think that Germany is still worth living in. I have long given up on HN culture anyways.
Yes, the problem is the boomers who keep getting richer for no good reason, under the premise that they are entitled to massive pensions because they have been promised that much by politicians.
Of course, logically it makes no sense, since the whole point of a socialized system is to adjust the wealth of everybody depending on current situation (economic output).
But it was obviously a lie and our social democracy are deeply flawed because they allow anyone to vote regardless of stakes.
Sending young people to military service/war make for a nice distraction because meanwhile they don't get to think about taking the stuff of the elders by force.
It's a shame that there's not the option of providing parents with the choice of free child care or some kind of cash subsidy.
A bit tangential, but the overall problem is that cost of having children is privatized while the benefit is socialized. I'd love to see age and number of children progressively factored into the income tax bracket people pay. Something like a 60-80% tax rate for all income >150k for those >40 without children so those that benefit the most from future generations being born are helping to shoulder the cost
> If there is trade the best way to handle it is probably to count the emissions for making things in country X that get consumed in country Y as being emissions in Y. With that correction China comes out even better).
A huge portion of China's emissions come from making things for people that aren't in China. The argument is that if a Chinese factory makes only widgets used in the US, those emissions from the Chinese factory are probably more accurately counted as US emissions.
Its like saying that you are 0 emissions because you have an electric car with no tailpipe while ignoring where the electricity is coming from.
The counter argument is that they'd have mass unemployment and would be in poverty without it. Virtually all rapid modern industrialization is reliant on exporting to foreign markets so characteizing it as American emissions is largely a misomer as it is really global emissions.
You're not actually addressing the accounting question though. The argument isn't about the economic benefits or consequences of manufacturing, it's simply about where we assign the carbon emissions in an accounting system.
Whether Chinese workers benefit economically from manufacturing exports doesn't change the fact that when a US consumer buys a product made in China, we could reasonably count those manufacturing emissions as US consumption-based emissions rather than Chinese production-based emissions.
This is really a question of "but for" causation: but for US consumer demand for these products, would these specific manufacturing emissions have occurred? If the answer is no, then there's a strong case for counting them as US emissions regardless of where the factory happens to be located.
Your point about global emissions sidesteps the question entirely. Of course all emissions are ultimately global in their climate impact, but for policy and measurement purposes we still need accounting frameworks. The question is whether production-based or consumption-based accounting gives us a more accurate picture for policy decisions.
The unemployment and poverty argument, while valid for other discussions, doesn't really bear on which accounting method better reflects responsibility for emissions.
While I fundamentally disagree, do you really not see how that would then mean all Chinese emissions are therefore a result of the United States? So that's... worse?
What? No, because China is also exporting to other markets. The counterfactual is that we don't do global industrialization and let the global poor remain poor.
The US introduced China to western manufacturing markets. So if they would otherwise be poor and non-industrialized, the US is responsible for it all.
We can't claim we rose them from poverty while also denying culpability for the consequences thereof...
Though I think everyone is just saying Chinese emissions should be counted, proportionally, against the people they're making products for. And the US is one of their biggest customers.
>The US introduced China to western manufacturing markets. So if they would otherwise be poor and non-industrialized, the US is responsible for it all.
Who is "We" here? I am speaking from a global perspective. Chinese industrialization has internal agency, drivers and motivation, the US did not force China to industrialize. Secondly Global Demand is not US-Specific, Europe, Japan and other markets contributed with their own agreements so the claim that the US is "responsible" is overstated here.
>Though I think everyone is just saying Chinese emissions should be counted, proportionally, against the people they're making products for. And the US is one of their biggest customers.
That's not what anyone serious is saying because it's just splitting hairs. Everyone buys from China, the US accounts for 15% of China's total imports so clearly their role here is exaggerated again. China also consumes much of their own manufacturing, while the US also exports many services elsewhere, so should US emissions be counted in other countries? And then there are also structural dynamics in how surplus economies intentionally suppress their demand to run surpluses.
In a world of comparative advantage, I don't see the particular value in performing funny calculations to divy up moral blame according to shifting trade dynamics, just much easier to point it out as shared global responsiblity in the path for Modernity.
The result of boomer cultural and capital domination. Millenials need to grow up and yank power from them, first starting with massive government handouts given to olds
Should I take it that you support privatizing Social Security and eliminating Medicare? That probably won't be a winning political platform with any generation.
As a first step I'd prefer to see both of them dramatically more means tested. There's no reason that someone with millions of dollars of assets should be receiving thousands of dollars a month from the state. I think this position is politically tenable with the looming cuts that will happen automatically over the next decade
Means testing SS would result in elderly people transferring their assets to other people, much as already happens so they can get free nursing home care. Medicare isn’t means treating but Medicaid is, so we can see exactly what happens.
Means testing will also make paying into these programs even less popular. Upper middle class people will ask why, exactly, they’re expected to pay more into a retirement program they will get less out of. That’s a recipe for political change from a party who promises not to do that.
That's not going to happen so you can forget about it. Means testing entitlement programs has been tried before and never got much political support from any generation or political party. It's unwise to create incentives for old people to be poor because then workers will be less likely to also save for retirement in their own separate private accounts.
How is that an incentive? It's a fallback. You're not gonna love comfortably off SS payments alone in this day and age.
Treating this mentality of "taking money out that you put in" as "taking handouts" is the exact reductive mentality being used to try and have the government steal the money you earned from under your nose.
Land owners and old people are single biggest recipients of government benefits. Specifically, Social Security and Medicare, and the legal/police apparatus for ensuring protection of property.
Also, traveling and routing utilities and police and ambulances and all of society around a larger plot of land costs (in time and energy and materials) at least a power of 2 more than a smaller plot of land.
Not only are there are no marginal tax rates for land value tax, but there are tax breaks for elderly, caps on tax increases the longer the land is owned, and tax deferrals (such as 1031 exchange).
I will leave it to the reader to figure out which “tribe” is most represented amongst land owners. And old people receiving Social Security and Medicare.
I find tribe to be a more accurate word than “race”, which is some ever changing confluence of skin tone, ancestry, and other difficult to pin down characteristics.
> She’s very playful, and Bluey is all about fun and silly games. She wants to play all the Bluey games, and will riff off them too, it’s been a huge source of inspiration for lots of fun together.
Our daughter is the same. Pizza girls and tickle crab are two of her favorite
Children are giver of immense sense of satisfaction that’s totally disconnected to wealth (though being wealthy certainly helps). Just remember - no short cuts.
I'm fairly certain children are a much greater giver of satisfaction without wealth, because when you have money you suddenly feel like you need to provide them all the best, whereas if you have none, you only feel like you need to keep them alive.
Like most things in life the need grows to just beyond the level you can supply. Maybe someone with nothing starts with "keep them alive" but once that's covered you move up the hierarchy.
Children are the best. The highs in life are orders of magnitude higher, and the lows are _so_ much lower. But the baseline is incalculably higher. My children have made me feel so much more fulfilled. And they have also made me better.
love to hear it! In that case, branching out to other peoples' children can bring great satisfaction. For example, volunteering to teach a class at a local high school
>Another thing that’s really weird and related is another recurring theme in the American ethos: the cultural shame that comes with living “at home” or staying in the same small town for your whole life. Somehow they made it so living close to your family and friends for your 20s-30s and maybe forever means you’re a “loser”.
The older I get, the more I regret moving away from my family and friends in New Jersey. I'm only 3 hours away so still see them about once a month, but I'm very envious of my friends that stayed in our home town and get to see each other every weekend and their children get to spend daily time with their grandparents.
Whenever we consider moving back though, housing prices are always one of the biggest deterrents.
I find this point of view to be profoundly sad and I hope it’s not shared by the majority of immigrants to germany
reply