3abas comments on And age discrimination laws and regulations only protect the old

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I have several people in advanced age in my life who decided to retired because they can't physically work anymore, they have under $100k in retirement.

How long do you suppose they can live off that?

They saved their entire lives to have less than $100k, lived in the cheap parts of town, had shitty cars that constantly break down, never really spent much money on themselves, and what little they have to try to survive a few more years does not make them rich.

Richer than those who have nothing, sure. It's enough money to cover 3 more years? and then what? Just die?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] iknewitwhenisawit@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

I'm sorry that you have people you care about who are in a precarious financial position. That sucks for sure, and is a sign of how a capitalist society treats working class people who can no longer work.

I would advise between generalizing though. Even one older person who is basically told they can freeze to death or starve is terrible! But that doesn't mean that it is common.

It really doesn't matter either way though. All people should be able to live good lives, regardless of their age.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That sucks for sure, and is a sign of how a capitalist society treats working class people who can no longer work.

Totally. That's my point, just surviving capitalism and being able to "retire" doesn't mean you're suddenly rich or a capitalist who lives off interest on savings.

I would advise between generalizing though.

Yeah, that's the point of my original comment. I completely disagree that we should lump anyone who happens to have more than the bare minimum as part of the capitalist ruling class, who want for nothing and exploit others' labor for their benefit.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] iknewitwhenisawit@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

Being in the capital class means living by renting your possessions to workers and living off of them, or living by owning businesses and living off of the profits that your employees generate.

It doesn't mean anyone who has a nice life.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago

That's literally what I'm saying.

I was responding to this:

retired people have some similarities with the bourgeoisie, in that they earn a living on savings and investments, so no longer work.

In Marxist theory, bourgeoisie is the capitalist ruling class, and retiring doesn't make you a part of that club.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago

Why shouldn't he generalize about poorness when others here are generalizing about wealth. If I look at my parents Gen around 1940s, most of them barely manage retirement. I'd say 75% get by, 20% do better and about 5% could be considered rich. Many are trying to hang on to the family home so that they might have an inheritance to leave. My Gen 1960s is similarly stratified although I think we have a slightly higher middle portion. However people are losing their jobs before retirement so that will eat up more of their 'wealth' just to survive. Another thing to consider, if the people who have been saving and building some pocket of wealth for 40+years are condemned for it, why should anyone under 30 be aiming to do that same wealth build? I know that my sons' cohort, who long complained they were never going to get on the ladder, are now in their 30s and marrying, buying homes and having children if they want them. That doesn't seem to be any different than my rural (poorer) cousins except they seem to be having even more children on average.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent