• poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    That… actually sounds a lot better than I expected. Not too far off other retirement systems in Europe money wise 🤷

    • zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 days ago

      I imagine the big difference is that most Europeans that retire don’t have to then figure out how to pay for medical care and medication that they require to keep living.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        Yes, but they do have to figure out how to pay for elderly care, which is also extremely expensive and the existing insurances for that are quite inadequate.

      • Triasha@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        US you get comparatively low cost food and housing, but you have to pay for medical care.

        You win some you lose some.

        Also, in the US you have to eat US food.

        • HubertManne@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          yeah in europe you eat a bit less food. in the us you just alternate taking your daily medications and skip the occasional surgery. its all kinda the same.

          • Triasha@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Depends on where in Europe. Dutch housing is comparatively affordable, British? Irish? It’s worse then the US.

            In general, Europeans have it worse for housing than the average American.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      What age do your retirement systems pay out? For example, in the US the $50,000 earner will only get ~$1400/mo if they take SS at 62, and if they wait until 70 they’ll get ~$2500/mo. Really forcing people to work until they can’t, and I guess hopefully die soon so they don’t take too many payments. Again, assuming no other retirement savings.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Depends on the country, but typically 65-67 and if you take it earlier it also comes with a significant reduction. So all in all it seems pretty comparable.

        Of course people here also complain about this as insufficient, but the reality is that even this amount is not sustainable due to demographic changes and people living significantly longer.

        I think there needs to be some sort of radical rethinking on how we sustain an elderly population. The existing systems that are based on bygone demografic assumptions clearly can’t work any longer.

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          IDK what the solution is. Pay more into it over time? Problem is cost of living accelerates faster than the value of the SS payment. And yeah, people live longer too…if they’re lucky.