The current wave of strikes over pensions will come as no surprise to those in the corridors of power - and nor will the strikes achieve anything. The hard fact is, is that pensions as they now exist are unsustainable. The entire concept of a pension, is unsustainable.
The hard reality facing governments, is that life extension is just around the corner - and no government, on any side of the political spectrum, wants to get locked into pension payments that will essentially drain the public purse - pensions are doing this already.
What we will see, incrementally, is the link between pension and salary will dissolve - and it will be replaced with a basic subsistence allowance. Nothing else will be affordable, if government is not to be hamstrung. Borrowing to pay pensions is not a sustainable policy. Private pensions, that rely on a lump sum to be invested in an annuity, will see their returns shrinking to such low levels , that they too become unviable. Most private pension funds are now insuring themselves against massive advances in longevity - which,when (it isn't if, it is when) this eventuates, will lead to the collapse of many private pension funds, which will not be in a position to keep paying out for decades longer than expected. Even a 5% increase in average longevity will cause a crisis. To judge by the percentages being achieved in lower animals, 5% is a very conservative figure - expecting a 20% increase, or more, is probably not unreasonable.
Every week brings news of life extension achievements in various model organisms - only this week, an elegant genetic manipulation dramatically extended the lifespan of yeast, using a biochemical metabolic reaction chain known to exist in humans as well. Other studies indicate the drugs that promote mitochondrial fitness have a similar effect. And so the list goes on.
Policy makers are well aware that people currently receiving pensions could well survive longer in retirement as they did in employment. This is unsustainable. State pensions are paid out of tax receipts. The system was never designed for this. Ministers know it is unsustainable. Voters want to have their cake, and eat it. This cannot be, something has to give. Most of the people striking today are unaware of the massive policy implications medical interventions are already having on life expectancy, and, as the saying goes, we ain't seen nothing yet.
The speed at which new compounds can be investigated, meaning the speed at which progress is being made, keeps increasing - more than exponentially. A major driver of change is the application of AI to chemistry. Novel compounds can then be investigated, also through automated, intelligent systems. Experiments that would have taken decades or months of painstaking labour, can now be streamlined and reduced to weeks, if not days, or, in some cases, seconds.
Society will need to adjust to these changes - those demonstrating today, in some ways, are not unlike the Luddites breaking the mechanical looms of industry - unable to come to terms with a paradigm shift, they rose up in futile rebellion.
The hard reality facing governments, is that life extension is just around the corner - and no government, on any side of the political spectrum, wants to get locked into pension payments that will essentially drain the public purse - pensions are doing this already.
What we will see, incrementally, is the link between pension and salary will dissolve - and it will be replaced with a basic subsistence allowance. Nothing else will be affordable, if government is not to be hamstrung. Borrowing to pay pensions is not a sustainable policy. Private pensions, that rely on a lump sum to be invested in an annuity, will see their returns shrinking to such low levels , that they too become unviable. Most private pension funds are now insuring themselves against massive advances in longevity - which,when (it isn't if, it is when) this eventuates, will lead to the collapse of many private pension funds, which will not be in a position to keep paying out for decades longer than expected. Even a 5% increase in average longevity will cause a crisis. To judge by the percentages being achieved in lower animals, 5% is a very conservative figure - expecting a 20% increase, or more, is probably not unreasonable.
Every week brings news of life extension achievements in various model organisms - only this week, an elegant genetic manipulation dramatically extended the lifespan of yeast, using a biochemical metabolic reaction chain known to exist in humans as well. Other studies indicate the drugs that promote mitochondrial fitness have a similar effect. And so the list goes on.
Policy makers are well aware that people currently receiving pensions could well survive longer in retirement as they did in employment. This is unsustainable. State pensions are paid out of tax receipts. The system was never designed for this. Ministers know it is unsustainable. Voters want to have their cake, and eat it. This cannot be, something has to give. Most of the people striking today are unaware of the massive policy implications medical interventions are already having on life expectancy, and, as the saying goes, we ain't seen nothing yet.
The speed at which new compounds can be investigated, meaning the speed at which progress is being made, keeps increasing - more than exponentially. A major driver of change is the application of AI to chemistry. Novel compounds can then be investigated, also through automated, intelligent systems. Experiments that would have taken decades or months of painstaking labour, can now be streamlined and reduced to weeks, if not days, or, in some cases, seconds.
Society will need to adjust to these changes - those demonstrating today, in some ways, are not unlike the Luddites breaking the mechanical looms of industry - unable to come to terms with a paradigm shift, they rose up in futile rebellion.
Although your statements are sound for the future, I would point out that they are totally irrelevant to the government's current strategy, with a few simple points:
ReplyDelete1. The money the government is attempting to loot from public sector pensions is not even earmarked to maintain those pension funds. It's going for the deficit as a stealth tax.
2. The NHS pension fund is healthy enough currently that the government removes a £2b surplus each year. The proposed changes would result in an £8b stealth tax. They want to punish people whose pay they have already frozen, and these shortsighted actions would force millions right onto the straining state pension, which WILL be unsustainable.
3. Public sector pensions are no more "draining the purse" than any fair payroll expense. The public is used to treating the people offering essential services like servants, so it should be no surprise that these people are not grateful for the pittance they receive in comparison to the private sector. If you want public services to be provided by qualified people, you need to pay them fairly.
4. The most gold-plated pension that is exempt from this threat belongs to the same people who have each year without fail gained a pay rise higher than inflation -- Parliament. This government may be well-educated, but they are completely deluded as to the situation outside the board rooms, golfing clubs and dinner parties they attend.
Although there is a tragedy of the commons slowly growing in Britain, and longevity will indeed threaten pensions, these are issues which have nothing to do with the current class warfare threatening more harm in the name of good.