381
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2025
381 points (100.0% liked)
World News
47893 readers
2325 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
why are so many people ok with raising the retirement age? it's literally of zero benefit to anyone who isn't insanely wealthy enough to just quit working whenever they want. if they ever worked in the first place
The regulation is such an insane patchwork, sometimes people can retire earlier than the normal retirement age, if they've been working for many years. And if you health is bad there are special programs for that. (Yes as in multiple!)
But clearly as you state, the system is made to benefit the rich more an more. The social democrats who are part of the government are no longer looking after the average Joe, but making things worse, and then they make special programs for propaganda purposes.
A lot of people have been convinced this is necessary, as life expectancy increases, disregarding increased automation and wealth in our society.
Hate that, work until you're 70 and too old to enjoy retirement. Or work until you're so sick you can't and then you don't get to enjoy retirement.
A system designed to ensure you work until your labor has no value. Squeezing for everything you're worth
Because it's what the insanely wealthy want and that's the only thing that counts
We are heading into a period with severe labor shortages as the elderly retire. Who will take care of the elderly? Who will handle be their doctors/nurses? This is not a problem that can be solved with money unfortunately. You need to either relax migration rules so foreigners take these jobs (very unpopular atm) or increase the retirement age.
It's of benefit to society to reduce the dependency ratio (the ratio of non-working to working people)
If the number of people the government needs to support with state pensions rises, but the working age population doesn't rise nearly as much, government finances become more and more pinched
i can't help but think this "problem" could be solved in ways other than forcing people to work until they're 70. like for instance TAX THE FUCKING RICH
i know propaganda is a powerful weapon, but you should be extremely skeptical of the people saying "the problem can't be solved any other way..." and what their motivation might be (spoiler: keep themselves rich at the expense of everyone else. including, apparently, the elderly who have already spent their life working)
Most people can't work at that age, and no one will hire you like after 55 anyways. So stupid and evil.
And you're saying this about that bastion of right-wing economic policy... Denmark? Tax-to-GDP ratio in the mid 40s, second highest amongst OECD countries?
No-one here has said that increasing the pension age is the only solution. Indeed, on its own, it probably doesn't solve the problem. But it's one part of a plan. Other parts include addressing the other side of the equation - young people, so encouraging immigration and increasing birth rates (but Danish net immigration is already about 1% of its population per year which isn't low, high levels of immigration are unpopular, and increasing birth rates is difficult and makes the problem worse for at least 18 years). Tax policy is another aspect of it, but you have to realise that having an older population doesn't mean that working population is willing or able to bear higher tax rates (even if you try to target them at the rich) That is to say, if you have a high average tax rate already, as you do in Denmark, increasing it further to pay for an aging population is likely to start having adverse effects, and it doesn't matter why you're increasing taxation.
i don't know what to tell you then, other than people might not be more excited to have kids knowing that they'll be working until they're 70. unless their plan is to move the entire family out of the country. which also makes the problem worse
I don't think this will affect people's desire to have children at all (Denmark's strong social security system has a much stronger, and positive, effect on that).
I am of child-having age and my decision is based around what my life would be like for the next 18 or so years, not would it would be like at retirement. If I were to think about that, possibly having someone around to help me out and let me retire earlier would probably be a very tiny nudge in favour of having children.
lol "hey can you give grandpa a ride to work? his back's gone out again and he's used up all his pto"
Far from perfect, and with rising inequality, but Denmark has generally been relatively decent when it comes to taxing the rich and high-income individuals.
As born in the 90s I'm expected to retire at the earliest by 72. I don't understand this at all though - I'm expecting a reduced need for labourers as many things become increasingly automatised anyway, so it's an entirely wrong focus in the first place.
This does nothing for the current problem, which is the single largest group of people, Boomers, needing their State Pension paid, as Denmark is paid for out of general taxation, and these changes do not apply to this group, as it only applies to some of Gen X and younger. This is the same group PAYING for the boomers retirement, so they being asked to pay more than ever before and getting fucked over with the higher retirement age.
The high dependency ratio is going to continue to be a problem for quite a while. The time to solve the aging population problem was decades ago when their could have been policy to create budget surpluses, so that the boomer generation paid for its own care. But that didn't happen and we can't go back in time to fix it. All solutions now suck because that opportunity has been lost: you can screw the boomers by leaving them to die covered in bedsores and filth, or you can screw the younger generations by making them pay for care, or some combination.
None of which is tied to raising the retirement age for the younger groups, this does fuck all to fix the actual problem.
None of which is tied to medical or elder care for the Danes, this is also mostly funded by taxation, again mostly paid by the young.
The actual solution is to start means testing Ponzi scheme state pension funds with a tapered reduction based on private pension income. However that will never every happen to this particular group as they are the largest single group, and this will be a single issue voting matter for them as they are in the middle of retiring.
Social care should be self funded by the government forcing sell off, of assets like the home, for those that can for this generation.
It means more tax take and less superannuation spending. Depends on the country's superannuation system, of course.
That means more money available for all the things taxes are used for, many of which are very very necessary.
How can you justify cuts to the healthcare system because you claim to not have enough money, but then pay pensioners some thousand dollars a fortnight, regardless of what assets or other income they have?
Seems like they oughta tax the rich higher, not make the poorer work till they collapse
Yes,
But also, perhaps superannuation being (at least here in NZ) not means tested and larger than all other welfare combined implies there is a problem.
trying to avoid solving the actual issue, of thier low birth rates.