My first 421+ character thought

I just want to throw this out there - anyone who knows anything about economics humor me if you will.

Social security is a big issue. We want to make sure we all have enough money for retirement, and a big motivating reason for that is because we don't want to have to tax our children and grandchildren ... right?

I would argue that the LESS a generation saves for retirement - the LESS of a burden they will be on the generation after them. Its counterintuitive, but let me explain my reasoning.

When a generation retires, the next generation(s) will have to produce everything that generation needs to live. Whatever monies one may have saved for retirement does not change the fact that when you are old and cannot work, someone will have to produce the goods and services you need at about the time you need them. Unless you're planning on stocking your retirement fund full of canned goods and prescription medication and adult diapers, the goods and services you need during retirement will have to be produced during retirement.

Given the above - and given that the working generation(s) have a finite productivity - it is true that the non-working retired generation(s) will be competing with the working, producing generation(s) for a cut of the finite amount of goods and services the latter produces. So the question is, what share will they get?

Consider two extremes - A) in the first extreme, an entire generation of completely irresponsible people who save nothing for retirement and end the period of life when they can work with nothing saved - and B) an entire generation which saves diligently for retirement, all ending their working careers with ample savings.

In case A), the retired generation(s) will be destitute and begging the working generation(s) for what little crumbs they can get. The working generation(s) will control all the property and money and hence the economy as a whole and will be able to keep a larger share of what they produce. The share they give the retired generation(s) will be entirely dependent on their good will.

In case B), the retired generation(s) will control most of the money and most of the property. The working generation(s) will be more or less indentured servants - serfs - to the vast feudalism of old money. All the old folks will have all the land, all the means of production, and the younger generation will be their subjects. The young will still be the ones doing all the work, but they will be jumping at the command of vast reserves of capital controlled by the non-working old.

The point of all of this babbling? Its actually BETTER for our children if we DON'T save for retirement! So long as we all do it as a group!