On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Thaths <tha...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Surabhi Tomar <surabhi.to...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Udhay Shankar N <ud...@pobox.com> > wrote: > > > What, to me, are even more interesting than the scientific angles are > > > the social ones. What are the implications of (potentially) 7-8 > > > generations existing at the same time, as a matter of course? Malthus > > > comes to mind. > > > > That would depend on whether the female reproductive age also increases > > with the life span. If it does, women will have children later and we > might > > actually end up having only 3-4 generations living together. > > > > If it doesn't, then the social implications of men having to live more > than > > half their lives without a sexual partner would be interesting. > > > > I'm interested in how the Economics of the retiree safety net would work > out. I already see a generation in India that retired at 55 living into > their 70's and 80's on their pensions. In some cases the pensions are index > linked and the retirees do OK, and in other the retirees are finding it > increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Luckily for India, the young > population tends to mask the system having to pay pensions for way past > what the actuaries had planned. >
The current retirement age is itself archaic. People's careers no longer peak in their 40s, careers peak in 50s. Many retirees continue on with a second career after 55.
