Why does raising the retirement age hurt young people?

Pension sustainability & demographics

• Several comments frame public pensions as pay‑as‑you‑go “pyramid” systems: a growing retired population (living longer) supported by a shrinking working‑age base (low birthrates).
• From this view, cutting benefits risks unrest, so raising retirement age is seen as the “only logical” way to keep systems solvent a bit longer.
• Others argue this is not inevitable: design tweaks (means‑testing, higher caps on taxable income, minimum benefits) can close the funding gap without raising age.

Impact of retirement age on young people

• One camp: later retirement keeps older workers in senior positions, blocking advancement and depressing wages for younger cohorts. Lowering retirement age would open roles and promotion ladders.
• Counter‑camp: because current workers finance current retirees, more/earlier retirees mean higher taxes on the young; so on purely fiscal grounds, raising the age could actually relieve pressure on young workers.

Models of retirement: rights vs “math problem”

• Some see retirement as a social right in rich countries, violated when people must work until death despite high national wealth.
• Others insist retirement is a “math problem”: you can only consume what current workers produce. Too many retirees relative to workers is unsustainable, regardless of rights language.

Social Security, pensions, and personal saving

• Debate over pay‑as‑you‑go Social Security: some call it “ponzi‑like” but still politically guaranteed; others emphasize it remains federal insurance (OASDI).
• Defined‑benefit pensions are remembered as providing predictable age‑based retirement; today’s self‑directed accounts shift risk to individuals (market crashes, longevity risk).
• Advocates of market‑based, self‑directed retirement argue these scale with productivity and avoid intergenerational conflict; critics note most people can’t save enough, so younger workers end up subsidizing elders anyway.

Tax policy, inequality, and intergenerational transfer

• Strong theme: tax cuts and loopholes for the wealthy (high‑income rates down vs mid‑20th century, special treatment like QSBS, SALT, private jet write‑offs) plus rising corporate profits are blamed for underfunded pensions and rising inequality (citing Gini trends).
• Others respond that high earners already pay most income taxes, behavioral responses limit how much extra revenue you can raise, and heavy taxation risks slowing growth—hurting everyone, including the young.
• There’s back‑and‑forth over whether wealth or income should be taxed, feasibility of wealth taxes, and how much they’d actually raise.

Debt and political economy

• Some prioritize paying down public debt even if it means later retirement; others ask why debt must be paid down now if living standards have risen despite decades of deficits.
• Both parties are criticized for wanting high spending without matching tax increases; older voters’ numerical and political dominance is seen as a key barrier to reforms favoring the young.

Work capacity and inequality within older ages

• Commenters note big differences: some manual workers are physically wrecked by 60; others work heavy jobs into their 70s.
• Tech workers worry about ageism and automation making late‑life employment unrealistic even if cognitively capable.

Skepticism about the article’s broader claims

• Some are wary of the idea that engineering earlier retirement to “free up” jobs is akin to burning crops to raise prices: fewer workers must support more non‑workers, reducing overall living standards (except in the sense of more leisure).
• Examples like Israel’s tech sector are challenged: high‑value industries often don’t create mass employment, so industrial policy built around them may not solve youth underemployment.