The sordid reality of retirement villages: Residents are being milked for profit

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Cookie walls, tracking, and paywalls

  • Several readers bailed at the cookie modal listing “877 technology partners”; others bypassed it via JS blocking, cookie blocking, or archive links.
  • There’s discussion that even with cookie blocking, sites use device fingerprinting, especially under GDPR-style consent frameworks.
  • Many say if an article shows a blank page without JS, they just leave.
  • Some would rather pay a small one‑off fee (e.g. $0.50) for a clean, ad‑free article than subscribe to an unknown outlet, but note no viable system exists.
  • Prior micropayment/bundling attempts (Axate, Blendle, Scroll, etc.) are cited as failures; reasons given include: friction, inability to assess article value before paying, and the mental overhead of managing dozens of sources.
  • Others propose flat per‑article fees plus optional subscriptions, but there’s skepticism people who say they’d pay would actually do so regularly.

Capitalism, incentives, and elder exploitation

  • Many see aggressive monetisation of retirement villages as the expected outcome of profit‑maximising capitalism, especially with a captive, frail clientele who can’t easily move or “shop around.”
  • Others argue the problem is weak regulation, not capitalism per se, pointing to past eras with strong rules, unions, and social insurance as evidence it can be tamed.
  • There’s debate over whether non‑capitalist systems would avoid this:
    • One side claims only capitalism centers profit, so other systems wouldn’t “wring the elderly for profit.”
    • The other questions whether care quality would improve without financial incentives, given reliance on intrinsic motivation.

How much “milking” is really shown?

  • Some readers think the article overpromises: lots of detail on the indignities of aging, but little hard evidence of extraordinary profiteering.
  • Concerns that do resonate include: opaque costs, compulsory buy‑back clauses where units are repurchased below the original price, and high ongoing service/ground rents.
  • The anecdote of a resident left on the floor for 45 minutes due to liability rules is widely seen as disturbing, but commenters note similar risk‑aversion in nonprofit and public institutions.
  • One commenter points to published financials of a care‑home operator showing tiny profits or losses, suggesting this isn’t obviously an easy “cash cow” sector.

Wealth extraction and the “aging industry”

  • Many describe a broader system aimed at capturing seniors’ accumulated housing and retirement wealth: expensive care homes, reverse mortgages, life‑insurance buyouts, and, in some jurisdictions, filial responsibility laws.
  • The expected pattern: house and savings are gradually consumed by care costs, leaving children little or no inheritance; some speculate about future moves toward inheritable debt.
  • Others counter that everyone is “milked for profit,” not just retirees; what’s distinctive is that seniors are both asset‑rich and highly vulnerable.

Retirement, long‑term care, and structural limits

  • Some are unsympathetic to blanket narratives of victimhood, citing personal experiences with irresponsible parents and emphasizing personal responsibility, savings, and possibly long‑term‑care (LTC) insurance.
  • Others respond that LTC insurance is often expensive, inflation‑sensitive, and prone to denial or insolvency risk, especially as demographic imbalances grow.
  • There’s concern that aging societies, labor shortages, and slow productivity growth in hands‑on care make sustainable, humane eldercare structurally difficult, regardless of ownership model.
  • Several commenters broaden this into a critique of the “med‑industrial complex” and the retirement model itself: extended life with low quality, heavy medication, and institutionalization versus shorter lives with less intervention.