What's age got to do with it?
/Tim Worstall: What a Welfare System We Have
TW responds to this story about Esme Collins, a 103 year-old resident of a nursing home, who faces eviction because she cannot afford the £500 a week (!) bill.
TW responds to this story about Esme Collins, a 103 year-old resident of a nursing home, who faces eviction because she cannot afford the £500 a week (!) bill.
It's not unreasonable to expect people to save for forseeable events: that you will live to the average age of the previous age cohort...Living to 103 is clearly unforseeable, a suitable case for that social insurance. However, these days, living to 70 or 75 is not unforseeable: in fact, it's highly likely, more likely than not in fact. So those in those age groups are not suitable candidates fo the system of social insurance.Worstall speaks from his comfortable position as a metal dealer working three hours a week in the Algarve. Good luck to him. I speak from my comfortable position of working zero hours a week from a slightly colder part of the world. But for many people out there work means long hours on piss-poor wages (the sort of workers who look after 103 year-old Esme, for instance) and the idea that they are in a position during their working lives to save for their old age and should only receive welfare support after reaching 70 or 75 is, frankly, unrealistic.
