June 19, 2005
Response to Comments on Later Retirement and Japan-BECKER
I would like to respond briefly to a few comments on my posting on retirement in Japan. I never argued Japan has an ideal system in labor markets or elsewhere in the economy. In fact, I have been critical of many aspects of the Japanese economy. But they do seem to have made a better adjustment than Western nations to the trend toward increased life expectancy with better health at older ages.
Americans do not seem to value leisure more than the Japanese. In fact, American men and women now work longer hours per year at most ages prior to 65 than Japanese men and women do. I believe many more Americans would also want to work past age 65 mainly if the social security system and other retirement systems were more flexible, and perhaps also if the labor market handled older workers a little better.
No one would be required to work past age 65. But with a growing recognition that the present social security system is not likely to pay future retirees sufficient benefits, many more workers are likely to want to continue beyond 65.
Japanese fertility is low in rural as well as urban areas. Since the rural population is a very small fraction of the total, Japanese fertility is dominated by urban fertility.
Later retirement does not automatically solve the medical care problems for older persons. But it would be reasonable to combine later retirement with later ages of qualifying for medicare. That would help the medicare system a lot.
Posted by becker at 08:44 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/822
Comments
This is a helpful analysis. Judge Posner, do you have any ideas to share on the new bankruptcy law? I have not begun to research it yet. Here is what I am interested in: is it your understanding that medical bankruptcy is now also changed under the new law. What I mean is, is someone goes into debt because they have a health condition and he/she have no heatlh insurance, is that no longer dischargeable? I mean people use thier credit cards to pay for health services. I am interested in all sorts of scenarios. I do not object much to the new law as it applies to debtors who used thier credit cards to indulge in luxuries but for health care? health care of a child? If this is the case--that the new law prevents discharge of medical bills-why didn't Congress make a deal-give the banks et al thier new law but get some benefit for the American people-like some form of health insurance? Will the judiciary have some leeway on dischargeable debts under the new law--will the judiciary be able to look at the nature of the debt?
VV
PS Your book Sex and Reason-good book
Posted by VV Cambridge at June 21, 2005 05:24 PM | direct link
Seems to be cool!
Posted by Jerry at June 25, 2005 12:53 AM | direct link
