Making Old People Work: Three False Assumptions Supporting the “Working Longer Consensus”

IF 4.1 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Society Pub Date : 2021-02-06 DOI:10.1177/0032329220987084
T. Ghilarducci
{"title":"Making Old People Work: Three False Assumptions Supporting the “Working Longer Consensus”","authors":"T. Ghilarducci","doi":"10.1177/0032329220987084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pensions and social insurance—key parts of the welfare state—redistribute income and wealth across class by providing, or not providing, practical and legitimate access to basic income without requiring work for pay. Mistaken attention to generational equity and austerity economics creates a set of beliefs that older people should work more, forming what the article calls an emerging “Working Longer Consensus,” which is supported by three false doctrines. Using OECD data and secondary sources, the article counters each false doctrine by showing that healthy longevity gains are not distributed equally; there is no demonstrated trade-off between public spending for the elderly and children; and a greater supply of elder labor does not necessarily mean economic prosperity. The Working Longer Consensus, like the Washington Consensus, promises that pension austerity will yield economic prosperity.","PeriodicalId":47847,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0032329220987084","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329220987084","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pensions and social insurance—key parts of the welfare state—redistribute income and wealth across class by providing, or not providing, practical and legitimate access to basic income without requiring work for pay. Mistaken attention to generational equity and austerity economics creates a set of beliefs that older people should work more, forming what the article calls an emerging “Working Longer Consensus,” which is supported by three false doctrines. Using OECD data and secondary sources, the article counters each false doctrine by showing that healthy longevity gains are not distributed equally; there is no demonstrated trade-off between public spending for the elderly and children; and a greater supply of elder labor does not necessarily mean economic prosperity. The Working Longer Consensus, like the Washington Consensus, promises that pension austerity will yield economic prosperity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
让老年人工作:支持“工作更长时间共识”的三个错误假设
养老金和社会保险是福利国家的关键部分,通过提供或不提供实际合法的基本收入途径,在不要求以工换薪的情况下,在不同阶层之间重新分配收入和财富。对代际公平和紧缩经济学的错误关注造成了一系列老年人应该多工作的信念,形成了文章所说的新兴的“工作更长时间共识”,这有三个错误的理论支持。利用经合组织的数据和二级来源,这篇文章反驳了每一种错误的理论,表明健康的长寿收益分配不平等;老年人和儿童的公共支出之间没有明显的权衡;老年劳动力的增加并不一定意味着经济繁荣。与《华盛顿共识》一样,《长期工作共识》承诺养老金紧缩将带来经济繁荣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Politics & Society
Politics & Society Multiple-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
4.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.
期刊最新文献
Bringing Household Finance Back In: House Prices and the Missing Macroeconomics of Comparative Political Economy Who Pays for Environmental Policy? Business Power and the Design of State-Level Climate Policies* Supervising Local Cadres in China: The Quest for Authoritarian Accountability Rethinking Antitrust for the Cloud Era Antitrust and Equal Liberty
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1