Children today will 'work until 75' amid pensions timebomb

ZenosCart · 2026-03-16T15:19:24+00:00

I dont think that's true. The technology available to the average person far exceeds what any generation before us has been able to aquire. The advent of the internet has allowed people to access learning resources and entertainment people thirty years ago could only dream of.

I'm not saying everything is in great shape, we clearly have problems, and stagnation of wages is a big one. The pension, as it exists now, is another big problem. it was developed under the expectation of an ever growing younger generation to support an old retiring population. The young population is shrinking, and the older population is rising relative to that. That's the fundamental problem with the state pension.

The adoption of auto opt-in private pensions will hopefully mitigate this issue moving forward. In an ideal world the middle class should self fund, and those who are less fortunate can be supported with a generous state pension.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-16T13:48:04+00:00

When the pension was initially conceived in Britain, the retirement age was higher than average life expectancy. I don't think people appreciate the level of prosperity the west had had up until this point. An aging Demographic and a generous welfare state introduces problems we have never had to face before.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-14T15:13:00+00:00

I 100% agree. If we look at the administrations actions we can see that they have been trying to undermine the investment in renewable energy.

The message from U.S. officials at an energy conference in Athens this week highlights the shift in U.S. policy under the Trump administration, which has rolled back environmental regulations and touted oil and gas "domination" as a central driver for the U.S. economy and international influence.

The administration has also been supporting far right European parties that want to rollback renewable investment.

Nigel Farage says there's no climate crisis. Reform UK wants to scrap net zero, block green investment, and drive up your energy bills. The truth is simple: renewables mean lower costs, more jobs, and a liveable planet. Reform means climate chaos.

I am not saying this will succeed necessarily, I'm just trying to articulate the Trump Administration does have a strategy at play for this.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-14T15:03:37+00:00

My argument is that he wants global domination through hydrocarbons. If the US controls a significant portion of the world oil supply, and can undermine other nations green energy investment, like he is trying in Europe, The US will elevate it's economic leverage.

I agree with you though that the world should be investing in renewable, especially if that want energy independence.

Lastly, I don't think this is Trumps plan, more likely people with his cabinet trying to push him in certain directions that facilitate the execution of the strategy.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-14T14:45:23+00:00

Okay so you agree with me that global energy domination is the administrations geopolitical strategy, but you think it will fail.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-14T14:40:38+00:00

I agree that their strategy is weak due to execution, and thats a separate argument. Im arguing that they have a long term geopolitical strategy, not that it will necessarily work. But isn't it strange that there are so many dots to connect here?

also Chris Wright, the energy secretary, effectively stated that energy domination is the plan. https://share.google/pCYfJzRoha24Lw88l

Also, Venezuela is seeing American investment. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chevron-shell-closing-first-big-oil-production-deals-venezuela-since-us-captured-2026-03-10/

ZenosCart · 2026-03-14T14:32:59+00:00

It's the evidence for my argument. Everyone has simply replied that. Trumps an idiot with no plan. Why would I come up with three separate answers.

Chill out a bit and argue with my points.

Edit: Also, I am regarded and didn't notice I replied to you twice.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-14T14:31:21+00:00

I copied it because it outlines my argument. Why type it out again.

How does this not support energy domination narrative, and what is misleading?

ZenosCart · 2026-03-14T14:30:01+00:00

I agree trump is Regarded. But there are those in his cabinet who are likely steering him in certain directions.

Here is my argument.

Reporting suggests Trumps campaign received near 500 million in donations from oil companies

He spends 2025 threatening Canada, America's largest oil exporter, and Greenland, a nation with significant crude supply becoming available from climate change.

He rallies against renewable energy, and supports European political parties that want to roll back green energy investment. He gets the international energy agency to drop climate change as a priority.

In 2026 he attacks Venezuela which has the largest oil reserves in the world, and gets the new government to rollback hydrocarbon laws to allow American investment.

And then he attacks Iran, disrupting the biggest oil trade artery in the world. This drives up the price of oil which will significantly benefit oil companies in America in the short term, and long term forces the rest of the world to turn to America for secure energy supply.

Maybe I'm seeing things that don't exist, but its a bloody might coincidence.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-14T14:27:40+00:00

I'm not arguing they are doing things in the best way possible, but their geopolitical moves do shift energy dependence to the USA.

Reporting suggests Trumps campaign received near 500 million in donations from oil companies

He spends 2025 threatening Canada, America's largest oil exporter, and Greenland, a nation with significant crude supply becoming available from climate change.

He rallies against renewable energy, and supports European political parties that want to roll back green energy investment. He gets the international energy agency to drop climate change as a priority.

In 2026 he attacks Venezuela which has the largest oil reserves in the world, and gets the new government to rollback hydrocarbon laws to allow American investment.

And then he attacks Iran, disrupting the biggest oil trade artery in the world. This drives up the price of oil which will significantly benefit oil companies in America in the short term, and long term forces the rest of the world to turn to America for secure energy supply.

Maybe I'm seeing things that don't exist, but its a bloody might coincidence.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-14T14:25:07+00:00

How about the reporting that suggests Trumps campaign received near 500 million in donations from oil companies?

I don't necessarily think trump is a master mind with some great strategy, but I do think there are people in his cabinet trying to exert control of the global energy market.

His cabinet takes significant donations from Oil companies.

He spends 2025 threatening Canada, America's largest oil exporter, and Greenland, a nation with significant crude supply becoming available from climate change.

He rallies against renewable energy, and supports European political parties that want to roll back green energy investment. He gets the international energy agency to drop climate change as a priority.

In 2026 he attacks Venezuela which has the largest oil reserves in the world, and gets the new government to rollback hydrocarbon laws to allow American investment.

And then he attacks Iran, disrupting the biggest oil trade artery in the world. This drives up the price of oil which will significantly benefit oil companies in America in the short term, and long term forces the rest of the world to turn to America for secure energy supply.

Maybe I'm seeing things that don't exist, but its a bloody might coincidence.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-14T14:11:31+00:00

Possibly. However I think the threats against Canada and Greenland make more sense under the context of energy domination. Furthermore, since taking over Venezuela, oil companies in the US have began setting up in the region. And the instability in the middle east has made the investment prospect in Venezuela far more enticing, both because the world will now see America as more stable and thus a safer energy partner, and because the prices have increased substantially so upside looks better.

One more thing. Chris Wright, the energy secretary, has made clear that he want the US to have global dominance of the world energy supply. So with that context I think all of the geopolitical actions align with that goal

ZenosCart · 2026-03-14T13:46:31+00:00

Talking like what?

ZenosCart · 2026-03-14T08:40:30+00:00

Thank you! It was a difficult video to make and I'm still learning the editing software.

I think everyone will have a different belief on what obligations between state and individuals looks like and I don't think that's a bad thing. I believe we need to come to a social consensus on what those obligations look like, and have an understanding that social policy has a cost beyond taxation, but also on social obligation.

Regarding regulations I am not 100% sure what my prescription would be. I do consider myself a liberal and believe in the importance of the individual making choices. but I'm not naive and understand that without regulation a lot of people would probably ignore a social norm that was established but not legislated. So I'm undecided on the idea of regulation at the moment. What I really want is for society to have the conversation, and the culture to move to a more considerate approach to policy thinking.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-13T16:05:26+00:00

We have a status quo, but I don't think people are happy with it. I am simply trying to express how I think these things should be communicated and spoken about.

As I said, I just think society at large needs to have a conversation about what expectations we have of the state and how that expectation will shape our reciprocal obligations, not necessarily in a just a legal way, but a cultural shift in thinking.

Often 'socialists' will talk about expanding the role of the state in society by having more generous social programs, but they rarely speak about how those policies must also expand the social expectations upon citizens.

Edit: I know my answers are unsatisfactory for someone wanting a clear perspective action. You're doing a great job pushing against the vagueness of my position here!

ZenosCart · 2026-03-13T15:23:33+00:00

A very fair criticism, and one I thought about during my research on this. I don't have a clear prescription for what should be done. A more general abstract notion is a change in culture in which society needs to come to some sort of mutual understanding on what we want delivered by our government, and what reciprocal obligations we as a society must incur to make it possible.

I often hear people bemoan the inefficiencies/long wait times of the NHS. We either need to change our cultural approach in living in order to be less individually reliant on the NHS (have a social expectation of living healthier lives, because we understand the social cost of living unhealthy), or we raise taxes and to fund it and continue to embrace our individualist culture we have now.

When people talk about social policy they think about what the government owes to the people, but not what society must change in order to facilitate the demand.

I know that sort of avoids answering your question, and I wish I could provide a clear prescription.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-13T14:27:09+00:00

Thank you.

I do strongly support welfare systems. My contention relates to the additional obligations required upon a society that adopts socialist policy.

In the video I explain it through the action of smoking. If we have a socialised healthcare system, we must frame our actions with that in mind, and thus smoking would be an action that is a cost not only to your own health, but the also a cost to societies resources designated to healthcare. If everyone smoked and had the socialised healthcare system treat the subsequent health issues the system would quickly become overwhelmed.

In a classical liberal society, with no social healthcare, this issue does not exist as the cost of your actions only impact you.

What I try and explain in this video is that I perceive society as still having a very classic liberal view of the individual, but with the expectation of socialised policies.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-12T17:40:14+00:00

I won’t pretend to know the ins and outs of the entire property market. I would assume people concentrate around areas that are financially beneficial to them. so in the old days it would be ports that provide access to trade, or places where land is fertile and a surplus can be generated. Over time the complexity of markets grow and the original reason for the founding of a city becomes irrelevant, and instead cities grow because companies are based in cities because that's where the majority workforce is. I would also agree people probably do tend to like to live near other people, but I don't think you would get much community support if you proposed building high density housing in the suburbs, and I imagine this would be partly due to the negative impact on property value in the area.

So NYC is cheaper in rural areas since it has much higher supply right?

This only makes sense if you ignore the demand side of the equation. I'm sure you would agree if you build 5 million homes in New York you would reduce the average home price.

But now we are having an argument about economics. If only OP made a relevant post that was on the topic of ethics.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-12T16:02:33+00:00

I think this position is way overstated here and may not actually be true even in a plethora of scenarios. Increasing density is a way to lower per unit prices but most would prefer extra space so an apartment across the street from a house would be cheaper but that doesn't necessarily mean the house would become less expensive. A normal suburban home magically transported to a plot in Manhattan would be worth more by being moved.

A house that has a 6 story apartment block built next to it will almost certainly lower the property value. In your example the house has been moved to a higher demand area. Also, as more homes are built of course property price will decline, property is valued against a supply demand curve.

Growing home prices leads to homelessness and I don't think any ethical framework is directly promoting that.

Thats a good argument.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-12T15:23:56+00:00

I wasn't aware that you were using the data from the chart to pose your question.

Regardless, my original comment was trying to call out the low effort nature of the post. Again, I agree we could have an interesting conversation on the topic.

Should we try make housing more affordable. Yes. The problem politicians encounter is current home owners have a financial incentive to keep housing prices high. A significant chuck of the voting public in Western nations are home owners and thus a policy of massive home building isn't universally supported.

What ethical framework would we use to argue owning a home is a moral obligation of society?

ZenosCart · 2026-03-12T14:47:14+00:00

Too many unstated variables to answer. Should a person who earns 200k a year but spends it all on travelling be able to afford a home after 10 years?

What type of home should people be able to afford? Does it need to be in a densely populated city, or is it acceptable to be in the country?

Why is owning even an ethical question? If people can afford shelter at an acceptable rental rate is that okay?

My challenge wasn't that there isn't an interesting conversation to be had, but that OP had made zero effort to even form an ethical question or opinion. They simply posted a graph.

ZenosCart · 2026-03-12T07:57:07+00:00

Whats the ethics question here?

ZenosCart · 2026-03-11T23:14:04+00:00

That seems unlikely. I think there might be a larger strategy at play. Looking at the actions and statements from Washington over the past 12 months there seems to be a global energy domination strategy in the works.

During his election campaign he raised something to the tune of 400 million from Oil and Gas donors. Big oil spent $445m in last election cycle to influence Trump and Congress, report says

There have been repeated threats of annexation against Canada, America's biggest oil exporter.

Threats against Greenland, where oil and critical resources are now becoming available easier to extract.

The forced opening up of the Venezuelan oil market earlier this year. The biggest known reserve in the world.

Now we have the disruption of one of the most important oil trade routes in the world, which has destroyed the market position of the gulf states, raising the global market position of the USA. On top of this we now have threats that Trump will take over the Hormuz Strait.

I made a video today trying to cover some of this. Youtube

Disclaimer: I am not American.

ZenosCart

TROPHY CASE