On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Surplus funds for retirement are different than day to day expenses.
> Pretending they are the same is not helpful. I know some on this list
> don't like the term surplus income but if one has income that is not
> needed to maintain day to day living expenses and one is free to choose
> to invest them or spend them on accumulating personal property it is
> surplus income.
I definitely don't see the money I put away in my retirement pension as "surplus" income: it's going to pay necessary living expenses when I retire. Without my pension, I'll lose my house when I retire (no way SS is going to cover all my expenses). You don't mean to imply that people should work wage jobs until they die, do you?
The upshot: good jobs that cover current expenses and also help people cover their expenses when they retire should be the norm in our society, not a privilege for some.
Miles
> becomes surplus and I doubt one could be fabricated but this does not
> mean it doesn't exist. It is like pornography in that one knows it when
> they see it but an exacting definition is a bit slippery.
>
> I realize these funds can't realistically be expected to be put in a shoebox
> under the bed but buying stock in Exxon or Costco or whatever does not see
> to me to be the answer. The best explanation I can come up with off the top of
> my head is in the form of an anology. One might oppose slavery and yet need
> to eat food produced by slaves in order to survive. That doesn't mean one is
> also free to own slaves and still claim to oppose slavery.
>
> I teach my students with the frequent use of analogies and it's become a sort
> of default way of expressing myself these days. I'm reticent to use slavery in
> an anology almost as much as using Nazi's but it's late and I'm too tired to be
> more original than that.
>
> John Thornton
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>