Seems like you’re running in to the same problems the rest of the world has, only slower. You don’t even have to come up with a solution, just steal one.

Besides, the state retirement fund is only structured that way as a cash buffer, borrowing the retirement fund of a whole generation. You could just as well go back to how it was done in the 70ies with the retirement fund actually built from people’s taxes, and not from the next generation’s - boom, no more problems with uneven generation populations.

Why doesn’t the working class, the larger of the two, simply not eat the owning class?

Jokes aside; seems to me the problem is that policy is set on feelings rather than reality, and then the argument of “not sustainable” gets irrelevant (which is why the policy carries on even though demonstrably wrong).That I can understand, cutting off one’s nose to spite the face kinda deal. But if you’re spiteful, it might be a reasonable (although not rational) choice.

If you’re looking for efficient and/or rational policy, you need more mature representatives, simple as.

Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt. What is it that’s unsustainable with social security?

Benefits increase GDP growth, cushions impact on performance of market upheavals, increases political stability, reduces poverty, increases health and productivity and of course increases happiness.

It would seem to me that it’s a sound investment for both economic, societal, moral and selfish reasons. Please tell me where my analysis or the data doesn’t support my conclusion.

Or an adjacent shower building

Died and often killed, don’t forget that demonstrations are the compromise for a civil discourse. When not being treated civilly, it quickly becomes a mob and the lynching begins.

Not forever, sooner or later he’ll (hopefully) die.

Who is?

Who made Trump happen?

I’m sorry you feel powerless to affect your country, but there is no one else to. Abdicating that responsibility neither removes the consequences, nor exculpates you.

In a rioting mob, even the people not setting fire to things are in part responsible for the riots.

In your survival, head-in-the-sand, mode you are normalising the situation, you are providing legitimacy, you are enforcing the current order.

The other side can say “look, this dude’s not protesting, they have a great life under Great Leader”, they can ignore you and put those resources to oppress others instead (women, trans, homosexuals, foreigners, allies), they can march right past your house to take the capital.

Your inaction is also a choice, a choice that emboldens and enables the fascists.

If you don’t act, who should? If you don’t act now, will there be another time?

“Nuh uh”

You’re over simplifying the first, and conflating the other.

The MLK protests made change on the back of decades of campaigning together with multiple organisations applying different types of pressure and activism for the same goal, including president Kennedy, and several PR disasters for the opposition.

As for the 2001 attacks, what would you say was their political goal? Was it fulfilled by those attacks? If not, I’d scratch that up as a failed attempt.

Street protests are one of several necessary activities for a change movement. They can help build awareness and let off some steam, but need considerable mass to affect change on their own.

More change happens when paired with organised political action, strikes, obstruction, PR and ofc violence/terror.

The trick is to coordinate the sides towards the goal. Only street protests or only terror won’t do anything, but pulling together you did get 8 hour workdays,or more recently grain import regulations (in Poland).

Then again, a million protesters over three months, including transport striking and uncoordinated violence, did not affect the French pension age.

In France the answer would have been: because otherwise there would be widespread demonstrations, strikes and eventually riots.