"Replace" certainly seems like loaded language. I believe the intent is to bolster the younger cohorts to try to avoid too heavy a generational imbalance.

I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, I'm suggesting it's an idea.

> Can you explain what the other option is and why you think it would be pretty?

One other option is to go the route of Italy or Greece, run the welfare system at a massive imbalance, and make up for it with public debt.

The other options are all some form of breach of the social contract. Either increasing the burden on the working age demographic past what they'll accept, or the eventual bankruptcy of the pension and healthcare system. Pension levels would have to be lowered to the point where the elderly would have to come out of retirement and re-join the workforce to survive, despite a lifetime of making payments into the system and promises they'll be returned.

The thing is a social contract that can't actually exist doesn't matter. If we all agree to not work but still receive benefits we haven't made a meaningful social contract. Breaching that contract is probably the best thing to do. Also, its difficult to evaluate exactly what the contract is here: is it that we all agree to a welfare state (roughly speaking) or is it that in the event that it is possible to have a welfare state then we will have it? I think the latter is more reasonable.

>Pension levels would have to be lowered to the point where the elderly would have to come out of retirement and re-join the workforce to survive, despite a lifetime of making payments into the system and promises they'll be returned.

The way I see it the point you're making here is that since they put in, they deserve to take out, as their input was when the system was still working and the contract thus in place. And that's true to a degree, but people implicitly acknowledge of and take a risk when they contribute to these systems. Did anyone think that in the event of a massive famine (for an extreme example) that they will magically be paid back on their contribution? The decline of the working population is maybe not something they thought about, but it comes implicitly as part of a general acknowledgement that a given system only exists withing a certain interval of environments.

All this said, you didn't explicitly state that you believe this contract should be upheld at all costs, but that seems to be the only case where that point would be relevant in the first place.

The question everyone at working age will face is why they should put money into a system when what they're getting back is less than they put in. For old times sake?

People may forgive hardships when there is some external factor, but this is something that's been known for decades.

> All this said, you didn't explicitly state that you believe this contract should be upheld at all costs, but that seems to be the only case where that point would be relevant in the first place.

I don't know if there is a good solution to this. I'm not sure what the alternative is. Grab a pointy stick, put a colander on your head and go full mad max?

This is a weak version of "uphold the social contract at all costs" mentality. Rather than uphold it because of the people that enacted the contract, we will uphold it because the people put in charge of upholding it want to stay in charge. Its a much more reasonable idea and if this is really the case then it's an unfortunate situation. That said I don't think its likely that the Swedish elderly are either contributing much to taxes or capable of revolting. The younger generations would actually react positively to it. For example I already have no trust that I will see a meaningful return on my social security "investment." I'd rather see it shut down than wait for the off chance that anything is left in 30 years.

I think democracies move too slowly to make changes like this, however. I don't think there is really any plan at all. I think that is ultimately the issue here. And unfortunately if the article is to be believed the "solution" of voting in what the article has called an extremist party may become reality. I think that's the real issue here. We can debate social contracts all we want but if an extremist party is voted in it shows that Sweden's plan was flawed from the outset.

You think the younger generations will think their parents getting completely shafted is a positive thing? Especially given many will end up supporting them financially (outside of the pension system)? I'm struggling to see how that would play out.

A timely subject now, but I'll always remember Queen Elizabeth pitching austerity to the British public while sitting in front of a solid gold piano.