i think the difference in hr costs between sending boomers home at 65 and letting young people in the workforce vs. keeping young people out of the workforce by keeping boomers an extra two years is probably not measurable by a proper accounting, and anybody telling you otherwise is operating on ideology and sending you bad accounting.

i'm not even sure it's politically costly with young people.

but, it's political suicide with older voters, who are still going to hold the balance of power for quite a while - not just because of what it is, but because it's another example of the ruling party looking voters in the eye and lying to their faces.

if the government decides that that kind of loss of credibility is worth saving a tenth of a percent of gdp, then all i can say is that the finance minister is in the wrong line of business: he should go back to the private sector.

it's a great example of why you shouldn't treat a government like a business, and the kinds of absurd policies that develop when you do. the purpose of government is not to maximize profit, and no politician will ever be successful if they approach the job as though it is. making these kinds of cutthroat decisions that come from the business mentality of profit maximization at all costs tend to leave politicians unemployed...