Anonymous wrote:Policy-wise those are very different questions.

30-year mortgages evolved as a way to help people afford housing. More recently, Trump proposed 50-year mortgages, which are common in some other countries.

Employer-provided health care is frequently debated as part of discussions about moving to single-payer. It’s a complicated subject. It does shackle people to jobs they don’t like and stifles entrepreneurship but it sustains the insurance industry and keeps government at bay on healthcare, which some like for some stupid reason.

Oh for gods sake maga stupid

No one should have a fifty year mortgage.

That is a Trump stupidity thing. As usual the fool has no idea what he is talking about

As god healthcare you moron we are in this mess because of the Republicans party. The history of healthcare in this country is tied fault and where the hell us Trumps plan that he campaigned on?? Two more weeks sure!

Anonymous wrote:Why do we have a system that promotes 30 years mortgages and employer-based healthcare, when people who unfortunately involuntary lose their job by 50 are pretty much done?

The massive confidence that the future will always be a reflection of the past (ie market has always done well, so don't worry) pretty much means that you have to hope that between the ages of 22 and 49 this assumption of forever market return of 6%+ on average holds true. So you pretty much have 27 to make sure you meet all life goals and save for retirement in an inflationary environment.

Because the entire system is designed to keep us subservient to big business. You better do as you're told, peon, or we'll take your healthcare away. Want to participate in a general strike? Better be ready to lose your healthcare. Want to refuse to work in unsafe conditions? Better be ready to lose your healthcare. Want to demand higher pay? Better be ready to lose your healthcare.

30 year mortgages are similar. Back when mortgages weren't common and the few that existed had a 10 year maximum, housing prices couldn't explode because there simply wouldn't be any buyers. Big business realized if they offered long term mortgages, the purchase price wouldn't matter as much, same thing that happened to college tuition after un-dischargeable student loans were created. The higher the house price and the linger the term, the more they make on interest, and as a side benefit being chained to a house for 30 years means you've limited your ability to look for jobs in other areas, again making you more subservient to your employer.

America’s reliance on employer-provided health insurance and on 401k plans for retirement are maybe a more appropriate pairing for this question.

When first introduced, neither was intended to serve the respective roles each now has. Instead, the narrow-use case came to fill an unanticipated need for a powerful bloc or blocs that are now invested enough in the status quo to be protective of each. Each works just well enough that we as a society are unwilling to throw them out despite near-universal agreement that neither would be the policy proposed to addressed the niche each serves.