The purpose of life insurance is supposed to be to replace your lifelong earning potential for someone who was depending on it (if you're raising a kid, eg), and most people's lifetime earning potential has been trending down from what they were expecting https://twitter.com/Lexialex/status/1317927771297828864 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
Most people I now right now view "life insurance" as something that will cover their funeral and at most a year of their income for their family.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @brigidkeely
One problem is that the "right time" to buy life insurance if you're ever going to buy it is when you're as young and healthy as possible, before they have any reasons to bump you into a more expensive category But that's when most people have no idea if they're going to need it
2 replies 2 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @brigidkeely
Like, bluntly, if you never end up having kids or other dependents then life insurance is objectively a waste of money (It mathematically HAS TO BE, the actuaries' whole job is to make sure an insurance policy has negative expected value, that's how the company makes money)
5 replies 3 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @brigidkeely
Old enough to remember when it was very common for parents who could afford it to buy a newborn boy a life insurance policy and a girl a burial insurance policy, the latter to be transferred to her husband at marriage.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @brigidkeely @Solipsister
Yeah, based on the assumption that the boy is going to be a breadwinner whose earnings will need to be replaced and the girl is not
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @brigidkeely
Seeds of feminism unknowingly sown early. I'll never forget sobbing at my folks when I found out at age 10, "so you were lying when you said I can be anything I want when I grow up!" and the look of realization/shame on their faces. They converted it & signed it over to me at 21.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Solipsister @brigidkeely
It's interesting I guess because even from a coldly economic standpoint it's not like a 1950s housewife didn't do a ton of labor that would cost a lot of money if you had to pay out of pocket for it (hiring a maid, a cook, a nanny, etc)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
But I guess the assumption there is that the widower could just go ahead and marry a younger replacement (whereas a widow with kids would be severely disadvantaged on the marriage market) Ah, society
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.