Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Older Retirement Age Will Hurt 45 Percent Of Workers 58 And Older Who Have Physically Demanding Jobs

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Labor Donate to DU
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:27 AM
Original message
Older Retirement Age Will Hurt 45 Percent Of Workers 58 And Older Who Have Physically Demanding Jobs

http://www.laborradio.org/node/13999

Submitted by Doug Cunningham on August 10, 2010 - 5:26pm
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend

By Doug Cunningham

If the Social Security retirement age is raised beyond the already scheduled increase of 67, workers in physically demanding jobs will be hurt more by the change than other workers. Researcher Hye Jin Rho wrote a Center for Economic and Policy Research report on older workers with physically demanding jobs. The report found 45 percent of all U.S. workers 58 or older have such jobs. She says those workers will be disproportionately hurt if the Social Security retirement age goes up.

: Our findings suggest that raising the Social Security normal retirement age higher than already scheduled would place a greater burden on older workers in occupations that require physically demanding work. And they just may not be able to continue working in their jobs into their mid to late sixties, so they would be left without any choice. So we are actually forcing those people out of the labor force and they will be left with less benefits.

More than 62 percent of Latino workers 58 or older have physically demanding jobs. For blacks and Asians its 53.2 percent and 50.5 percent.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. I was fortunate enough to retire at 62 (I had a Union negotiated
pension). I don't think I could have made it to my full retirement age of 66. This is going to be another test like when Raygun broke the PATCO strike. This time the Unions have to have the backbone draw a line in the sand and take to the streets or the American worker is finished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. Hurt them? Nah. Kill them, yah. Which is, I think, the goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. Social Security full retirement age is already 70 years old.
Take a look at your statement. It has 2 ages listed and 2 different amounts that you would collect at those ages. One of those ages is 70 years old. At 70 you would collect 25 to 50% more than at the younger age identified on your statement. In effect, to collect your full retirement pay that you paid into Social Security, you would have to be 70 years old.

Ronnie Raygun did that back in 1983.

What they are really talking about is raising the early retirement age, though they don't call it that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. It depends on how old you are - its a sliding scale gradually raising for new workers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. The full retirement age is not 70 already. The full retirement age
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 09:14 AM by doc03
for me is 66 and it gradually increases to 67 depending on your year of birth. SS is based our average life span of about 77 if you make it to 77 you receive the same total benefits no matter what age you retire. They are betting you die by 77. For me at age 62 I get 75% of the full retirement amount for age 66. If you work until you are 70 of course you get more money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnneD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. I just can't imagine....
retiring as a floor nurse in a hospital at age 70. It is too dangerous for patients and staff. That is just plane cruel. Patients are heavier these days and are on more meds and care is just more complicated and intense. And the workload hasn't decreased-5-7 post op in med surg is the average.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HelenWheels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. 70 year old nurse?
No way. I am a retired nurse and retired at 62. I have worked in hospitals, nursing home, public health and correctional health. My last job was as a nurse in a juvenile correctional institution. All of these jobs were physically and mentally challenging. I would have been putting my patients in danger as a 70 year old. If I worked in the Senate or Congress I would be able to work forever. These guys who make the laws should try walking in my (and your) shoes and see how long they would last.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I retired at 62 after 40 years in a steel mill, same here I don't
I could have made it 8 more years. We were exposed to about every carcinogen known and it is the 4th most hazardous industry in the USA. Fortunately we had a Union and get a halfway decent retirement from the company (until it goes belly up)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnneD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Many older Nurses go to work in Nursing homes....
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 06:47 PM by AnneD
We use to joke about fighting patients for the Depends, racing down the halls with our walkers. I liked working in the Nursing homes-where else could this then 53yo be considered a young hot babe.... :spray:

After a certain age, all men are after a Nurse or a purse :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
5. I wonder what of the social contract?
When I started working back in the early 1970's the retirement age was 65 (or 62 for early retirement). That was the deal and it was well understood to be so. That was the social contract. I am wondering if indeed this changing the rules in the middle of the game would stand up to litigation by those who like me relied upon those ages for their working years and retirement planning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnneD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. They should have given us...
a magnifying glass......to read the fine print on that contract.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
6. Too many in government have never had a physically demanding job
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
8. That is my job
I work with diabled children. I have to lift them from one adaptive equipment to another. I have to lift them to put them on a mattress to change their diapers. I have to push them around in their wheelchairs. It is a physically demanding job. I am now 62. Many people a lot younger than me have said they couldn't do what I do.

Do this at 70? I don't think so. What is the option? Retrain? Welcome to Walmart?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonhomme Richard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
12. To force workers to stay in a declining job market makes no sense.
What they ought to be doing is letting those that want to retire go ahead and do it freeing that job for a newcomer. If you figure you are willing to retire at 62 because you don't live a high maintenance lifestyle then go for it. To hold the money you put into SS hostage while forcing you to take limited job slots is nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 26th 2014, 05:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Labor Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC