James K. Galbraith: "Actually, the retirement age is too high"

[ProSense]

Unconventional Wisdom

A special anniversary report challenging the world's most dangerous thinking.

James K. Galbraith
ACTUALLY, THE RETIREMENT AGE IS TOO HIGH

The most dangerous conventional wisdom in the world today is the idea that with an older population, people must work longer and retire with less.

<...>

Third, we don't need the workers. Productivity gains and cheap imports mean that we can and do enjoy far more farm and factory goods than our forebears, with much less effort. Only a small fraction of today's workers make things. Our problem is finding worthwhile work for people to do, not finding workers to produce the goods we consume.

In the United States, the financial crisis has left the country with 11 million fewer jobs than Americans need now. No matter how aggressive the policy, we are not going to find 11 million new jobs soon. So common sense suggests we should make some decisions about who should have the first crack: older people, who have already worked three or four decades at hard jobs? Or younger people, many just out of school, with fresh skills and ambitions?

The answer is obvious. Older people who would like to retire and would do so if they could afford it should get some help. The right step is to reduce, not increase, the full-benefits retirement age. As a rough cut, why not enact a three-year window during which the age for receiving full Social Security benefits would drop to 62 -- providing a voluntary, one-time, grab-it-now bonus for leaving work? Let them go home! With a secure pension and medical care, they will be happier. Young people who need work will be happier. And there will also be more jobs. With pension security, older people will consume services until the end of their lives. They will become, each and every one, an employer.

A proposal like this could transform a miserable jobs picture into a tolerable one, at a single stroke.

Summary: Most workers don't make things. Consumption is largely driven by cheap imports. Send a few workers home three years earlier.

Daily Kos diary on this: James K. Galbraith's BRILLIANT idea to help the jobs picture

update:As many have pointed out in the comments, for this idea to really work it would have to include Medicare as well.

Galbraith's idea is interesting, and could help. Still, as far as jobs go, a large share of the American workforce need to get back to making things.

Sunday, Austan Goolsbee on This Week:

<...>

WHEN ASKED HOW TO GIVE THE ECONOMY A PUSH IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, GOOLSBEE SAID: "I think the focus has got to be on investment, on exports, and on innovation. And that's...rather than on excessive consumption and housing investment, as it was in the last boom. And I think the president's firmly in that...planted in that camp, and we're going to grow our way out of this."

<...>

Combining both ideas would a win-win.

[county worker]

1. People work for the money to live on. How do you retire broke?

What the hell good are ideas that are not based in today's reality?

How about this! No body should have to work if there isn't jobs! We should all just be given whatever we need! That make as much sense as the OP!

[Eric J in MN]

3. He's not advocating forced retirement, just letting people access full Social Security

...benefits at an earlier age.

[county worker]

5. Social security is based on the length of time you work and the amount you make over time.

Who is going to be the ones paying in to the system in order for people to take full retirement at and earlier age? You have to think this through! Jam for everybody is a good idea too!

Not to mention that you can't live on social security for another 40 years!

[ProSense]

7. Hmmm?

"Who is going to be the ones paying in to the system in order for people to take full retirement at and earlier age?"

The people who are going to retire someday, including the wealthy.

"Jam for everybody is a good idea too!"

Socialism? How about doing something based on common fucking sense for the common fucking good?


On edit: "Not to mention that you can't live on social security for another 40 years!"

People are living to 102 these days?

How are they managing to live on Social Security for "for another 40 years" (37 minus the three year) if they can't do it by dropping the age by three years?

[county worker]

9. You haven't said shit.

You have the same number of people working as now yet you will have more people living on social security for a longer period of time as now. Where is the money coming from?

[ProSense]

10. Here

shit

[joshcryer]

28. And continue to work while getting it?

Never ceases to amaze me these retired army guys getting army retirement, social security, and running a business.

[ProSense]

4. Retirement is

not mandatory. The age to qualify for benefits is set, but people can continue to work if they choose to. The point of the OP is retiring earlier as attrition to make room for younger workers and keeping intact retirement benefits for those who want to retire earlier.

"How about this! No body should have to work if there isn't jobs! We should all just be given whatever we need! That make as much sense as the OP!"

That, that makes no sense. Galbraith at least thoughtout his position.

[county worker]

6. Thoughtout? Who is paying into the system for people to collect benefits for 40 years or more?

The more people you have coalescing benefits for a longer time the more money you have to put into the system. There aren't enough workers now to pay for the baby boomer's retirement!

You are not creating more jobs or more workers. You are just replacing older workers with younger ones who will have to pay more in taxes to support the older ones who retired early!

[ProSense]

8. Well,

"The more people you have coalescing benefits for a longer time the more money you have to put into the system. There aren't enough workers now to pay for the baby boomer's retirement!"

...pay more taxes, increase the income cap. Many upper income and wealthy people can afford it.

[county worker]

11. That is always the answer. And it is no answer.

Yes they can afford it but it will never happen. You forget the golden rule, those with the gold make the rules.

Hell we all can describe a better situation than the one we have but there would have to be such societal changes that I don't think they can ever be put into place.

[ProSense]

12. I see the problem

Lack of imagination and extreme pessimism. The OP was a suggestion. You went off about how it was a lousy idea based on where the money would come from. Now that a potential source of revenue is mentioned, your response:

"Yes they can afford it but it will never happen. You forget the golden rule, those with the gold make the rules."

Hey, the OP isn't likely to happen either, but it could.

[county worker]

14. Here is where I am coming from. I get so worked up over these ideas

that have no basis in reality. Yes it would be good if they were put in place but they never will.

I can imagine as well as the next person but somebody has to deal with reality. You can spend you life wishing for better situations but you have to play the hand you are dealt!

[ProSense]

16. "Yes it would be good if they were put in place but they never will."

Never say never. Health care reform would never have passed if the notion of reality decided what was doable.

There is still talk about a public option and Medicare for all. Getting over the hurdle of reforming the health care system brings those ideas more into focus.

[county worker]

17. The health care reform was a sham. It was only insurance reform.

The American people are lulled into complacency. I use to think that we would rise up during the Bush admin because things would be so bad people would demand change.

Well we demanded change and today things are worse then during the Bush admin. We should have a "New Deal" type administration and yet what we have is a center right administration.

We have accepted 10% unemployment as a norm. We have accepted the disappearance of the middle class.

We have accepted continued tax breaks for the richest percentage of the population. We have accepted becoming a plutocracy.

We have this progressing disease and instead of talking about real practical cures we are talking about how nice it would be if we had a new face lift or something!

[ProSense]

19. Wait

You stated previously: "I get so worked up over these ideas that have no basis in reality. Yes it would be good if they were put in place but they never will. I can imagine as well as the next person but somebody has to deal with reality."

Now you claim:

"The health care reform was a sham. It was only insurance reform.

The American people are lulled into complacency. I use to think that we would rise up during the Bush admin because things would be so bad people would demand change.

Well we demanded change and today things are worse then during the Bush admin. We should have a 'New Deal' type administration and yet what we have is a center right administration."

Are you complaining just to complain? Where did your sense of reality and rejection of "ideas that have no basis in reality" go?

Things are "are worse then during the Bush admin"?

WTF?

There are a number of really good things in the health care bill, which is, in fact, a reality.

[county worker]

20. OK so there are good things in the health care bill

The problem was 40 million without health care. Now we have over 50 million without health care.

We haven't solved the problem yet we say "there are good things in there!" So fucking what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!


You ever see the scene in "Titanic" were some people are in life boats and the rest are freezing to death in the ocean? That's the state we are in. Some will be OK and the rest will die off and be forgotten about. The problem is that it will take a while before they die off. At least the people off the Titanic died that night!

Where are all those people who are gone from NOLA? What about all those people without jobs and homes on the Gulf? Forgotten about!

[ProSense]

21. Let me sum up your argument

in your own words: "What the hell good are ideas that are not based in today's reality?" (See your original comment in this thread)

Here is the reality: "President Obama signed a health care reform law to provide insurance for 32 million and double the number of community health centers."

You: "So fucking what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Maybe it's time to get back to dealing with reality?

[county worker]

22. You say provide insurance, that is a far cry from providing health coverage.

The insurance is either forced on them by law or is Medicaid which only pays 50% of the cost of the care. If you can't pay the co-pay you are not going to go for treatment!

Think about this. I work for a county alcohol, drug and mental health services dept. They want to cut our pensions and salary. It takes a masters degree to get my job. Who is going to school and be in debt for 50K to 100K to work for $12hr? Who is going to provide the care and the administration when we are all gone?

[ProSense]

23. Guess what?

The current system is insurance and there are hundreds of millions of Americans receiving health coverage, adequate care under it, including the members of Congress.

Do you anticipate that the health care law will change this?

[county worker]

24. Most of the insurance coverage is employer provided.

The amount the employee must pay is increasing while the salaries are stagnant or decreasing. Then there is 10% or higher unemployment. Those folks don't have coverage nor do their families. As employers drop coverage or offshore jobs more people are added to the uninsured. That number will grow no matter what the HCR bill did. Basically people still have out of pocket amounts that they can't pay and therefore will not get treatment for their illnesses.

There is only one way around this and that is a single payer system paid for by taxes and I doubt there is the will in this country for that.

We are moving away for a system that cares about people to a system that cares about corporations and the wealthy investor class.

[ProSense]

27. How does

your statement: "Most of the insurance coverage is employer provided."

Change this fact: The current system is insurance and there are hundreds of millions of Americans receiving health coverage, adequate care under it, including the members of Congress.

The amount the employee must pay is increasing while the salaries are stagnant or decreasing. Then there is 10% or higher unemployment. Those folks don't have coverage nor do their families. As employers drop coverage or offshore jobs more people are added to the uninsured. That number will grow no matter what the HCR bill did. Basically people still have out of pocket amounts that they can't pay and therefore will not get treatment for their illnesses.

What? Do you understand how the bill works? The exchanges?

[county worker]

29. The exchanges are provided by States that can opt out and most conservative states will

and the others with such budget crisis will not afford them.

AND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we are cutting salaries and benefits and pensions from state workers! Who the hell is going to administer the exchanges?

We have come full circle. Back to having good ideas but no money to implement them.

[ProSense]

30. "We have come full circle." No, we have not

"The exchanges are provided by States that can opt out and most conservative states will"

States can't simply opt out, and most states are moving ahead with implementation

<...>

"Despite the rhetoric, we see a lot of activity across the country," he says.

Forty-eight states have applied for and received $1 million grants from the federal Department of Health and Human Services to begin planning health insurance exchanges -- the state-based marketplaces where consumers will be able to shop for insurance beginning in 2014. Only Alaska and Minnesota have turned down the money, and Minnesota governor-elect Mark Dayton has said he will pursue the grant when he takes office.

Quinn says that most of the 48 states that have accepted federal money to plan for exchanges have set up work groups or task forces, and that almost all of them have websites.

The health reform law gives states wide latitude on how to set up the exchanges. The two states that had set up exchanges prior to the law use very different models. Utah's model is a wide-open market-driven exchange where a large number of health insurance companies offer a broad set of plans for consumers to choose from. Massachusetts, which passed its own version of health care reform a few years ago, has an exchange with a limited number of companies offering plans that meet a minimum set of benefit requirements.

<...>

You still haven't answered the questions here and here. So again:

How does your statement: "Most of the insurance coverage is employer provided."

Change this fact: The current system is insurance and there are hundreds of millions of Americans receiving health coverage, adequate care under it, including the members of Congress.

Do you anticipate that the health care law will change this?

[A Simple Game]

26. You want to deal with reality?

Then stop repeating the Republican meme that Social Security is broke! Social Security has about two trillion dollars in reserve. The "Great" president "rayguns" saw to that. Now here is the reality, Reagan lowered income taxes and then raised SS taxes to replace the income taxes. They didn't replace it by stealing it, they "borrowed" it. So the reserve fund is in the form of bonds that no one seems to want to talk about. I guess they don't want to talk about it because to pay it back they would have to raise taxes on rich people.

[Major Hogwash]

25. Bingo! You win again.

I wonder why people disagree with you to begin with?
Guess their tv is broke.

LoL

[Eric J in MN]

2. "we don't need the workers."

"Productivity gains and cheap imports mean that we can and do enjoy far more farm and factory goods than our forebears, with much less effort."

Lowering the retirement age is one way to deal with technological advances decreasing the need for workers.

[northoftheborder]

13. Galbraith always makes such good sense, why doesn't anyone listen to him?

[old mark]

15. I helped! I retired at 59, and I have long advocated that people be allowed

to retire when they wish and when they can, with Social Security and Medicare...But then I support Unions, too, and single payer health insurance, so I guess I am un-American...



mark

[BeyondGeography]

18. Entirely too humane