ACTUALLY, THE RETIREMENT AGE IS TOO HIGH

[kpete]

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.

This idea is being used to rationalize cuts in old-age benefits in numerous advanced countries -- most recently in France, and soon in the United States. The cuts are disguised as increases in the minimum retirement age or as increases in the age at which full pensions will be paid.

..............................

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.

more:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/unconventional_wisdom?page=0,7

[Desertrose]

1. Makes sense to me....nt

[rosesaylavee]

2. Makes too much sense

so obviously, in Bizarro World, this won't happen.

[Mark D.]

73. If I'm Not Mistaken

Kucinich proposed something a lot like this. Eliminate the top rate ceiling. Tax ALL income at the the same SS rate. I'd include that it should also be means tested. Once anyone worth over a million gets back what they put into it, with reasonable interest, payments stop. That would allow retirement age to be cut to 60 years old. FULL BENEFITS, no 'less now, more later' nonsense. This would cause an economic EXPLOSION of growth, as millions retire early. In fact, I think you could increase the payout to everyone on SS and those who retire by 50-100% with the above economic model. That would be huge incentive. Many who could retire to an income equal to or even greater than what they are making? Of course they'd retire. Millions of jobs, millions of happy retired people ready to spend that money back into the economy. Of course, this would work, as you say, so it won't happen here.

[rosesaylavee]

79. As one who has no hope to retire at this point...

this is a hard thread to read. I volunteer a lot now with a full and part time job. The country would be a better place with a lot of retired people looking for volunteer work to keep them busy.

[Edweird]

3. Unless the whole point is to gut the system and give the money to the wealthy.

[Capitalocracy]

18. Yeah... unless that's the point... nt

[TBF]

19. The purpose of capitalism is that the wealthy benefit - no gutting even needed. nt

[Capitalocracy]

21. Gutting absolutely needed.

The pool of young attractive women desperate enough to marry an old rich asshole for the sake of financial security will be substantially decreased if we have a strong middle class. Wouldn't want our rich overlords to have to marry fat chicks, would we?

[stray cat]

4. Do you have enough saved to retire at a lower age?

[TBF]

17. Who can save money when they are being paid minimum wage - if they can even

get a job?

[pitohui]

41. apparently the OP is independently wealthy

this just disgusts me, most people who have worked all their lives (as opposed to inherited money) have little or nothing saved for retirement, salaries are too low and expenses too high

a "real" worker can't retire at age 62 and be anything but desperately poor or dependent on their family, i don't know about you, but i don't think giving up my job so i can "mooch" off the kiddies is a nice thing to do...

[nannah]

62. 67 and still working full time

can't afford to retire; raised my kids as a stay at home mother till age35; never had a two income household. so, still working full time with no real solution in sight. working till 70 does increase amount of social security.

[niceypoo]

75. This approach works brilliantly in Europe

They also have a mandatory 5-6 weeks per year of paid vacation which means companies must hire more employees. This is done to lower unemployment.

The US average is 13 days vacation per year, a pittance.

[Uben]

5. You're trying to fix a problem.....

....that the rich do not want fixed. Nuff said.

[Marianne_]

6. France was right to raise the age

In France they raised the age from 60 to 62, following a jump in life expectancy of over 6 years since the last rise. It made sense, and indeed it makes sense to keep the retirement age pegged to rising life expectancy. Although there is something to be said for the notion that as society develops future generations should look forward to longer retirements, it isn't going to be economically easy.

Rather than see older people as a burden, they should be seen as a resource. As long as they are healthy, there is no reason they can't be net contributers to society economically. Or if they wish, retire.

One problem with Americans is that many are unhealthy either due to obesity or under-insurance, and this contributes to the semi-justified perception that once you hit old age you become expensive. It doesn't have to be so; older people have skills and experience which take a lifetime to accumulate and we should be looking at them for what they deserve to be seen as rather than as a big medical bill.

[Cleita]

7. The wealthy like high unemployment because they

can pay desperate workers less. Raising the retirement age prevents jobs from opening up for young people entering the work place. Younger retirees have a place in society doing volunteer work and helping grown children with their grandchildren. Also, the majority of people don't abuse their bodies deliberately. My dad died of a disease caused by his workplace. He could not have worked past the age of sixty-five. I think the retirement age should be lowered to fifty-five for those who want to retire. Twenty years ago many workers were taking early retirements, because they had a company pension from good union jobs to rely on and didn't need their social security until they turned sixty-five. We've got it backwards.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

14. Fifty five is not too young for people who do

physically taxing jobs. Many people, who have jobs like, CEO, lawyer or writer may want to work well into their old age. But the average worker is usually pretty well spent by then. I believe studies have shown that. If you raise the age, allowances will not be made any more than they are being made today. There has to be a retirement age for everyone and if people want to work beyond that, then it's their choice, not the other way around, by forcing them to work past their productive years.

[TBF]

15. Retiring is greedy? How about CEO salaries? Fuck that. nt

[shanti]

25. oh

so now i'm "greedy" for retiring at 55?? i f'ing paid into it, it's my money! oh, i see you're from sacramento too :grr: got an axe to grind much?

[badtoworse]

26. What are you looking to get at age 55?

[shanti]

28. i don't understand your question

i'm 55 and retired from the state of california last week. that was the earliest that i could retire so i did.

[badtoworse]

31. I didn't know what you were talking about

It seemed liked you weren't getting something you were entitled and I was curious what it was.

If you can swing it at 55, good for you. Enjoy your retirement

[eridani]

34. That is absolute bullshit. Obesity is a symptom of poor eating and exercise habits, not

--a cause of anything. That is clearly proven by the many examples of people who improve their life expectancies by eating better and exercising more, even though they rarely lose enough weight to take them out of the obese category.

[ProSense]

37. Is this your writing:

<...>

My ultimate fear is that as Islam takes root in Europe, it will wrest concession after concession out of governments until it has a priviledged position in society. Already such wheels are in motion, with Geert Wilders on trial for attacking Islam in the Netherlands, Italian judges ruling that because “it’s their culture”, it is permissable for a father to tie his 16 year-old daughter to a chair and beat her for drinking alcohol, to Christian B&B owners in Britain being charged with a hate crime because they told a Muslim that Muhommad was a warlord, something which is factually correct, though the semantics might vary (I hope I wouldn’t be charged with a hate crime if I told a communist I thought Marx was a ninny!)?

I fully agree that action must be taken to combat political Islam in our society, but is passing a law reducing liberty and targeting the weak really the best way? That is to say, rather than applying the law equally by insisting that sexist Sharia courts cannot operate in Britain, some people think a ban on women wearing coverings is the way to defend western civilisation? This is one of the points of argument which leads me away from a ban. Another is that, practically, while we may get visible signs of the more totalitarian, sexist side of Islam off the streets, like bans on drugs and prostitution, a Burka ban will just push the problem away without solving it. If a man is literally using the fear of god (and of domestic violence) to keep his wife or daughter covered, he is just going to force them to stay home. These women would become prisoners. And this is just the women who aren’t really choosing to wear it, what of those who genuinely do choose? Some surveys show that many fully-covered women aren’t descended from people from Muslim-majority countries, but are in fact white converts to Islam. Are these women forced by their probably Christian or secular families to cover up?

There are some convincing arguments for a ban, one of which I will discuss presently. As I intimated above, I feel that not only is Islam an undesireable force in the world, but it is already making inroads into western culture at the expense of our liberty. Before I go on, I’ll be clear: I don’t hold “western culture” to be some sublime force which should be adopted by all. There are many aspects of western culture I think are undesireable, and many aspects of other cultures all over the world which I think should be incorperated into ours, but some aspects of our culture, aspects like civil liberty, sexual equality and respect for human rights, I hold to be universal values, and should be incorperated into every culture, because we are all humans; we all share a common bond and have common needs and rights. In that vein, any religion or ideology or culture which would attempt to water down or supress these values should be resisted, with force if necessary, but with words and peaceful action whenever possible.

link

[Hannah Bell]

44. "the majority of Americans are clinically obese" = complete bullshit.

[TBF]

13. The only people your argument makes sense to is owners who want cheap labor. nt

[eridani]

33. That's just bullshit. Life expectancy from birth is utterly meanlingless

--because its increase is due to reduction of infant mortality. Life expectancy from 65 on is the only relevant number, and that has increased on average 2 years.

Furthermore, productivity has increased so much that keeping people in the workforce longer (unless they actually want this) is truly idiotic. How anyone can look at the US (or even European) unemployment rates and conclude that we don't have enough people in the labor force is beyond me.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[right2bfree]

66. France: Universal HealthCare. US: NO Universal Heathcare. Simple math. nt

[badtoworse]

8. This might work for some people, but not for most.

Social Security, by itself, will not provide enough money for a decent retirement, so unless you have substantial assets available, over and above SS, getting full benefits at 62 will not incentivize you to retire. Large numbers of baby boomers are nearing retirement age and have virtually nothing saved for retirement - they may never be able to retire. Besides that, most private and public pension plans do not pay full benefits until age 65.

I like the idea though - let me know where to sign up.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[raouldukelives]

12. Exactly!

The best thing to do is load up your 401k so you can can profit off the never ending wars. Imagine the joy of knowing your hard earned retirement dollars were maximized by the horrific suffering of poor people.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Capitalocracy]

23. Stupid, indeed...

Because everyone's earning more than enough to save the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to fund a good retirement.

[2Design]

24. except those who lose their jobs for age disgrimination and use up their

savings to get by to at least 62 when they first can collect and do to be able to keep their hom

[ProSense]

39. What an insensitive comment.

What about the low-income wage earners who work all their lives? People are stupid for working and contributing to a system and expecting it to help them live in retirement?

Is this the new "progressive"?

[badtoworse]

47. My interpretation was different and I believe he is 100% accurate

I took his comment to mean that Social Security is insufficient to fund a decent retirement and anyone who chooses to retire with Social Security as their only source of income is stupid.

[ProSense]

50. Right,

you made the same insensitive point.

"I took his comment to mean that Social Security is insufficient to fund a decent retirement and anyone who chooses to retire with Social Security as their only source of income is stupid. "

So I repeat:

What about the low-income wage earners who work all their lives? People are stupid for working and contributing to a system and expecting it to help them live in retirement?

Is this the new "progressive"?


Also, Social Security is not insufficient. I leave those arguments to the GOP.

Those who are worried about it can pay more taxes by raising the income cap, high-income earners and the wealthy can afford it.

[badtoworse]

53. They are not stupid for contributing to it - I'm all in favor of that

Social Security is a great program; it's part of my retirement plan and everyone should be required to contribute to it. Unfortunately, it doesn't provide much in the way of retirement benefits, so it should only be part of a person's retirement plan, not the whole plan. For 2010, the average SS retirement benefit was $1,164 - less than $14,000 per year. See link

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/13/~/average-monthly-social-security-benefit-for-a-retired-worker

Do you think $14,000 per year is enough to retire on? I sure don't, but if you don't have a pension and you don't have retirement savings that is all you will have. Given that, how would you describe a person who goes through life saving nothing for retirement? Stupid may be a harsh word - would you accept highly irresponsible?

For the record, I'm not talking about people whose savings were wiped out through no fault of their own. Those things happen and they are tragic when they do. I'm talking about people who live beyond their means and just don't save. I don't buy the argument that saving is a luxury reserved for the wealthy - everyone can and should do it. Most sources of financial planning advice recommend that you save at least 5% of your income, with 10% the preferred number. If you make $20K per year, that translates to about $20 per week - it's doable.

[ProSense]

54. "Do you think $14,000 per year is enough to retire on? "

Millions of low-income Americans are expected to do just that. They are not stupid, that's what they get paid.

For the record, I'm not talking about people whose savings were wiped out through no fault of their own. Those things happen and they are tragic when they do. I'm talking about people who live beyond their means and just don't save. I don't buy the argument that saving is a luxury reserved for the wealthy - everyone can and should do it. Most sources of financial planning advice recommend that you save at least 5% of your income, with 10% the preferred number. If you make $20K per year, that translates to about $20 per week - it's doable.

You don't think people can live on $14,000 per year in retirement, but believe they can save for retirement on $20,000 per year?

[badtoworse]

60. Expected, desirable or realistic?

I think you need to look at the issue from all three standpoints. Retirement with only a $14,000 income would be quite a hardship, so it would be "desirable" for such a retiree to have additional income at their disposal. I'm sure we agree on that. The problem is that just because a certain outcome is "desirable", it doesn't mean that it's "realistic" to "expect" it will happen.

Let's consider the word "expect or expected". In the context in which you are using the word, I would say it means "to anticipate with reasonable certainty that a particular event will occur". Considering that there are millions of low income Americans with no retirement savings, your statement that they are expected to retire on $14,000 per year is true. That outcome is expected, but not desirable. For a different outcome to be expected, something would need to change, which leads us to the word "realistic".

In this context, "realistic" involves asessing the likelyhood of a particular outcome under a particular set of circumstances. Currently, the Cons control the House, the economy is terrible, unemployment is very high and the country is broke. Under these circumstances, is it "realistic" to "expect" that the Social Security Retirement Benefit is going to be improved for anyone? I don't think so and in fact, I believe that the reverse, i.e. cuts in the benefit, is a far more likely outcome. As I see it, the only "realistic" way to improve your retirement income is to save and I stand by my statement that everyone can and should do it.

Anyone who only earns $20,000 for their entire career will most likely not build up a big retirement nestegg. That said, if they saved $1,000 a year ($20 a week) for 40 years and earned 5% on their savings, they would have about $120,000 at retirement. That's not a huge sum, but it's a lot better than nothing.

[ProSense]

65. This argument always cracks me up

The RW pull this shit all the time: the politics of personal responsibility.

Anyone who only earns $20,000 for their entire career will most likely not build up a big retirement nestegg. That said, if they saved $1,000 a year ($20 a week) for 40 years and earned 5% on their savings, they would have about $120,000 at retirement. That's not a huge sum, but it's a lot better than nothing.

You make sound like it's a breeze for someone making $20,000 a year to save $1,000 annually. What about those who earn less that $20,000, let's say $14,000? Low-income Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, and oftentimes the paycheck doesn't cover the expenses.

But here's the irony from earlier in your statement:

I think you need to look at the issue from all three standpoints. Retirement with only a $14,000 income would be quite a hardship, so it would be "desirable" for such a retiree to have additional income at their disposal. I'm sure we agree on that. The problem is that just because a certain outcome is "desirable", it doesn't mean that it's "realistic" to "expect" it will happen.

So $14,000 in retirement is "quite a hardship," and it's not for someone still working?

Get rid of the hardship: pay people enough and make sure retirement benefits are enough to live on. It's that simple.

[badtoworse]

68. So what would you do?

"pay people enough and make sure retirement benefits are enough to live on. It's that simple." - Sounds great. Do you honestly believe it's going to happen? If so, tell me how and why. If not, what would you advise people to do? What are you doing for your own retirement?

There are a lot of things in life that are unfair and the distribution of income is one of those things. Merely, pointing that out doesn't accomplish anything. This is the real world and people have to play the hand they're dealt.

[ProSense]

77. Interesting

"pay people enough and make sure retirement benefits are enough to live on. It's that simple." - Sounds great. Do you honestly believe it's going to happen? If so, tell me how and why. If not, what would you advise people to do? What are you doing for your own retirement?

There are a lot of things in life that are unfair and the distribution of income is one of those things. Merely, pointing that out doesn't accomplish anything. This is the real world and people have to play the hand they're dealt.

Shouldn't the goal be to enact great things that address inequities?

Yes, hardship is unfair, but part of the reason progressive advocates continue to push is so that those who would grab all the money and power aren't the same ones dealing the hand.

Start with the minimum wage. In today's economy, it would be great if the defined minimun was at least $20,000, not $14,000.

Here's a good read on the issue of redistribution.

[badtoworse]

78. I actually read your post yesterday and I agree it makes sense

The piece did not go into details about how a redistribution could be accomplished, but focused on the reasons why it's desirable. No disagreement there.

The problem is that we are talking about two fundamentally different things. You seem to be focused on how unfair the current situation is and what should be done to change it. I'm really not disagreeing with you and I agree we should all try to accomplish those things. I am talking about dealing with the situation as it currently exists and I haven't heard you address that. We agree that the inequities should be addressed, but do you think it's prudent to plan on it? I am personally very pessimistic about the future and I believe the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. I would advise people to plan accordingly and if things do get fixed, i.e. the income redistribution does happen, it represents upside. In my view, that is a prudent approach.

How are you planning for retirement? What is your advice to people with lower incomes?

[closeupready]

10. Yes, we should be talking about STRENGTHENING social security, NOT weakening it.

+1000

[TBF]

20. Recommended. nt

[whathehell]

22. So's the Rent.....

:evilgrin: Couldn't help it.

[Coyote_Bandit]

27. So.................?

Older folks want to retire?

Younger folks need work and bring fresh ideas and ambitions?

Older folks should quit working earlier so that younger folks who are more deserving of employment can have jobs?




While I believe that the retirement age to be eligible for full Social Security benefits should not be above age 65 I must unrec for ageism.




Some older folks want to continue to work and be productive even though they do not have a financial need to do so.

Some older folks need to work. Even with full Social Security benefits some need to earn additional funds. Some need to work to maintain their sense of self-worth.

Fresh ideas and ambition are not exclusive to younger folks.




Anyone who wants a job and is willing to work should be afforded the opportunity. That really wouldn't be much of a problem if the frickin politicians put policies in place that (1) penalize offshoring labor, (2) promote an economy based on real productivity rather than consumer spending, (3) make career counseling and job retraining freely available to anyone who is working or seeking employment and (4) penalize educational institutions that cannot demonstrate that their graduates achieved a minimum level of career success as a result of their educational achievements.

[TheKentuckian]

30. Lower the retirement eligibility age is not a force out but making options available.

We need to also get a handle on there being less and less private sector jobs available as the years march on. Computers, automation, and globalization will whittle away at the job base (not to mention wages for most) for many years.

We just don't have enough for billions to do forty hours a week, 50 weeks a year. Companies will be very unlikely to incorporate the level of redundancy and "make work" as they did in years past. Why would they? Production can easily keep up with demand, efficiency is sky high, and profits are higher.

Then we have some huge resource distribution issues that have to be corrected to restore any semblance of demand. The bottom 40% have less than 10% of the wealth and income combined and the top 20% easily match the bottom 80%. There is only so much demand even the most spendy and generosity can drive an economy of millions and really billions when they are such a puny portion of the population.
We just have to have substantially more resources in more hands to make ANY kind of economic system function beneficially and effectively.

I personally believe people need to be in school longer to acquire a much broader education and skill sets. I would like to see as many Americans as can benefit and tolerate it to have a liberal arts degree for a foundation, a specialization, and one or two technical/vocational skills as well. At the same time people should be free to retire and collect benefits between 57 and 62 which means a thirty year average production period since folks will be in school until 25 or 30.

[eridani]

35. Wanting to work and having to work are two different things

Personally, I don't mind leaving paid work to people in childrearing years. I'm fine with working part time or on a contingent basis, but I haven't gotten any such opportunities.

The only way that anyone wanting work will be able to have a job is if work hours are cut to reflect the four-fold increase in productivity that we have seen since 1947.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coyote_Bandit]

55. Of course they are different things

However, if I live in a free country and want to work then I should be able to do so - regardless of my age and without respect to whether or not I need to work to earn an income.

We need to bring back all those offshored and outsourced jobs. We need to build an economy based on real productivity rather than consumption and wealth creation.

We'd do better to focus on solving the root issues that have restricted the number of available jobs than we will do on arguing as to who is or is not deserving of being productive.

[dkofos]

29. Sounds like Thom Hartmans "Cash for Geezers" program

Only Thom wants to lower the retirement age to 55.
And I'm all for that.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2009/08/cash-geezers-lower-retirement-age-55-now

[Juche]

32. Would you go so far as to say 'the retirement age is too damn high'

Because I think it is. I know in the private sector I have seen this happen where I work. Older workers are being offered buyout incentives to quit. They are given bigger pensions, extra health care and severance pay. So the gov doing the same would likely be a good idea.

But the reality is health care, that is why most people don't retire. You have to have a realistic way to give health care to those 55+ for them to consider retirement.

[eridani]

36. Bingo! Improved Medicare for All! n/t

[Jeffersons Ghost]

38. It looks like some people will never get to retire

[pitohui]

40. wait...you want to steal jobs from older people BY FORCE OF LAW?

i have a lot of words for a person like that, "progressive" aint one of them

if you don't wanna work and you are so rich you can afford to retire at 62, tell you what, you do it and show us how

people over 50 who get laid off have almost no chance of getting another decent job as it is, now you want us all to shoot ourselves and just die at age 62?

if you retire at 62, you can't buy health insurance yet you have no employer to provide it, you are fucked, the minute you get sick -- and at age 62 you WILL get sick, you lose everything you've worked for your whole life

a young person who loses everything can build again, a 63 year old CAN'T rebuild again

don't steal jobs from older people, don't pit worker against worker

pitting worker against worker is what "they" want you to do, and i'm damn sick of it

[ProSense]

43. What?

if you retire at 62, you can't buy health insurance yet you have no employer to provide it, you are fucked, the minute you get sick -- and at age 62 you WILL get sick, you lose everything you've worked for your whole life

a young person who loses everything can build again, a 63 year old CAN'T rebuild again

How on earth does a reasonable suggestion about lowering the requirement age, which means lowering the age to qualify for benefits, gets twisted to mean "steal jobs"?

Currently, 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.

[pitohui]

46. if you retire at 62 you DON'T get the medicare benefits, you are badly misinformed

talk to some real older people or at least some real middle aged people instead of reading a stupid internet post (and the post was truly stupid)

you get medicare at age 65 regardless of whether or not you're forced to retire at age 62

i CAN'T be the only person on DU who has ever met a genuine person in their sixties...can i?

medicare does not track w. social security, it is a separate program and even if you retire early, you don't get medicare early

for extra bonus points, if you are too broke to continue living in the usa and have to flee to a cheaper country, even if you are of medicare age...you don't get to carry your medicare benefits to the foreign country!!!

[ProSense]

49. Read the OP again.

You clearly misunderstood it. It isn't about forcing people to retire at 62, it's about lowering the retirement age from 65 to 62.

[rhett o rick]

52. I dont always agree with you but certainly do in this case.

The term "retirement age" is being misused. What is meant is the retirement benefits age. Many people stop working at earlier ages than the "retirement age" do to health, being let go and/or no jobs. Raising the "retirement age" doesnt mean people can or will work longer, it just means they will have to go longer w/o benefits. My father would have gladly worked until he died but do to clogged arteries played Russian roulette until he was 62 so he could qualify for Social Security benefits.

[Raine]

42. Yes it would open up lots of jobs

for younger people and then they would be employed. I have heard some experts advocate this very thing.

[pitohui]

48. how old are these experts?

let's take names and see if they're willing to give up having any kind of decent income or meaningful work to do at age 55

yeah, i thought so...it's only us "little people" who are supposed to be happy to be considered "redundant" (nice word for useless)

[hedgehog]

56. Kick , rec and agree!

[nyc 4 Biden]

57. pretty smart stuff. we've been trained to think otherwise. n/t

[Overseas]

58. K&R ! //nt

[Lucky Luciano]

59. Worth investigating. Having young peopleemployed because older people retire

Insures and increases the future tax base. I have no numbers or data though.

[texshelters]

61. Unfortunately, the well off are being protected

and not the workers.

Lower the retirement age will NOT fix the jobs picture as this article suggests. It might help, but only for those with pensions. Pensions are going the way of the dodo bird.

And when the next bubble happens, I will have to work longer for my measly retirement to pay for the mistakes the money managers have made.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[right2bfree]

63. Lots of people in the 45 to 64 range are disabled due to many chronic illnesses, some of which.

..seem to have seemed to occur with the onset of Gulf War 1 in 1990-91,
with all the biological agents that were released into the world,
at that time.

Lupus, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Gulf War Syndrome and Fibromyalgia,
to name a few of these medical maladies which many dont want to admit
exist at all in the medical community, much less treat or diagnose.

These people can work until 65-66?

I doubt that very much.

[onpatrol98]

64. Good Point!

With older Americans staying in the workplace longer, Generation Xers aren't moving up, and younger workers are left out of luck. It's one think when an older American enjoys their job and wants to work. But, it's another when we make retiring impossible. In this job market, make it easier to retire and free up the jobs. I don't know how we pay for it. But, I like the general idea of it.

[valerief]

67. The moneymen don't want to give jobs to Americans. Their money is going offshore.

They just want the U.S. tax loopholes, closed press, and military support behind them.

[Action]

69. Would love to retire

I would love to retire and find part time work or volunteer. The problem is that I can't afford to retire.

Retirement use to be made up of 3 legs:

PENSION
(We all know how we were scammed to believe that a 401K would be better than a sure check every month)

SOCIAL SECURITY
(We all know how Washington is trying to kill it even though I have paid into it my whole adult life)

SAVINGS
(Most folks are sorry lacking in savings)


Before too long we will be just where the repubs want us to be:

OWNERSHIP SOCIETY!!!!

How's that working out for ya????

[LittleGirl]

70. 62 is too high...how about 60

How many companies will hire someone over 60? Really? Even if you are 55, you only have a few years left before you retire anyway.

I believe the only thing making people wait is health care. If everyone had health care, more would retire.

[rasputin1952]

71. Think of this...

the GOP wants people to die before they collect. Sure, there are processes in place to take care of widows and dependents, but they could be done away with easily.

The idea behind the the GOP is to ensure people die before they can collect any benefits. They've already raided other funds, to include IRA's, and pensions. The quicker workers die, the faster the funds are just "gone".

Insurance premiums have skyrocketed, and payouts are minimal...lot of nice office furniture in those companies though.

We had a chance to crush the GOP once and for all, and D's sat home...they better not do it again.

[felix_numinous]

72. I really believe

that Americans are going to have to battle for rights, to improve our quality of life, all over again. Human rights, right to privacy, women's rights, and the right to the retirement we paid for. We have to battle to get this back, because it it clear that the laws being passed not only are not in the interest of quality of life, but they have nothing to do with balancing any budget, or building any infrastructure, or providing us with any means to live.

[jtown1123]

76. I am with you 100%

[go west young man]

74. Easy problem to solve if only Americans weren't so wrapped

up in towing the line for capitalism. Tax the shit out of the rich and quit two ridiculous wars.
Presto! Enough money for everything else.

[tigereye]

80. sounds like a fantasy- there aren't as many younger

working folks to offset the "costs" of all those potential boomer retirees - many of whom have apparently not planned well regarding retirement and can't really afford to retire, or lost a lot of their retirement funds during the most recent Wall St/evil banker recessions.


Many of those folks would also be healthier and perhaps happier if they continue to work at least in some capacity - that's often what the research on aging indicates. Who really wants to sit around that much, seriously. This argument smacks of "ageism" to me. :shrug:


Maybe our whole perception of what "full-time work" is and what it's benefits are, needs to change instead.

[leeroysphitz]

81. And so am I. n/t