General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhoever advocates to lower SocSec to 50 will win the nomination in 2016, but...
Last edited Wed Feb 5, 2014, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)
This position may also cost them the election. It's going to take a special person, and I hope all our candidates are brave enough to endorse this position.
Added info:
Reducing the age is due to the lack of jobs due to productivity advances in this Cyber-era and ..... to help the GOP out of a moral situation who will not vote for an extension of jobless benefits.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)former9thward
(31,947 posts)Because no one will do it.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)because they cutoff jobless benefits, you have China rocking the markets because they are having a jobs problem. What the hell do you want for a case.??????
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Now let's get to the how. How does this get paid for?
madville
(7,404 posts)Would probably have to lift the cap and double or triple everyone's contributions to make that happen. I would gladly pay double or triple the current contribution percentage if I started receiving benefits at 50. Would most people go for that? Maybe, maybe not.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Probably have to contribute around fifty percent. You are talking about people working for 30 years having enough money to live 70 years. Math sucks sometimes.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Something tells me this is a proposition that appeals more to younger people as opposed to (most) middle-aged people. While it's true some strenuous jobs require earlier retirement, most people at age 50 are just sending kids off to college, and living off Social Security is probably not what they want or can afford: the guaranteed income from Social Security can almost never be sufficient. Plus, who wants to sit around with nothing to do for the next 45 years or so? Who wants to be considered kaput at the tender age of 50? We already have such a youth-oriented culture. Frankly, I don't think as many people as you think are clamoring to retire.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)safety net. You could then retrain, go fishing, or start a business, or find a job. You can work while on SocSec.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)to 50, it makes people who are 54 or 56 look like old-timers who are hanging on. It has an impact on everyone: people who might want to keep their jobs are going to have a harder time. The hardest hit in terms of being laid off is the over 50 crowd, and it is the hardest for them to find employment, despite their many years of experience and reliability. Don't make it harder.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)to expect living wages and decent overall compensation. They also cost more to insure, generally would accumulate more paid time off, and probably came up in much more friendly environments which mean higher expectations of employers which means younger workers are cheaper and easier to dictate to.
The retirement age has moved to 67 from 65, I see no indication this has made it any easier for older workers, in fact for most all it is doing is cutting their lifetime benefits because they are forced into early retirement. Many are just holding on desperately trying to somehow make it to Medicare.
Increasing the retirement age has not extended the viability of workers not one bit, it just further glut the job market while making the entire working age population more desperate with more folks for fewer and fewer positions.
Yes older workers are being hit harder, making them try to hold on for as long as possible with no income or desperately scrambling for extra years so that the lucky few in demand don't feel so old is silly.
The jobs aren't there and are far more likely to further diminish than transition to desperate, all hands on deck need.
We need to provide for an orderly transition from the current paradigm. Lowering the age of eligibility for retirement benefits is a perfectly rational plank in any such plan. Some folks will continue to churn along just like they always have should they have the opportunity, the body, the mind, and inclination most who don't fit into that Venn diagram will be able to at least get by with some level of dignity.
My job isn't physical at all and I am very doubtful I will be functional at it at 70 and 60 seems to be pushing it beyond plausibility too. In fact, by mid 50's it will be too much to keep up with the pace, stress, and changes it is a tall order now in my early forties and I am pretty well seasoned now compared to the mean. This Is an office job, labor just makes the conversation stupid and willfully cruel.
In another life, I hired lots of retirees and preferred them a lot of times because it can show in your work that you are there because you want to be rather than you have to be so this isn't about ageism but about the reality of the labor market, the ruthless levels of efficiency, and the impact of technology on both.
We advance this to deal with reality, propping up the self esteem of the lucky few that don't end up on the scrap heap is not really a big part of the calculation besides all of those kids already see you and even me as over the hill, potentially in their way, and desperately holding on anyway.
I can still out work them and have a healthy amount of answers so maybe I'm not yet seen as needed to be culled from the herd but I know I can't keep this up for thirty years, I think by 55ish everyone is chewed up and spit out below the board level. Maybe I'm in the no company for old men but this ain't my first rodeo, older folks are almost always doing entry level crap because they are either desperate enough to take it if they can get it or are just around for shits and giggles with a side of money to blow.
It is my preference to help folks fit the latter rather than the former, if you don't want to be about door number one then you have to be talking about exploding the demand for labor while making minds, bodies, and spirits capable of working longer which requires a hell of a lot more than pointing to a longevity increase.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Because it surprises me that someone who has a job that isn't physical would think that they wouldn't be very functional at 70, or that 60 is even pushing it. Do you really think either of those ages are old and weary?
I say this because my spouse and I are in our early 60s and feel at the top of our games. My husband, especially, would like to work well into his 70s, and he makes an effort to keep fit because he wants to look the part, too. He's lucky that he will probably be able to: he's a professor, and his students don't think he's a used-up has been at all. They think he's pretty cool, and he thinks they keep him young and interested.
It frightens the hell out of me that people think 60 is old these days. I think you'll be surprised how quickly you will be 60, and how young in many ways you will still feel. Especially when you have parents in their 90s. My dad is 97, and that really DOES seem old. Still, he works out at the gym 4 days a week. He worked into his late 60s or around 70--as long as he they'd let him. Can you imagine if he'd retired at 50? He'd have been going crazy for the last 47 years.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)I'm 41. What I am saying is most of us will be on the scrap heap capable or not whether we want to contribute more or feel we have given all we have and no, I don't think I will be anywhere nearly as capable even in ten years much less twenty so seen from a pretty cold and ruthless point of view, deservedly so. No question someone will be cheaper and at least nearly as effective (if not more so) and I become a "business decision".
My mind is exhausted every day, the body follows the mind, the spirit wears down in the grind and stress. Pace and ever increasing demands and loftier goals are a factor that can't be ignored.
I can't identify anyone 60 or above in any position I can reasonably aspire to, all of those close to the edge express no expectation of long term viability, the whole game is to get out be it to full blown early retirement or doing something less demanding and being in position to get on with the lower pay that is to come with that.
No, I am not at my peak.
The days of 18 hour days rolling off my back are past. I'm not hunting for that start up to make a mark in. I'm not going to stand up to working a month straight very well.
My can do is more about I can do it than running through any walls.
I have been through too much and seen to much for much faith and the extra gear such hope allows for.
My focus wanders.
Too many times I just wanna go home.
I rankle under the 25 bosses (all but one younger up to and including my VP and the one older there for the love not the paycheck and only temporarily).
No, now I get by on a what is between my ears (when not smashed to mush from the grind) good work ethic (but only a shadow of 10-15 years ago), knowledge, and experience. Still, useful and plausibly advanceable but the scrap heap is coming at least in this organization and probably for the line of work, if it exists as is which is doubtful too.
I think your frame of reference is privileged on this dealing not labor nor high levels of moment to moment stress nor rapidly evolving demands nor jobs greatly impacted by productivity demands nor the lack of security in a position most folks have to live under or even just normal life expectancy (much less below average like say a black male like me).
Most folks don't have the opportunities or expectations your perspective generates and I don't begrudge it, I hope that I hit some of the "lottery" and get some pieces of that pie but I'm not going to sit here and conflate exception with reality in hopes of it.
My advise for you, your husband, and father in law continues to be to keep doing what makes you happy but to keep in mind most are not as blessed. Most don't have the opportunities even if health and desire are no issue.
Hell, most aren't going to be 94 to be bored for any decades and some can find meaning in their lives and be fruitful with out punching any body's clock.
All of that said, your challenge is to create demand for labor. You demonstrate that we need more or even a stable rate of labor participation and reality will cause me to reevaluate but right now the conversation is a joke or desperately whistling past the graveyard because for right now and as far as anyone can project the need for labor diminishes.
How do you want to divide the pie and how long do you anticipate you can hold on to the current paradigm are the questions and anecdotes about statistical outliers won't cut it. Hubby's pop is exceptional, easily at least in the top 20% of health maybe closer to the 1% and so is hubby it sounds like from a combination of his own efforts leveraged with pretty good genetics.
Hubby also is in a position that age is a benefit until hits some of the actual impairment kicks in unless one allows themselves to become old in the heart and mind and increasingly out of touch.
Even with that said, Hubby is holding up better than average not just in health but in spirit with much passion and enjoyment. He might even gravitate toward younger peers and it sounds like relates to his students above the average (probably nothing new there either, I'd bet).
No one questions he has more in the tank or that he is exactly where he wants to be. More power to him, we say in unison. What you have to accept is the ride is not the average experience.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)it might damage my own image".
Collecting your Social Security is not a requirement and if you don't want it, by all means refuse it or give it away, but don't keep trying to deny it for the people that desperately need it.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)But heck, feel free to keep responding to what you imagine I might have said. Great handle there, btw, but you might want to change the first part.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Back in early DU dos there was a person advocating using human fertilizer for crops. And everyone would save their poo for collection.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)but urine is better
name not needed
(11,660 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)Matariki
(18,775 posts)along with raising the cap.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)that they don't have to agree with it but just bring it up as a jobs solution for discussion..
brooklynite
(94,367 posts)...not Elizabeth Warren, not Bernie Sanders, not the most liberal Democratic office-holder you can think of. Why use such a non-existent metric to evaluate the outcome of the Election?
CK_John
(10,005 posts)brooklynite
(94,367 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)The trust fund will be completely depleted by 2033. Wouldn't lowering the age deplete the trust fund much faster?
CK_John
(10,005 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)What happens in ten years when China says "fuck off"?
Renew Deal
(81,847 posts)50 is way too young and probably not affordable.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)I think we need to force a conversation about the challenges in the 50's to get to what is real to get off of insanely raising it even more and even lowering it some.
Bargaining that starts at the minimum expectations rarely even achieve those goals. This conversation is so off track that I'm left thinking many or even most folks know the current age is 67. That is already extreme and we have folks talking about raising it further!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Oh, by the way-
[font size=20]FUCK THE TPP![/font]
Transparent garbage.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)There are roughly as many people over 50 as there are between 18 and 50.
To be sustainable, your Social Security check will be equal to the tax withheld from your daughter's wages.
Reduce the work week to 32 hours.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)I just turned 50 and believe me there is no need to retire me anytime soon.
Maybe some kind of option would be a better idea. Someone not as healthy as I can opt in at a certain age.
There is a major age discrimination problem in the work force. Companies would rather hire young inexperienced people for shitty wages than pay an experienced worker the money they deserve. And everyone suffers for it. Lowering the age for S.S. will just reinforce the notion that older workers should be put out to pasture.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)Nothing prevents you from working 30 years past your first date of eligibility, you can even get further incentives for continuing to contribute. Hell, I'm fine with a survivors payout should you keel over on the job and never collect that might give many a reason to keep going if they can.
It is all about putting together the right calculation that gives incentives that also generate positive revenue if taken advantage of while allowing folks ready to be or forced out can get full benefits so they can get by.
What are the options for folks? Where is the demand supposed to come from?
CK_John
(10,005 posts)MineralMan
(146,262 posts)In fact, I'd bet that way pretty strongly.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)MineralMan
(146,262 posts)It would be a shockingly dramatic announcement, but it's not one I expect anyone to make.
If you're right, I'll eat a bug.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)MineralMan
(146,262 posts)Senator Sanders is one of the few people in Congress who speaks his mind. He's not a gas bag at all. His opinions are not ones that could get him elected as President, but he's sincere and honest about his positions, and sticks to them.
I'm thinking you're not really thinking about this very much, if you find Senator Sanders to be a "gas bag."
So, I'm out of this thread.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Sixty is more reasonable, but nobody will advocate that either. Best we can hope for is status quo.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)but applying Medicare at 55 would be much more welcomed.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Automation will only further reduce the need/ability to keep workers employed. Your solution to that problem is to tie people to the workforce for years longer?
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)You're proposal
1) Doubles the number of social security recipients;
2) Reduces by 1/3 the number of people paying into Social Security;
3) Reduces by more than 1/3 the amount of money going into SS (because over-50s earn more than other age cohorts).
Makel no mistake: I think your idea is crazy. But at a bare minimum I'm willing to listen to the math. How does this get paid for? My back-of-the-envelope calculation is that you'd have to triple FICA. What's yours?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)He's been pimping in favor of the TPP in these threads. This is just a back-door to the same thing- jobs are leaving the US, he wants to embrace it.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)needed. This will aid long term jobless people, but doesn't force anybody to go on SocSec and you can still work while on SocSec which puts the Math in the unknown area..
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)"money is a concept and will appear when needed" is going to win the nomination?
CK_John
(10,005 posts)Don't misrepresent my op.
DURHAM D
(32,606 posts)This is addressed to the OP.
Don't look it up.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)brooklynite
(94,367 posts)Why not call it a day?