Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

CK_John

(10,005 posts)
Wed Feb 5, 2014, 06:30 PM Feb 2014

Whoever 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.

64 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Whoever advocates to lower SocSec to 50 will win the nomination in 2016, but... (Original Post) CK_John Feb 2014 OP
Kick for the jobless. CK_John Feb 2014 #1
We won't have a nominee then... former9thward Feb 2014 #2
By then it will be the self evident solution. I'm worried Mitt will advocate it. CK_John Feb 2014 #3
Still flogging this? It ain't gonna happen. Throd Feb 2014 #4
It has to happen. CK_John Feb 2014 #7
I've seen you state your case several times, but I still don't see any merit. Throd Feb 2014 #9
You have the POTUS begging corp to hire long term unemployed, you have million going homeless CK_John Feb 2014 #10
OK - that covers the why leftynyc Feb 2014 #40
Would probably have to lift the cap and madville Feb 2014 #5
Triple wouldn't do it. joeglow3 Feb 2014 #29
So people can become irrelevant in this society earlier? frazzled Feb 2014 #6
We have millions begging the senate to renew jobless benefits why not give them a respectable CK_John Feb 2014 #8
Simple solution...keep working if you please. TheKentuckian Feb 2014 #11
Not so easy: when you redefine "retirement age" down ... frazzled Feb 2014 #12
That is already the way it is because 50 year olds have experience, obligations, and time in TheKentuckian Feb 2014 #32
May I ask how old you are? frazzled Feb 2014 #33
You may ask. I don't think 60 is ancient or anything, it seems right around the corner. TheKentuckian Feb 2014 #42
Will be 74 next month. CK_John Feb 2014 #44
So what? What you're argument boils down to "fuck the people already down, Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #14
Not what I said, Thugmeister frazzled Feb 2014 #22
No one is going to advocate that. RB TexLa Feb 2014 #13
That is the most incredibly stupid thing I've ever read on DU. Coyotl Feb 2014 #15
Then you were not here to see the poo-savers. AngryAmish Feb 2014 #16
That's actually a good idea Coyotl Feb 2014 #18
"And everyone would save their poo for collection." name not needed Feb 2014 #20
LOL ... great gif! Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2014 #35
I have cataract surgery Fri morning but your vision is a lot worse. CK_John Feb 2014 #17
I don't agree with your political prediction, but TOTALLY agree with LOWERING Social Security age Matariki Feb 2014 #19
Pass the idea along to your Congress critters and to your favorite talking head. Let know CK_John Feb 2014 #21
Here's a clue: NOBODY will advocate lowering retirement to 50... brooklynite Feb 2014 #23
Because Mitt might or another GOP candidate who knows it is needed and needs to happen. CK_John Feb 2014 #25
1) Mitt's not running...2) what shred of analysis tells you a Republican would advocate this? brooklynite Feb 2014 #28
They want to win. CK_John Feb 2014 #45
How do we pay for this idea? taught_me_patience Feb 2014 #24
The same way we pay for a dacade of war. Money happens when needed. CK_John Feb 2014 #26
So, borrow from china? joeglow3 Feb 2014 #30
I think the age should be lowered, but not to 50 Renew Deal Feb 2014 #27
Don't let perfection get in the way of the possible. CK_John Feb 2014 #31
I'm actually more in line with between 58 and 62 but TheKentuckian Feb 2014 #34
I think 62 is doable ... again. Wasn't that the age originally ... ? Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2014 #37
Yes, add a bunch of retiress because TPP will displace them from the workforce, right? X_Digger Feb 2014 #36
Boring... CK_John Feb 2014 #46
Yes, your continued flogging of this bullshit is boring. n/t X_Digger Feb 2014 #56
Maybe. Provided we require schools to stop offering math classes in the meantime. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2014 #38
50 is too young. I take it you are still fairly young. SomethingFishy Feb 2014 #39
Being eligible for benefits and mandatory retirement aren't the same thing. TheKentuckian Feb 2014 #43
It would be choice, just it is now and you can also work while on SocSec. CK_John Feb 2014 #47
I predict that nobody will advocate that at all. MineralMan Feb 2014 #41
It will be the self event solution, I would like for us to get out ahead of it.. CK_John Feb 2014 #49
Actually, it's not self-evident at all. MineralMan Feb 2014 #50
If Sen Sanders is a real socialist, he should jump on this. But I fear he is just a gas bag. CK_John Feb 2014 #52
Is that what you fear? C'est pour rire. MineralMan Feb 2014 #53
That will never happen and personally I think 50 is too young. MoonRiver Feb 2014 #48
No, I think that is going in the wrong direction, sadoldgirl Feb 2014 #51
The wrong direction? Productivity is at all time high trending with unemployment. Ed Suspicious Feb 2014 #55
I know it's hopeless but: show me the math Proud Public Servant Feb 2014 #54
Don't expect a cogent answer. X_Digger Feb 2014 #57
How did we pay for over 10 yrs of war. At the national level money is a concept and will appear when CK_John Feb 2014 #60
So the candidate who says Proud Public Servant Feb 2014 #63
That's my opinion, The candidate who brings up reducing SS age to 50yr will win. CK_John Feb 2014 #64
What is the current SS retirement age? DURHAM D Feb 2014 #58
I took SS at 62., 65 for most but months have been aidded in the last couple yrs. CK_John Feb 2014 #61
After two days, you haven't convinced anyone, and nobody's convinced you... brooklynite Feb 2014 #59
I just had cataract surgery this morning and have a new outlook on this problem. CK_John Feb 2014 #62

CK_John

(10,005 posts)
10. You have the POTUS begging corp to hire long term unemployed, you have million going homeless
Wed Feb 5, 2014, 08:30 PM
Feb 2014

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.??????

madville

(7,404 posts)
5. Would probably have to lift the cap and
Wed Feb 5, 2014, 07:38 PM
Feb 2014

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)
29. Triple wouldn't do it.
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 01:10 AM
Feb 2014

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)
6. So people can become irrelevant in this society earlier?
Wed Feb 5, 2014, 07:45 PM
Feb 2014

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)
8. We have millions begging the senate to renew jobless benefits why not give them a respectable
Wed Feb 5, 2014, 07:58 PM
Feb 2014

safety net. You could then retrain, go fishing, or start a business, or find a job. You can work while on SocSec.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
12. Not so easy: when you redefine "retirement age" down ...
Wed Feb 5, 2014, 09:11 PM
Feb 2014

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)
32. That is already the way it is because 50 year olds have experience, obligations, and time in
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 01:54 PM
Feb 2014

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)
33. May I ask how old you are?
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:16 PM
Feb 2014

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)
42. You may ask. I don't think 60 is ancient or anything, it seems right around the corner.
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 06:12 PM
Feb 2014

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.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
14. So what? What you're argument boils down to "fuck the people already down,
Wed Feb 5, 2014, 09:52 PM
Feb 2014

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)
22. Not what I said, Thugmeister
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 12:38 AM
Feb 2014

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.

 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
16. Then you were not here to see the poo-savers.
Wed Feb 5, 2014, 09:58 PM
Feb 2014

Back in early DU dos there was a person advocating using human fertilizer for crops. And everyone would save their poo for collection.

Matariki

(18,775 posts)
19. I don't agree with your political prediction, but TOTALLY agree with LOWERING Social Security age
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 12:15 AM
Feb 2014

along with raising the cap.

CK_John

(10,005 posts)
21. Pass the idea along to your Congress critters and to your favorite talking head. Let know
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 12:33 AM
Feb 2014

that they don't have to agree with it but just bring it up as a jobs solution for discussion..

brooklynite

(94,367 posts)
23. Here's a clue: NOBODY will advocate lowering retirement to 50...
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 12:40 AM
Feb 2014

...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?

 

taught_me_patience

(5,477 posts)
24. How do we pay for this idea?
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 12:44 AM
Feb 2014

The trust fund will be completely depleted by 2033. Wouldn't lowering the age deplete the trust fund much faster?

TheKentuckian

(25,020 posts)
34. I'm actually more in line with between 58 and 62 but
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:18 PM
Feb 2014

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!

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
36. Yes, add a bunch of retiress because TPP will displace them from the workforce, right?
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:20 PM
Feb 2014

Oh, by the way-

[font size=20]FUCK THE TPP![/font]

Transparent garbage.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
38. Maybe. Provided we require schools to stop offering math classes in the meantime.
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:32 PM
Feb 2014

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)
39. 50 is too young. I take it you are still fairly young.
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:32 PM
Feb 2014

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)
43. Being eligible for benefits and mandatory retirement aren't the same thing.
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 07:09 PM
Feb 2014

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?

MineralMan

(146,262 posts)
50. Actually, it's not self-evident at all.
Fri Feb 7, 2014, 03:09 PM
Feb 2014

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.

MineralMan

(146,262 posts)
53. Is that what you fear? C'est pour rire.
Fri Feb 7, 2014, 03:43 PM
Feb 2014

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)
48. That will never happen and personally I think 50 is too young.
Fri Feb 7, 2014, 02:59 PM
Feb 2014

Sixty is more reasonable, but nobody will advocate that either. Best we can hope for is status quo.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
51. No, I think that is going in the wrong direction,
Fri Feb 7, 2014, 03:36 PM
Feb 2014

but applying Medicare at 55 would be much more welcomed.

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)
55. The wrong direction? Productivity is at all time high trending with unemployment.
Fri Feb 7, 2014, 03:47 PM
Feb 2014

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)
54. I know it's hopeless but: show me the math
Fri Feb 7, 2014, 03:47 PM
Feb 2014

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)
57. Don't expect a cogent answer.
Fri Feb 7, 2014, 03:51 PM
Feb 2014

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)
60. How did we pay for over 10 yrs of war. At the national level money is a concept and will appear when
Fri Feb 7, 2014, 04:00 PM
Feb 2014

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..

CK_John

(10,005 posts)
64. That's my opinion, The candidate who brings up reducing SS age to 50yr will win.
Fri Feb 7, 2014, 05:10 PM
Feb 2014

Don't misrepresent my op.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Whoever advocates to lowe...