Baby Boomers will put off retiring, since they have to

[liberal N proud]

Money, lack of family support will have many working far past 65

WASHINGTON - As the baby boomers begin to ease into their 60s, most expect to delay retirement longer than their parents or grandparents.

That’s good, because many can’t afford to stop working anytime soon.

In 1950, nearly half of men 65 and older were still in the labor force, according to the Census Bureau. That percentage bottomed out in the 1980s at less than 16 percent. It has since edged up to about 19 percent, and experts believe it will increase even more as the oldest baby boomers reach 65.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19173780/

[Nay]

1. Yep, just what the elites want--for you to drop dead in your traces.

That way they don't have to pay out all that socialist SS money, and can keep it for themselves in the form of subsidies and tax cuts. Personally, I'd like to see baby boomers leave work in droves, and live ascetic but happy lives, playing with their grandchildren. But that's just me.

BTW, I'm outta the workforce in 7 years, at age 62, even if I'm plunged into poverty. Better poor than dead or insane.

[AngryAmish]

10. Do you realize your expectation of life is 27.1 years?

In 7 years is 21.4 years? More if you are white or asian and more if you are female.

The problem is on average a person has paid for a little more than 4 or 5 years of social security benefits in their lifetime. After that you are just living off of younger workers. Which is fine if one does not want to pay their own way. Up to you.

Just don't complain about having to import workers to pay for your benefits. Just be grateful to younger folks for supporting your lifestyle.

[bettyellen]

21. social security would be solvent if the Repugs hadn't plundered it... But, go ahead spout their lies

and divide the party over complete bullshit. That's helpful.

[AngryAmish]

28. ???

The demographics are the demographics. Life expectancy is increasing. That is not changing.

The money has to come from somewhere. As to the looting of social security -- are you referring to using the SS taxes to finance the debt? What would you do with the money? Let it sit around doing nothing? Invest it in the stock market? Tell me, do you have a better plan?

This is reality - people are living for a long time nowadays. At no time in history have mankind faced this problem. It is not intractable but everyone has to realize we are all in this together. It is a good problem to have.

So, do we allow the largest segment of society to use money from other segments of society in a large disproportion to what they paid in themselves? That is exactly what is going to happen when people, one average, get 5x the SS benefits than what they paid in.

SS is not done for. Some small tweaks keeps it solvent a long time. If the economy keeps growing (as it has in recent years) then the day of reckoning is later. But pushing back retirement age to face a demographic reality is not unfair and I'll do it myself.

[zanne]

37. I keep reading your hate-filled posts about older people.

Were you traumatized as a child or something? You sound like you're out for blood.

[AngryAmish]

42. I see, pointing out facts about our nation's demographics is hate speech

I am not out for blood (as if I should have to defend myself from that bullshit - shame on you). I just don't see how a wealth transfer from people who are working and raising families to those who don't work and have not young children is a good idea for our society. Tell me how it is good and maybe I'll change my mind. I am amenable to argument and proof. Maybe everyone should be.

[Sapere aude]

45. Well I hope you die young and pretty so you don't become a drag on people younger than you.

You seem to thing you will be young for ever. Peter Pan is it?

[The2ndWheel]

47. Ding, ding, ding

Round 1. The battle between old and young will only get more...more something. Complex. Interesting. Crazy. Something like that. When physical reality meets up with an ever expanding system...only on pay-per-view!

[AngryAmish]

51. Again, hoping I die does not solve the problem

I am not going to be young forever -- in fact I am already middle aged. I am preparing for the future and I will retire when I have enough put away.

Listen - ignoring a problem does not solve it. As grown ups I think each of us should do what we can to make our society better. Sponging off of my fellow citizens is not what I think I should do. Call me ignorant or callous. I think I should be a constructive member of society. Some people can't be productive and those are the people who should be helped. But just because I don't like working much (and I don't) is not sufficient justification to make my fellow citizens work more (to pay taxes) just so I can sitting around all day drinking beer and watching The People's Court.

[Sapere aude]

52. I'm not trying to solve your problem. You will be old and dependent on the young too.

Social Security was set up so that those working will pay for those receiving benefits. At some point all the boomers will have passed and there will be less workers paying for those receiving benefits. At some point young people will pay for your benefits providing you don't die young and pretty.


If you don't like the system opt out. Go to someplace where you don't have to pay social security. Go to Mexico or someplace.

[AngryAmish]

53. Ah - the old "America - Love it or leave it" argument

SS was never designed to fund workers 17.6 years after their retirement. (Those reaching 65 in 1930 lived on average 11.8 years but there were many more folks younger working and paying in and fewer people lived that long - so the burden on the workers was much, much less).

Would you be happy with permanently capping the rate of SS taxes? Then be prepared for less benefits. Actually, a great deal of money HAS been put away by the BBers. They have overpayed for years- ie paid a lot more in than has gone out in benefits for already retired folks. This has been invested in the safest security known - they have loaned money to the US gov't. A few tweaks here and there (including bumping up retirement age from 67 to 69 or 70 will have the system funded in perpetuity. One more time before I am accused of hating my parents (who were not, by the way, Baby Boomers) or any such thing that I have already been accused of: I am going to be subject to these same restrictions. I am willing to sacrifice. Are you?

[stirlingsliver]

56. "Sacrifice" = "Break The Promise"

What you called "sacrifice" is really little more than allowing the government to break the promise it made to millions of workers over the course of their working lives.

[Sapere aude]

86. I am 61 as of last month. Next year I can retire at reduced benefits.

I can retire at 65 and get full benefits. I can retire after 65 and get increased benefits depending on the year I retire. If I retire at 70 or older I can get the maximum benefits allowed me. I have been paying into ss for 43 years.

Will I sacrifice? Let's see. I made it through a combat tour in Vietnam, I've been bankrupt, divorced, clinically depressed, homeless, abused alcohol and drugs and have gone up and down more times than I want to count. Now am back on my feet, clean and sober and talking to someone like you who feels put out because you got pay ss taxes. Give me a fucking break!

[upi402]

111. Thanks, and glad you're back

Please keep coming back!
:hi:
FWIW, I'm taking early-out when the time comes - I hope it comes anyway!
I'll do something else if I need cash.

[roguevalley]

77. So, those of us who paid for the past generation cannot expect

help from the one coming up? Since when is honoring the promise of social security, which is zippo to start with, harming anyone? Get the taxes back from the Paris Hilton fuckers that have made us all slaves. Don't slam those of us who worked like dogs, like slaves and have taken a rest when the time came for us to step aside. I remember when the youngers were whining about how come we olders didn't fucking retire and step aside for you to take our jobs and now there's whining because we do? Make up your mind, honey. Oh, and by the way ... you'll be old sometime too and you will be hopefully helped by the generation that is coming up, just like we, WE, helped you now.

[AngryAmish]

88. There were fewer people to pay for last generation

Do you want to tax the rich into the stone age. That'll do also.

But acknowledge the problem and be prepared to do something about it or face the consequences.

[roguevalley]

95. you assume that only you possess that knowledge. amazing.

this story was being told in the sixties. Some of us are old enough to remember that. What do you propose as a solution other than having people work until they die, or just die?

[Daphne08]

85. Wealth Transfer? What about the wealth transfer UPWARD

over the last thirty years to the detriment of the Middle Class and the Poor? Does THAT ONE not bother you?

Crap. I'm not going to get started on the rape of the American worker since Reagan! Frankly, I don't have the time. (If you don't believe me, just do your own research.)

All I will say is this: As an older person who has worked since 1967, I cannot tell you how much I resent your arrogance and lack of compassion.

[stirlingsliver]

55. Do You Have Insurance Of Any Type?

Do YOU have any sort of insurance -- car, renters, homeowners, health, life?

If you do, then you entered into an agreement in which YOU agreed to pay certain premiums, and the insurance company PROMISED to pay you when certain conditions happen to you.

It does NOT matter how much you paid in --] what matters is that the company promised you a certain benefit.

What you are suggesting is not much different from what the insurance companies did to lots of people after Hurricane Katrina.

The insurance companies tried to say that they would not pay -- they wanted to BREAK THEIR PROMISE.

Social Security is a PROMISE made to millions of workers.

The Government should NOT be allowed to break that promise!

[AngryAmish]

60. You may want to stick it to the government

But the government does not pay your benefits. Your fellow citizens do. We are all in this together.


on edit:

The people who will be paying we not alive to make the "PROMISE" that you speak of.

In the end all benefits will be paid whether or not they can be. The government can just keep writing checks. Then try to live on SS benefits when there is 35% inflation. Then a COLA adjustment, then more money gets printed and repeat until the BBers are no longer a significant part of the population.

[stirlingsliver]

63. Are You Saying That We Should Trust Insurance Companies MORE?

Are you really saying that we should trust insurance companies MORE than we trust our fellow citizens to KEEP PRPOMISES??

Wow, that is really something to consider -- trust insurance companies more than your fellow Americans -- espcially when it comes to benefits for old age!!

[AngryAmish]

64. no

[roguevalley]

80. before you came, people made the promise to you. they fulfilled

it. people now make the promise to the new ones coming and we are keeping it. do you want to just not fulfill your obligation to the new ones ahead of you because you don't want to do it? do you believe you are the only generation make a promise to a generation not born yet? we all do. we all have. we all will. We will try and die faster if that helps.

[eridani]

66. Life expectancy FROM BIRTH is increasing

There is a much smaller increase in life expectancy from age 65 on.

[truedelphi]

99. Some of what you are saying might be true -But

I think a lot of us who have paid into SS would at least like to receive a check for the amount that we paid in - I have paid between 7 and 15 % every year of my working life - and started work at age nineteen.

I am now 55. I would like what I paid in to be given to me - and pelase don't tell me that I was hallucinating my pay-in monies.

hell, I'll take that check without interest. Just show me my money!

[madmax]

75. Hey betty!!!

Where the hell did you find that topless picture of me?!?!?!?!? Huh,huh, Fess up woman! :evilgrin:

[Sapere aude]

44. I'd reply to your post but I don't want to give it dignity.

[stirlingsliver]

54. A PROMISE Is A PROMISE

"The problem is on average a person has paid for a little more than 4 or 5 years of social security benefits in their lifetime. After that you are just living off of younger workers. Which is fine if one does not want to pay their own way. Up to you.

Just don't complain about having to import workers to pay for your benefits. Just be grateful to younger folks for supporting your lifestyle."

Just a bit snarky, if you ask me.

A promise is just that -- a PROMISE.

Millions of people were promised benefits under Social Security.

Your post makes it sound as though all those people -- the ones who faithfully relied on a PROMISE made to them -- who now want to start drawing their Social Security benefits are being selfish.

I would suggest that those who want to BREAK THE PROMISE made to millions of workers are the selfish ones.

[AngryAmish]

58. My mistake

If I only made it sound selfish for people to retire knowing it will bankrupt the system or place a high burden on working people then I made a mistake. I want to explicitly say it is selfish for people to expect their fellow citizens to support them when they are able to work but can't be bothered to do so.

The promise was made out of ignorance - nobody knew of the medical advances that have made it possible for such long life expectancies. No one is saying no retirement. Just later retirement if one wants full benefits.

Once the SS trust fund is exhausted (about 40 years) then by law benefits will be cut. Will those retirees then be able to say a promise is a promise? Well, their promise did not guarantee benefits.

We are all in this together. Small changes make for big results. I think that is the least we can do for our country.

[Rosemary2205]

59. That promise was made out of greed, not ignorance.

The elite could have chosen to pay people a decent wage all their lives instead. They gambled on a low life expectancy and got fooled.

[AngryAmish]

61. 'cept the elite are not paying for SS

Your fellow citizens are.

(BTW, if they want to end the cap on SS taxes fine by me).

[Rosemary2205]

74. You are placing the blame in the wrong place.

SS was concocted because the power elite thought it was the easiest way for them to throw the little guy a bone and still keep most of the money and power for themselves. You would let them off the hook and blame the SS recipient because the elite have chosen to drop kick all the burden to the grandkids. Whereas I choose to acknowledge the current situation is purely a greed move by the elite. The right thing to do is shift the burden back where it belongs, not to blame the poor soul who gave up a decent wage all his life in exchange for promises of retirement income and healthcare.

[RC Quake]

96. I will never understand.

SS was concocted because the power elite thought it was the easiest way for them to throw the little guy a bone and still keep most of the money and power for themselves.

This is why I don't understand people's insistence that SS is supposed to sustain us fully in our retirement years. From the age of 16, when I started my first real job, my parents drilled into my head...save, save, save! Don't ever think the government is going to take care of you when you are old. Prepare for your entire life span NOW. I planned my future around my ambitions and expectations. I spend smart and I save smarter and I have great parents that understood the importance of communicating the necessary lessons in life.

[Rosemary2205]

100. You can save until your eyes turn purple

the odds will always be with the house (as in the few at the top who control the economy in this country) the minute they figure out a way to separate you from your hard earned money and get away with it, they will do it in a heartbeat. The latter 1920's is proof of that and the reason why the government put the smackdown on the elite in the first place. Government socialized policies enacted in the 30's that secured the future for the average American and supported the rise of unions is THE ONLY reason why you were fortunate enough to make enough money to meet the basic demands of life and save money.

In every country of the world the few at the top do everything in their power to enrich themselves and their closest friends at the expense of everyone else. The only thing that allows you to enjoy the fruits of your own labors is government. Strip it away and short of desperate measures you will have nothing. Absolutely nothing, and will be fully and totally dependent upon the goodwill of the powerbosses -- the same ones who have proven throughout the eons that you are only an expendable cog in their wealth producing machine.

[RC Quake]

104. Exactly!

Which is why I save smarter than I spend.

[stirlingsliver]

62. So Lots Of People Should Work Until the DIE??

"I want to explicitly say it is selfish for people to expect their fellow citizens to support them when they are able to work but can't be bothered to do so."

Gee, it sure sounds to me like you are saying that it is selfish for someone to stop working and enjoy the benefits they were PROMISED, as long as they are able to keep working.

Do you realize how mean and terrible that sounds??

You assume, I think, that age alone makes people "unable" to work.

That is an ageist assumption. Many people in their seventiess, eighties, (and some even in their nineties!) are ABLE to work.

YOU seem to suggest that it is selfish for someone 75 or 80 years old who is ABLE to work to want, instead, to stop working and enjoy the benefits they were PROMISED!

I don't know how old you are, but I would guess you are pretty young.

IF you want to change the age of retirement -- FINE.

But do so for people who are just NOW starting out in their working careers, and LEAVE THE PROMISE IN PLACE for people who are nearing the end of their working lives. DO NOT FORCE people to work beyond the age they were PROMISED benefits!!

[AngryAmish]

67. Many assumptions you make are wrong

I am not pretty young, I'm middle aged.

And esay on the all caps. It is bad form.

[stirlingsliver]

69. "Many" Assumptions?

Sorry if I mis-estimated your age (although "middle aged" can mean different things to different people).

What other assumptions did I make that were wrong?

[AngryAmish]

72. I think people should work until they die

No I don't. I just don't think continuing to work a year or two to ensure this nation's solvency is that big of a sacrifice.


"Gee, it sure sounds to me like you are saying that it is selfish for someone to stop working and enjoy the benefits they were PROMISED, as long as they are able to keep working."
I am if that means delaying retirement a little while.

"Do you realize how mean and terrible that sounds??" Only if you don't care about your fellow citizens.

"You assume, I think, that age alone makes people "unable" to work."
No I don't.

"YOU seem to suggest that it is selfish for someone 75 or 80 years old who is ABLE to work to want, instead, to stop working and enjoy the benefits they were PROMISED!" (again with the all caps. What's up with that?) No, I am saying someone who is 67 or 68 to start collecting benefits. They can quit but I would prefer not to stick it to people who are working.

"I don't know how old you are, but I would guess you are pretty young." see above

"IF you want to change the age of retirement -- FINE.

But do so for people who are just NOW starting out in their working careers, and LEAVE THE PROMISE IN PLACE for people who are nearing the end of their working lives. DO NOT FORCE people to work beyond the age they were PROMISED benefits!!" But if we do the problem won't be solved. Screeching on about promises and insurance companies won't solve the problem. The problem is solvable. We should try to do so.

[Rosemary2205]

83. The problem can easily be solved by

asking those who have financially benefitted the most from the labors of workers to part with whatever money is required to keep SS solvent.

[roguevalley]

78. my mother worked until she was 72. she died just recently at barely

76. is that what you want? Should my angel not have any time for her dreams? well, for my house, mission accomplished.

[Rosemary2205]

57. You are not correct and here's why

younger workers do not pay the SS benefits of retirees. SS money is collected as a separate tax but all federal moneyies are spent as a whole from one big pot. SS money has not been set aside to be used only for SS. Therefore, it is much more correct to say younger workers are having to support retirees only because the wealthiest who made the promises are not keeping their promises.

When SS was first negotiated, the wealthy elite decided they would rather take a gamble on the low life expectancy of workers and guarantee income after 65 yr old rather than actually pay people a decent wage that would enable them to save for their own old age. The elite have not kept that promise and also not paid most workers enough to save for their retirement.

To say these elderly people as a group didn't want to pay their own way in life is a disgusting insult.

[eridani]

65. Life expectancy from birth is irrelevant to retirement

The question is, what is your further life expectancy if you are 65 already? That has increased only by 4 years or so. If you die before reaching adulthood, you are irrelevant to Social Security because you never pay in and you never collect. The big increase in life expectancy last century was from the dramatic reduction of deaths in infancy and childhood.

[AngryAmish]

70. I was using life expecancy at age 65

The demographic problem is threefold. One, many more people are living to age 65. Two, once at 65 the expectation of life has increased. Third, BBers make up a large % of the total population.

See <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/lftbls/lftbls.htm> This has the life tables I was using. You are right about the increase (4 years) but the other parts, more people living that long and the demographic bulge exists.

[eridani]

112. All those people getting to 65 have contributed to Social Security

The early 80s raise in withholding rates was intended to take care of the Boomer bulge, and it will do so unless Bushco succeeds in destroying it. It's certainly true that a temporary surplus of oldsters will cause some problems until the world as a whole gets to the "one in the pipeline for every one out" population replacement rhythm, but we'd do better to prioritize dealing with our unbelievably stupid level of military expenditures, global warming and peak oil IMO.

[roguevalley]

76. I retired at 51. I don't have social security. I would pay it if I could.

I didn't sponge off a single person my whole life and I won't now. I voted against raises in my union when they would pad my end at the expense of the young. There are plenty of ethical people
in my generation. We haven't forgotten our parents or their sacrifices to us and we are trying to
honor them in the younger generation. God bless young people. God bless us all.

[SoCalDem]

82. Did you pay your own way before you got a job? SS is a generational promise

The older ones care for the younger ones when they cannot care for themselves, and on the other end, the younger ones help pay for the older ones..

:) Cheer up, though...stress will kill off a lot of us Boomers before we ever collect all that extra we paid in for all these years..

never let it be said that we wanted to deprive you young'uns of more eeeeeelectronic gadgets & McMansions of your own :sarcasm: ---> in case you didn't get it :)

[Nay]

115. I do realize that. I also realize that a country like the US has many

insidious lies that pass as "values" in this neocon age, and you may have fallen for a number of them.

First, retirees (or anyone, for that matter) who do not engage in paid work are not necessarily unproductive. That's a RW lie that has been put forward to keep us in the workforce. Many of us do volunteer work, and all of us help with and take care of grown kids and the grandkids who come along. That work, in my opinion, is more valuable than the glorified paperwork-pushing I am getting handsomely paid to do at the moment, yet my paid work is lionized and the time I spend loving and teaching my grandson is worthless. And yes, for many years there has been condemnation of old folks staying in jobs that "young people need." We just can't win, can we? We're assholes if we stay and assholes if we go. Add to that the desire of businesses to get rid of its older employees because they might cost more in health insurance. And don't try to get a job if you are over 45 -- they simply don't want you.

Second, even if retirees did nothing but watch TV, pull weeds, and pay their light bills, they do more than most young families do for the environment, gas consumption, etc. You won't see us driving to clubs, buying tons of shit we can't afford and don't need, etc. We downsize.

Third, this country has suffered almost 70 years of the most damaging type of propaganda ever seen on the planet -- advertising. It's all well and good to say that people need to save money rather than spend, not get involved in consumerism to their detriment, etc., but the reality is that all of us, from the time we are born, live in a psychological environment never before seen in the history of the world. It is the rare person (hubby and I are two of the rare ones) who can resist the blandishments of the consumer culture. There are two ways to look at that -- first, you can condemn and dismiss people who have been less than wise with their money, which is the preferred method. Or you can realize that your precious economic growth, which you say must continue, is wholly fueled by these unwise people. If everyone became frugal overnight, the economy would collapse. Thus the conundrum.

I have also always felt that it is hypocritical of this country, and its advertisers, corporations, and leaders, to:

shame the public for not saving half its paycheck while using every trick in the book to separate people from their money (Bush after 9/11: go shopping!);

expect people to save for every expensive eventuality while paying rock bottom wages;

expect people to remain slim and healthy while they diddle and meddle with the food supply and encourage the sprouting of grossly unhealthy food outlets, fat-filled foods and vending machines in schools.

I could go on and on, but any long-term successful society puts the health (physical, financial, etc.) and genuine interests of its individual members ahead of the interests of such artificial creatures as corporations. That is not happening here, and it will be the end of the American experiment.

[B Calm]

2. this sucks.... I'm ready to retire now, two pension plans robbed from

me and our need of health insurance will keep us working to 65. We always planned to retire early and even got a nice little nest egg saved. Had an elderly guy tell me the other day he had to work just to have extra money to pay for gas.

[DemoTex]

24. "Two pensions robbed .."

You must have worked in the airline industry like me. I know all about robbed pensions and a robber-CEO who bailed with a $10-million parachute (just three months after my pension was "terminated").

[prolesunited]

49. They really need to make this illegal

They did this in the steel industry as well. Companies declared bankruptcy, discharged all or their liabilities and reformed. Voila! They are now posting profits on the backs of all of the people that they screwed.

When unions negotiated CONTRACTS (you know, those legally binding things like school loans for which WE, the little people, are held legally responsible for forever), they took wage concessions in exchange for a secure retirement. I don't know why the corporations are allowed to just walk away from their responsibilities and commitments.

And all this talk of "personal responsibility" is bullshit. The people who have been screwed in this debacle *DID* take person responsibility in working hard their entire lives to ensure they would not be impoverished in retirement.

My dad was lucky in that he worked at one of the few steel companies that didn't declare bankruptcy and he kept his benefits and the health care has been invaluable. He's not asking for handouts. He risked his life in a dirty, hard job. He EARNED everything he is receiving.

I'm sorry neither of you were as fortunate, but as you can see, this who situation really pisses me off.

[Rosemary2205]

87. Great post thanks.

People seem to forget the big shots were forced to entrust the retirement money to the gov't in the first place because they proved their greed made them untrustworthy in the late 20's. Those companies who negotiated pension after then had laws up the wazzoo put on them with the intent to protect that retirement money from their grubby little fingers.

Why Americans have sat around the let corporations buy off the government as watchdog I really don't understand.

[Tyler Durden]

3. WHAT??? You don't want to drop dead at your desk or machine???

Fucking Traitorous Commie Bastard.

Scuse me, I have to light my Illegal Havana and sip my 100 year old brandy.

[B Calm]

5. This is in the cheap labor republican plan. They are salivating

over the prospect of millions of elderly, hungry, desperate baby boomers to hire as cheap labor.

[Tyler Durden]

6. 'Fraid you are SPOT ON.

Put up another WALMART: we need to employ some more seniors.

[roguevalley]

81. there is nothing worse than seeing exhausted infirm elders working

at a wal mart. fuck walmart to hell.

[antigop]

12. BINGO! n/t

[B Calm]

109. It's why cheap labor republicans despise social security. They

want us hungry and desperate so we can work cheap for them in our golden years.

[Double T]

4. No need to worry about Social Security.............

most people of retirement age will need to continue to work just to exist and survive.

[RebelOne]

7. I'm 68 and still working full time.

I can't afford to retire. Who could live only on social security? I am trying to build up my 401K so that I can retire before I reach 70.

[blueworld]

8. This is news?

The roots are in Saint Reagan's administration (hear the heavenly chorus of cash registers in the background?). Run a poll - how many boomers understood the full implications of the Soc. Security changes implemented 20 years ago? What - no hoopla in the press? Didn't know that normal retirement age was put on a sliding scale & most of us need to be near 70 to collect full benefits? No pensions? Gutted pensions? Job outsourced when you turned 45? 401K needs viagra?

Puhleeeze. Thank God there's billions for war & Farm Subsidies for the obscenely wealthy. Would you like fries with that? Please sir, may I pick your onions? :rant:

[OzarkDem]

15. Great summation

and you are correct, the day after Reagan took office they began the process of making the changes you mention in addition to throwing out every regulation on the books, including those that protect your pension.

[antigop]

22. And the Dems were very helpful in passing the Pension "Protection" Act last year

Yes, thank you, Ted Kennedy. Cash balance pension plans are now legalized. And almost every one of the Dem Senators voted for it.

[raccoon]

18. "no hoopla in the press?" Exactly! I don't remember the corporate

media saying anything about those changes.

Anyone else?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

33. Just like 9/11, retirement out of reach may be "blowback" from multinational corporate

from multinational corporations' "tinkering" with political and economic systems and cultures abroad.

The Reagan Republicanism under which we now live is 'a system set up for the little guy to fail',

as SoCalDem eloquently put it in another thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2875769&mesg_id=2876108 .

But just how did this system get foisted on us? Are there tell-tale corporate fingerprints? A recent book by a Republican seems to say, "YES!"

I wrote this reply to SoCalDem and thought it stood on its own well enough for a re-post, to a thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1087892 . Here's the lead-in:

Largely out of the public eye, US multi-national corporations mastered the art of manipulating political systems in third-world countries, to bring about no-tax and union-free business environments. Then, with the election of Ronald Reagan, IMO they succeeded in bringing their plutocratic version of "democracy" home.

Most of the unfortunate changes in the economy you mention--the virtual end of defined-benefit pensions, wholesale corporate theft of pensions, offshoring (downsizing) of good jobs, wage growth stalled during 25 years of skyrocketing worker productivity, mortgages structured to maximize defaults and foreclosures--have come about since 1980. And you omitted the most ingenious Party-Of-The-Super-Rich triumphs: cutting the highest marginal income tax rates by SIXTY PERCENT, and shifting that tax burden onto FICA payroll taxes. All in the name of "saving Social Security" in 1981, while setting up a "Trust Fund" with no real assets. Alan Greenspan feared a real-asset Trust Fund would lead inevitably to "socialism"--ie largescale government pension reinvestment in urban areas that instead were redlined, becoming ungovernable and unable to counteract the Republican vote-canceling machine.

Doubtless many corporations and Republican political coalitions were trying to achieve what GE apparently achieved by making Ronald Reagan their mouthpiece. A recent book by a REPUBLICAN author is a real eye-opener on how the highly successful "revolt of the haves" you describe came about:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/publicity/evansexcerpt.html :

"THE EDUCATION OF RONALD REAGAN -- Thomas W. Evans -- CHAPTER ONE

... during his years with General Electric, Reagan developed more than a set of prepared remarks. He eventually became an integral part of the company's elaborate political initiative, probably the most comprehensive in corporate America. The program extended from the executive suites to GE's employees on the plant floor to the voters in the towns and cities where the plants were located. Reagan later described his experience as "an apprenticeship for public life." Toward the end of his years with GE, when transcripts of still-evolving versions of "The Speech" were made available to the public for the first time, Reagan felt he had experienced a conversion. He wrote in An American Life, "I wasn't just making speeches„I was preaching a sermon."

Reagan was a self-confessed Democrat and New Dealer when he arrived at GE. After his eight-year "postgraduate course in political science," conducted largely under the aegis of GE's vice president and labor strategist, Lemuel Boulware, Ronald Reagan came to expound on the need to reduce taxes and limit government. He described international communism, as Boulware and GE president Ralph Cordiner did, as "evil." He observed Boulware, who was regarded by many in corporate America as the most successful labor negotiator of all time, and Reagan himself became a knowledgeable negotiator during this period, equally at ease with corporate executives and blue-collar workers. His education stretched well beyond the bargaining table. ...

Lemuel Boulware believed that it was not enough to win over company employees on narrow labor issues. They must not only accept the offer but pass on GE's essentially conservative message to others, helping the company to win voters at the grass roots who would elect officials and pass legislation establishing a better business climate. In short, they would become "communicators" and "mass communicators," (Boulware's words) as they went through the company's extensive education program. In time, the program would also help to produce a "great communicator." And yet, for all the recent interest in the Reagan presidency, little has been written about how his change from liberal to conservative, from actor to politician, came about. A veil of secrecy has been drawn over this crucial period of Ronald Reagan's education. Part of the reason for this was Cordiner and Boulware's concern that GE's political efforts might come under attack as violating federal and state statutes that made partisan corporate political activity a crime. They also felt that GE's unions might find Boulware's aggressive negotiating posture„dubbed Boulwarism and still referred to as such in labor law texts„the basis for an unfair-labor-practice charge.

...several recent events bring new light to this study of Ronald Reagan's "education": the discovery of a collection of hitherto unpublished papers and a repository of GE corporate documents last published during the 1950s and 1960s; interviews with GE personnel who had been silent until now; and a reexamination of other publications and oral histories that now have a more meaningful context. Many observers consider the changes in Ronald Reagan during his GE years to be profound. ... To truly understand Ronald Reagan during and after the GE years, it is important to know what he was like when he came to the company. It is also important to know what the company was like„as later chapters will make clear„at the time when Reagan was an employee...."

[Atman]

9. Here's another good article...

I should know...I wrote it. :hi:

-----

AARP Changes Name to Reflect New Societal Trends

NBYire Service Exclusive

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) CEO Bill Novelli announced today that the 35 million member organization's Board Of Directors has approved a name change, and will now be known as the American Association of Old People Who Must Work Until They're Dead. In a brief statement before a crowd of geriatric McDonald's workers, Novelli said "We know the new name is a bit clunkier than the old one, but it was determined that with the policies put in place by the Bush administration, the idea of actually being able to retire has become but a distant memory for most Americans."

Novelli noted that many on the board had wanted a simpler acronym, and that AAFP, or the American Association of Fucked People, ran a close second in a member poll, but it was feared the sexual double entendre might cause confusion. "Many of our members are already very confused," Novelli said. "We didn't want to compound their problems, or get their hopes up."
Since George W. Bush took office, pensions, retirement packages and other long-term benefits have all but vanished in America. "Older Americans who are not already cronies of the Bush administration simply no longer have the means to enjoy the traditional notion of retirement, with peaceful days spent enjoying travel, gardening, being able to afford clothing and medication," Novelli continued.

It isn't all bad news for seniors, though, according to press material distributed at the event along with a Matchbox car and five-piece order of McNuggets -- McDonalds has agreed to increase it's Senior Discount to 12%, which should help ease some of the financial burdens older Americans face as the ramifications of Bush's policies continue to unfold.

A scheduled question and answer session was cut short when the presentation went longer than expected and 18 year old store manager Lashawn Kravitz told the seniors he would dock their pay if they went beyond their allotted fifteen minute break time.

.

[PA Democrat]

16. LOL! Thanks for the best laugh of the morning.

[porphyrian]

11. And everyone else will continue standing in line for their jobs.

I'm not blaming, just naming the situation for the rest of us.

[SoCalDem]

13. 16% in the 80's because the boomers got tagged for increases

in social security for the old people retiring then..and of course most of THOSE oldsters retired with generous pensions WITH full benefits into retirement. I know some older folks who have been retired for YEARS and who bring in more money retired than they ever did when they worked..

One oldster has a military pension, a post office pension, & social security ..his wife has a teacher's pension and social security. Between them they rake in almost $5500 a month and have a paid-for home..They are living quite well..

[The2ndWheel]

14. Shocked. Shocked!

And it'll be even more surprising when you're made to work longer as longevity increases. Well, alright, not so much surprise. More like, "no shit, Sherlock".

As fewer consumers are born because standard of living increases, that's fewer consumers paying into the system. Yes, people are going to have to work longer.

Fewer actual people are needed for more jobs these days, so most of us have to get a job that does nothing but keeps us coming back for more, since the money consumers do have must be spent to keep the economy from falling apart(even though most of the products are made by children or parents desperate to feed their children somewhere, or by machines).

We're not going to get something for nothing.

[raccoon]

19. Even if more consumers were born, there aren't as many "good" jobs

as they were in previous decades.

How many McJobs = 1 "good" job?

[The2ndWheel]

31. Funny thing, the more people...

damn it...the more consumers and cogs there are, the less an overlord needs to pay. The more products there are(mass production...see McDonalds, etc), the cheaper the price of the product(just like us cogs), the less an overlord needs to pay for their cog to be able to afford the product(Henry Ford didn't luck out enough and was in the wrong place and the wrong time).

[Odin2005]

17. The chickens of the hippies-turned-yuppies come home to roost.

[raccoon]

20. Many were never hippies. For damn sure many were never yuppies. nt

[bettyellen]

23. you mean the boomers whose benefits were severly cut and pensions stolen?

Oh yeah, resent them for being born earlier, LOL.
That was some of the stupidist stuff Obama got into. Just trying to push the buttons of the young and disgruintled- no matter how counter productive or foolish that may be.

[Odin2005]

29. Which generation started the fad of "fuck you, I've got mine" Reaganism?

Clue: It wasn't the Gen-Xers.

[raccoon]

34. Which generation protested the draft?

If they hadn't, young people would be having to deal with the draft today.

[bettyellen]

38. he only cares about his salary and retirement money- yet Reagan was OUR FAULT, LOL!!

reagan's influence lives on, i see...

[bettyellen]

35. LOL, goodluck with this holier than thou bullshit... we could blame lots on

young voters simply not being bothered to vote also, couldn't we? easy as making fun of hippies, isn;t it?

[sandnsea]

68. The Korean War generation?

News flash - Jane Fonda isn't a boomer. That's the egomaniacal 'me' generation.

Boomers happily agreed to pay for their own retirement and are currently being fucked out of it by people like you who refuse to understand what has happened.

[Odin2005]

92. Most of the stuff the Boomers claim as thier own was the work of the Korean War generation.

Folks like MLK Jr., Jane Fonda, RFK, Tom Hayden, Gloria Stienhem, etc were all from the generation PRECEDING the Boomers. They were the ones who organized the minority of Boomers for that cared towards great causes while the rest of the Boomers rioted, smoked pot, had promiscuous sex, and/or gravitated towards New Age or Born Again woo woo.

[sandnsea]

93. And also the 'me' generation

Of the 80's. Most of what is dumped on the boomers doesn't belong to the boomers at all. As to the 90's and the dotcom generation - that was all you.

[bettyellen]

98. by his reasoning, his generation gave us the Bush years, god bless them...

or they did nothing. he;s not coping to anything except "trending" dem. voting woulda been better, but trendings all he has. LOL.
this age rift shit is obama's fault. as if the young are going to start voting in droves.

[sandnsea]

101. I like Obama - but

this age thing is a huge mistake. He can't win with kids only. And boomers are not the enemy.

[Odin2005]

102. Oh, no, they've been the ones keeping you boomers under control.

The only problem with the Korean War Gen folks is that the ones in Congress need to grow a spine.

The 90s were the Xers' decade, not us Yers.

[bettyellen]

108. Hence your ownership of the Bush years, geeze, thanks a fuckload for that!

[WinkyDink]

26. Meaning what, exactly? People went from college to employment?

[Odin2005]

30. They sold out the ideals of the 60s and turned to Reaganistic selfishness.

[bettyellen]

36. wow, so you all take rsponsibility for the bush years?!? the imperialistic end of democracy

was brought on by you Y generation who were too busy texting each other listening to ipods to vote and now your not concerned about our dependence on oil or secret torture jails- you care about your due, via social security? but your responsible for the president who wants to eliminate it. LOL.
get real. by your own standards, this generations got nothing to be proud of either.

[OzarkDem]

39. Reagan won

with support from the Reagan Democrats, blue collar workers who fell for the "wedge" issues like abortion and affirmative action. Sadly, many of those were also trade union employees who thought their pensions and retirement benefits were protected, but are now finding out otherwise.

Granted, many of the Yuppie crowd supported Reagan, but for the most part they were not Dems or the "hippie" generation. But a little research will show you that most liberal voters tend to have higher levels of education.

IIRC, there weren't too many former "hippies" in the blue collar crowd, either.

Those of us who saw it going on felt powerless to do anything. Our own party was in a slump and the GOP and news media had already begun their unholy alliance to anesthetize voters. The only time in my life I ever skipped an election was in 1984 when it really felt hopeless to cast a vote for Mondale.

[Odin2005]

90. Us Gen-Yers trend Democratic and are behind the increase is youth voter turnout

We ARE concerned about the problems of the world (a hell of a lot more concerned then the "whatever" Gen-Xers at least). It was the younger end of the baby boom and the oldest Gen-Xers that went gaga for St. Ronnie and put Shrub over the top in 2000 and 2004, not us.

[bettyellen]

97. yeah, i registered thousands of gen X and Yers myself, and the youth vote is, as always disapointing

what in the world do you have to point to as a Gen Y accomplishment politically? i ain;t seeing anything to be proud of. LOL.
Trending? Is that all you got? LOL.
as i said, by your own (facile) reasoning you own bush, so you guys have a fuckload of explaining to do....

[Sapere aude]

46. That is such a pitty pot statement. Poor you! Everyone before you made your life hell!

Well remember to live for those coming after you to set a good example. And by the way, don't forget to generalize about any generation that you want. All members of any generation are all alike don't you think?

[Le Taz Hot]

41. Excuse me?

Holy shit, are YOU misinformed!

[Odin2005]

91. Care to enlighten me, then?

:eyes:

[Le Taz Hot]

106. Nah.

My motto: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it only frustrates the pig. Capiche?

[greenman3610]

25. my dad worked till he was 75

I don't think he would have been as
happy not working, to tell the truth.
But he had a white collar job as an attorney.

I'll probably work as long, at least, as he did,
but I intend to be in much better health.

[pink-o]

27. I'm 52 and I don't see retirement in my immediate future...

...but listen up: when I do retire, I will not--repeat--WILL NOT live in this suck-em-dry market economy. We have choices, people, and I choose not to grow old and superfluous here, having to decide whether to spend my tiny stipend to 1)heat my house in the winter 2) buy food for the week or 3) actually fill a prescription for drugs that keep me alive.

First of all, I'm doing everything I can to stay off the pharmaceuticals, and second, I've already scouted out homes in the tropics (staying warm all year and being able to suppliment your food supply from fruit trees) and whatever money you do get from retirement goes further in certain places.

What's the alternative? One poster pointed out that we boomers are gonna live well beyond the age of 75, and I want my quality of life to be just as important as my quantity.

So that's my contingency plan. I'm sure most of us boomers have 'em.

[antigop]

32. What many people don't understand is that most of the Dems were complicit.

Last August, the so-called Pension "Protection" Act was passed -- this bill legalizes conversions of traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance pension plans. George Miller put up a valiance fight for workers in the House, but the Senate caved. (Thank you, Ted Kennedy.)

The roll calls are here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00230

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-422

[slipslidingaway]

48. Thanks, still reading. Only Feingold and Boxer voted no?

PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006 -- (Senate - August 03, 2006)

"Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against the Pension Protection Act. While there are many constructive provisions in the bill, the package is deeply flawed in at least two respects. First, it will add to our already massive government debt. Thanks in large part to the expensive tax provisions that were added, the legislation will add another $66 billion over the next 10 years to the already massive debt with which we are burdening our children and grandchildren. To add insult to that injury, most of that cost stems from savings incentive provisions that overwhelmingly benefit those who least need it. The provisions that raise the contribution limits on tax-preferred savings accounts benefit only 1 in 16 households, and only 1 in 100 households with incomes under $50,000. If we want to encourage more savings, and we should, there are far better ways to do it.

The second matter that raises significant concerns is the so-called red zone which permits pension plans to cut the vested pension benefits of workers. Allowing a worker's vested benefits to be cut is unprecedented and grossly unfair. If workers are told that they may take early retirement at a certain level of earned pension, that promise should not be broken. But under this bill, the financial future on which some families were planning can now come crashing down on them. Retirement benefits which were promised to them and on which they were relying may now be taken away. And make no mistake; if Congress permits earned benefits to be taken, they will be taken.

There is a clear need for pension reform, and many of the provisions in this bill make sense. But I cannot vote for a measure that is so irresponsible for the fiscal future of our Nation and the personal economies of thousands of workers who will soon retire."

[antigop]

50. Boxer and Feingold, along with 3 Republicans voted NO

Ths is an awful, awful bill.

[femmocrat]

40. I would retire in a heartbeat if there was universal health care!

I'm still working for the health care benefits. Can't afford to pick them up on my own, if I could even find a plan.

[antigop]

43. Yes, femmocrat -- it is a problem for many.

I guess you should console yourself that at least you have health insurance for now?

[kineneb]

105. I might try to work -if- I could get health care

otherwise, with my mental condition, I can't get coverage, so I am better off trying for SSI and Medicaid then trying to work part-time (which is probably all I could do)...retirement is a joke for me, I am taking time off to be full-time caregiver to Hubby, who is not well.

[barbtries]

71. born in 1955

and frankly i expect to die before i can afford to retire.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. I'm a pre-baby boomer (1944) and retired when I was 55.

Started working when I left home at 15.

I put in 15 years in various low-paying jobs from dishwashing/bussing to construction. But, when I went to college I took a low-paying (at the time) job with the Postal Service for the swing-shift hours. I quit the P.O. because I was about to be fired, but came back to it 4 years later. Combined with my 4 years of misery in the Marine Crotch, I managed to get in my 30 and retire on my birthday.

As a result of all that being a "productive" (if they only knew) worker, I, early on, came to the obvious conclusion that "work is good for you" carries the same weight as "The Marine Corps Builds Men". Both laughably ridiculous PR attempts to keep the serfs bamboozled into doing things that no sane person wants to do.

Having said that, I am amazed that ordinary people are able to retire.

We were lucky. My wife and I decided not to have kids. We started seriously saving for retirement early. We both had secure government jobs with fairly good pensions. We have health insurance carried over from my job. Not great but it takes care of the big stuff and is relatively cheap. And, because both of us consider a good book and a nice place to read it the best of all worlds, we're cheap dates. We're not materialistic and could care less about the latest toys and "must have" goodies. We're frugal, but not stingy. We donate to a number of charities and causes.

Happiness is waking up in the morning, looking at the clock, listening to the traffic reports (we both had to commute about 40 miles - one way), and knowing that I don't have to be anywhere doing things I don't want to do.

Life is good. In fact, it's wonderful.

[roguevalley]

84. put 25$ into a tax deferred annuity starting when you are young.

increase it as much as you can and it will save you when you're old. defer some of your fun and games for later. but remember. you can't take it with you when you go. balance your responsibilities. Education helps. Good luck, kid.

[Javaman]

79. If it wasn't for the coming of peak oil, I would die at my desk. lol nt

[blues90]

89. People should bea able to work as long as they desire to do so

There is one problem however , what happens if they lose their job and these days at 65 or even 55 it is not easy to even find a job .

This has become part of a huge problem for many . It's not like there are jobs a plenty or jobs that pay more than min wage . Each year thousands of youth graduate and many are out looking and can't find work so what do you do about that . it's not the 50's or 60's anylonger it's the new world order the global economy sucking us dry .

[Manifestor_of_Light]

114. A lot of us are retired early.

We can't find jobs. If you're over 40 you're too old and overqualified.

I'm 52 and am involuntarily retired. Decided I could swing it if I sell my house.

No pension, no health insurance. Since the unemployment rate is far higher than the government admits, that means that millions of us who are able to work are not paying into social security.

BTW, the illegal aliens are paying in billions in SS out of their paychecks that they will never see, because they are not citizens. They are using fake SS Numbers. You never read about the fact that they are contributing heavily to the SS surplus.

[progressoid]

94. I turned 44 yesterday.

After a review of our income and expenses, my wife and I don't see retirement in our future.

We expect to work till we die - if there are jobs for us.

We hardly live a luxurious life. We haven't taken our kids on a vacation in over 9 years.

Tomorrow I'll go to the bank to see if see what can be done to redistribute some of our debt.

To the boomers who want to retire now but can't, I wish I could be sympathetic.

[leftofthedial]

103. short of winning the lottery (and I don't play the lottery)

I will never be able to retire

[liberal N proud]

107. Same here

Past putting a dollar on it when the jackpot gets to record highs and it is all over the place with the media, I don't even think about it.
I would have to go out of my way to play and that is just not me.

[leftofthedial]

110. next to legalized gambling

and corporate ownership of the federal government

the lottery is the largest transfer of wealth away from the middle class on the planet

[mackattack]

113. I just wish

The Boomers could afford to retire (Parents both in 60's and still working). I was promised that they would and thousands of jobs would be available, but no. Anyone need an archivist? Will accession for food.

[dysfunctional press]

116. i retired 8 years ago, at age 38...

but-
i had to develop a painful and crippling spinal condition to do so.