General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQuestion we should ask those who advocate for raising the retirement age.
I'm thinking this should be asked of all members of Congress, all think tank spokespeople, and ordinary citizens who repeat the meme, "We have to raise the retirement age."
Here it is:
How many people aged between 65 and 70 are you now employing?
And to DUers, I ask, how many of your employees or co-workers are aged between 65 and 70?
The US reports that there were 49,972,181 Americans aged 62 and over in 2010 and that the number had increased by 8,716,152 over the statistic in 2000.
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)I am in my mid 50s and each year we go through the annual re-organization shuffle where they layoff people and then 3 months later hire the same number or more. The people laid off include some under-performers but most are people that come to work, do a solid job, and go home.
While every layoff requires an employer to provide an age (and possibly gender) breakdown of those laid off to attempt to disprove any allegations of age discrimination, we know it happens.
Employers are under the impression that older workers are less effective, less "up to date" with the latest technology and methods, are too expensive because they are at the higher end of their pay bands, have the highest range of benefits including vacation and may just start having some health issues including taking time off from work as well as using health care.
Some of that around health care is not unwarranted. But I suggest that often the employee with years of experience makes better decisions, has deeper insight into problems and solutions, etc.
In my industry I started out when much of the "information work" was manual. Most of it is automated today but when something goes wrong, the younger workers have no idea how the whole system works or how to go about solving a problem manually.
There is value in older workers. I have nothing against younger workers and suggest we need to allow people to retire so younger workers can find employment. One issue today is the situation where people stay in jobs even when they could otherwise afford to retire, or want to retire, simply because they need their health insurance until they are eligible for Medicare.
It is a sick society that holds people in a job simply because of the need for affordable health insurance.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)i believe, under 65.6
Eligibility for full Social Security starts later, but I think 65 is still the age for Medicare. I could be wrong, and I hope someone will correct me on that if I am.
I am specifically thinking of those of us between 65 and 70.
This came to my mind because I applied for jobs a few years ago and have now been sorting through files and throwing away old records. I ran across a huge packet of job applications I made when I was all of 61. I am highly qualified, but my quest was in vain. No job, not even something part-time that made some economic sense.
In the light of the anti-Social Security and anti-Medicare propaganda claiming we have to raise the retirement age to 70, my experience is very instructive.
As for technical expertise, I worked for a non-profit some years ago. They were given a computer by a large corporation. I read the manuals and figured out how to make it work. No one else in the company, whether younger or older did what I did in terms of learning the technology. I'm not sure I could do that now that I am getting closer to 70. Maybe I'm just a bit too disappointed to bother attacking new technological challenges. I don't think it is that I can't do it. I just am kind of resigned to sticking with what I know.
Aging is not an easy process. These anti-Social Security, anti-Medicare people are cruelly adding yet another cause for anxiety to those of us who are aging and aged.
It's just plain mean. There is always, always lots of money for the arms manufacturers.
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)Many come back to consult (one guy has been consulting for 8 years now). The pension rules have changed for us newbies, and I am looking at 67 (which also matches S.S.). I think I will stay around to 67 or until they ask me to leave.
Can you imagine someone trying to do construction or road work or even a factory job where you stand for 8 hours at 70? Actually as time goes along it becomes harder for me to keep up with the technology in my field - I can't imagine what it will be like in 20 years for me.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And then there is heart disease, which becomes a more likely problem as a person ages.
Physical exertion is difficult, even disabling for people with these conditions, but the normal psychological stress of the workplace is also more difficult for many (not all people) in this 65-70 age group.
I very much wanted to work until 70 and went back to school to get a degree in a field in which I could reasonably do that. But employers really did not want me even though I am told that I do not look as old as I am.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)and a welder before that. His eyes are shot and he cannot drive after dark. His knees need to be replaced and his shoulder has permanent, disabling damage. If it weren't for his union, he would have NO health care benefits for another 3 years!
Our friend and others like him are real people. I wonder where the pundits find those robust (but nonetheless greedy) seniors they like to complain about...
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Superb engineer. Unfortunately we decided to not hire for that position, business was light.
But I think it's rare - even among the 100 or so engineers in my company, maybe 2 are 65 or older.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It's one thing to retain an employee and quite another to hire an employee over 65 in anything more demanding than a Walmart greeter job.
I do occasionally see people in maybe their early and mid-60s in grocery stores. They usually look very nervous.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)In my field, engineering, there are certain things that only come with age. There are certain other things that tend to diminish with age. So a mix of ages is really ideal.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)According to all of his coworkers - All he does is refuse new work assignments, bullshit and take naps. He knows they can't touch him because of the laws against age discrimination.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)it backs up my point -- that most employers and younger employees really don't want people over 65 in the workplace. In general, as we age, we get tired more easily and more often than we did when we were as little as five or six years younger.
There just comes a time when your body doesn't keep up with the bodies of younger people. It's a fact of life, and those who oppose Social Security know it very well. That's why most of them do not prefer to hire people over 65. If they really thought that Social Security should be abolished, they would be hiring over 65s on a preferential basis. Not going to happen. Probably should not happen.
I'm the first to object to age discrimination, and how old you are mentally and physically depends on the individual. I worked with a guy in his early 50s who slept at his desk very often. I would enter his office and there he was. I don't think he even realized that he was sleeping. He did it so often. Maybe he had narcolepsy. But then I have worked with much older people who stayed alert and performed -- not as quickly and efficiently as someone 20 years younger, but . . . .
I am, of course, pointing at the hypocrisy of saying on the one hand that the Social Security should not pay benefits to people under 70 and the fact that those who say that do not hire people between 65 and 70 in large enough numbers to provide an income for people in that age group.
SharonAnn
(13,772 posts)firing someone "with cause".
Unless, of course, all the other coworkers also refuse new work assignments, bullshit and take naps. If they do, then it could be considered age discrimination if the 70 year old is the only one fired.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
dana_b
(11,546 posts)larger. By 2020 15-17% of the population will be 65 or older (from my psych class 
). Where will the jobs be for all of these people and what about the younger people? It is such crap.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)So cos. will be forced to hire older people.
But I've noticed an increase in work visas, and then of course there's the outsourcing that's going on.
It's a problem. Because of course, SS will be running out of money in about 10 yrs, and the country will have to borrow to pay the SS benefits. Raising the ceiling wouldn't solve the whole problem, is what I've heard. And I'm not so sure that's fair...to raise taxes so much that it a sure thing that those people will never receive the benefits that they paid in. That wasn't how Social Security was set up to be run. It was "you pay in....you get back" program.
So it'll probably end up being...raise taxes a bit more, raise the "full benefit" age a bit, cut the amount benefits that are rec'd by all.
There's no good answer.
Part of the problem is that SS is paying for things that it was never set up for, like disability for younger people. That's a benefit that no one would like to see go away, but SS was not set up to pay for that.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)My Congressman, Xavier Becerra, does not agree with that.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Social Security will run out of funds, and trust fund borrowed assets, in 2020. After then, it will have to start selling its assets, and will run out of those 2033. After then, tax income will be insufficient to pay the benefits. It's a combination of the tax cuts in recent years, a flood of baby boomers aging, and not enough younger workers paying payroll taxes.
"Social Security
Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086."
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The SS trust report uses extremely conservative figures. The CBO report, which is a bit more realistic, gives a date of 2038, when the youngest boomer will be 74.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41644
The bottom line is that regardless of which estimate you use, the SS trust fund works because the boomers eventually die off, and when they die off the worker to retiree ratio goes back up.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)As far as age goes, I am a baby boomer. I am 58. I will probably live to about 85, maybe 90. All those people with diabetes and high blood pressure won't. And men won't. But the expected lifespan keeps increasing.
I will probably receive benefits for 25 maybe 30 years, beginning in 2016. Unless I can hold out to receive higher benefits starting a few years later, which I doubt I can.
The worker to retiree ratio doesn't go back up, I think, as long as people continue to have fewer children, which is the trend. Gone are the days where families had lots of kids. My grandparents had 14 to 21 siblings. I am one of 5, and that wasn't unusual for families in the 50's.
I think the trend toward having fewer children is a good thing, for a lot of reasons. But one of the problems it does seem to create is with systems that depend on current workers to pay for the crop of prior workers' benefits. That only works well when the population is expanding. Add to that work visas increasing and outsourcing...cutting payroll taxes, and I can see the problem.
They will fix it, but it will take something. Take your pick. This has happened before, and it was fixed. The retirement age was raised, and I think taxes were increased.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Those assets in the SS trust fund were paid by workers with the full expectation that they would be used some day. If the trust fund isn't used, it will be a huge lie on the backs of American workers.
Some people will live into their 90s and continue to receive SS benefits, but most won't. It's the same as today, and I don't expect life expectancy in the US to continue to go up. If anything I expect it to go down.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Social Security Disability became a Social Security benefit in 1956, but was discussed from the very beginning of the program. SSD is funded through regular Social Security taxes, and is given to any disabled worker who's paid into the system long enough to become vested.
There's another disability program, and it's the one that the majority of young people receiving disability are on.
It's called Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and any disabled person can get it (if they meet the criteria), even if they've never worked a day in their life.
It's administered by the Social Security Administration, but it's *not* funded with the SS taxes taken out of workers' paychecks. It's funded with income taxes. SSI can be considered "welfare," since there's no requirement to have paid into the system.
SSD only goes to those who've paid into the system.
Much of the conceptual work that underpinned Social Security Disability Insurance took place in the 1930's and early 1940's. Passage of the measure did not occur until the 1950's. The delay reflected the understandable lack of attention to domestic policy during the years of World War II and the reality that public assistance paid higher benefits and reached more people than did Social Security between 1935 and 1950. Members of Congress who represented constituents in areas that contained few industrial and commercial workers had no reason to wish to expand Social Security, much less to acquiesce to the passage of Social Security Disability Insurance.
Social Security Disability Insurance did not receive serious attention from Congress until the Committee on Ways and Means held hearings on this topic, and other topics related to Social Security, in 1949. By this time the depression was over, and wartime conditions had helped to bring rehabilitation medicine to maturity. As a consequence, the opponents of Social Security Disability Insurance argued that people with disabilities should receive rehabilitation, rather than a pension that allowed them to retire from the labor force for life. Social Security officials conceded the importance of rehabilitation and even gave serious consideration to recommending that applicants to the disability rolls should receive rehabilitation services and interim payments before they entered the rolls on a permanent basis. They managed to persuade the Committee, however, that, important as rehabilitation was, it did not supersede the need for cash benefits. As a consequence, the Committee included a disability insurance program in the bill that the House of Representatives passed in 1949...
http://www.ssa.gov/history/edberkdib.html
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)"The Social Security program as Congress originally enacted it did not provide universal coverage for retirement benefits but provided benefits principally for industrial employees. The legislation initially excluded most workers, including farm laborers, the self-employed, educators, household servants, casual laborers, and the unemployed.
The government mailed the first Social Security check in 1940 to Ida May Fuller in Ludlow, Vermont, just as the Depression was ending. Ida May Fuller lived for thirty-five more years, until 1975, and by that date, Congress had expanded the Social Security system to cover nearly all workers. Coverage was also broadened to include dependents of workers and disabled employees. By the end of the twentieth century, almost 150 million Americans contributed to the system and more than forty million received benefits. The government paid about 7.5 million individuals survivor benefits, and six million received disability benefits."
http://www.enotes.com/social-security-act-1935-reference/social-security-act-1935
As you can see, between its inception and 1975, Social Security was expanded to include more than twice as many people as it originally was intended for. You can receive disability even though you have paid a pittance into Social Security. I don't want to take that away, but that wasn't the way Soc Sec was set up to work. So we now have a problem. In fact, every decade or two, we have the same problem.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)unlike yourself, actually read.
Much of the conceptual work that underpinned Social Security Disability Insurance took place in the 1930's and early 1940's.
Passage of the measure did not occur until the 1950's. The delay reflected the understandable lack of attention to domestic policy during the years of World War II and the reality that public assistance paid higher benefits and reached more people than did Social Security between 1935 and 1950.
Social Security Disability Insurance did not receive serious attention from Congress until the Committee on Ways and Means held hearings on this topic, and other topics related to Social Security, in 1949... the Committee included a disability insurance program in the bill that the House of Representatives passed in 1949. The Senate chose to emphasize rehabilitation, rather than cash benefits, and did not include disability insurance in its version of the Social Security bill that was passed in 1950. The House receded in conference, and as a compromise measure Congress adopted a new public assistance category, Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled... A series of incremental, compromise laws in 1952 and 1954 paved the way for the final passage of SSDI in 1956.
SS has been paying disability in some form since 1949 and in full form since 1956. Disability insurance was included in the original conceptualization and discussion of SS.
SS taxes have increased to cover SSD -- one of the reasons we now pay 6.2% instead of 1%. You're probably also not aware of the SS benefits that have been *cut back* or cut altogether since the 70s, either.
It takes TEN YEARS of work to vest in SS. You may call it a "pittance," I don't.
Assuming that you were born after 1928, you need 40 quarters, or 10 years of work and associated payment of Social Security taxes.
http://www.retirementincomevisions.com/retirement-income-visions/2011/03/your-social-security-retirement-asset-part-3-of-3.html
Yes, you can get disability if you've paid enough into the system to become vested. If you think that's problematic, you don't understand how insurance works.
And the "young people" you talk about who are getting disability are mostly getting SSI, i.e. "welfare" paid out of general revenues, not out of Social Security taxes. Because if you start working at 18 you have to be at least 28 to be vested.
It's really pompous to call people "grasshopper" and tell them they're "unwise" and "incorrect" when it's clear you don't know much about the history of the program or how it works.
