Thom Hartmann: Lower The Retirement Age From 65 To 55
As always, Thom Hartmann makes a lot of sense:
One of the most powerful forms of stimulus we could apply to our economy right now would be to lower the current Social Security retirement age from the current 65-67 to 55, and increase the benefits back to where they were in inflation-adjusted 1960s dollars by raising them between 10 to 20 percent (so people could actually live, albeit modestly, on Social Security).
The right-wing reaction to this, of course, will be to say that with fewer people working and more people drawing benefits, it would bankrupt Social Security and destroy the economy. But history shows the exact reverse.
Instead, it would eliminate the problem of unemployment in the United States. All those Boomers retiring would make room in the labor market for all the recent high-school and college graduates who are now finding it so hard to find a job.
Hartmann goes on in the article to discuss in detail about how lowering the retirement age would open up thousands of jobs nationwide, and how wages for working class Americans have been devastated since the days of Ronald Reagan and our old pal Alan Greenspan started gutting unions and trying to lower our standard of living:
In September of 2007, in an interview on C-SPAN for Book TV, Greenspan said: “We pay the highest skilled labor wages in the world. If we would open up our borders to skilled labor far more than we do, we would attract a very substantial quantity of skilled labor which would suppress the wage levels of the skilled, because the skilled are essentially being subsidized by the government, meaning our competition is being kept outside the country.”
It’s shocking that ideologues like Greenspan, Reagan, and Clinton believe this, but they do. And the only way to reverse the past 29 years of Reaganomics/Clintonomics is to tighten up the labor market again. While a great start would be to pull out of our insane trade treaties and begin again protecting American manufacturers, that will take a decade for the impact to be truly felt even if we were to go back to our 1980 tariff levels today. Read on...
Thom finishes by stating that his plan would ultimately "take us to nearly zero unemployment and dramatically stimulate the economy." I happen to think it's a good idea. What say you?
some cases that the conservatives have a problem with.
It is the fact that it may help and benefit the population that they can not stand.
the inferior, "undeserving" (fill-in-the-blanks).....
Thanks to the stock market and real estate crash, very few people can afford to retire at 65, let alone earlier. Get a clue.
Alan Grayson for President, Elizabeth Warren for Vice President, and Paul Krugman for Secretary of the Treasury!
like the stock market to provide security for retirement.
I have no idea why is it so wrong for people, who have paid their taxes and benefits, to expect to be able to retire without having to recourse to "schemes" like real state or stock market speculation.
As I have qualified many times in this thread, I don't think this is directed for every person over 55. But it makes a whole lot of sense, for some of the people in that age range who are going to be laid off, and whose prospects of finding a new job are null... and leaving the situation all it does is putting more pressure on the job market. Which may have a compounding effect in a situation where the the economy is shrinking.
that social security would provide enough income so that those aged 55 to 64 could retire and still pay their housing expenses, etc.
Second, we'd have to eliminate all the corporatists who, like Greenspan, think that paying us common laborers decent wages is the equivalent of 'government subsidies.' Note that these same corporatists have not a scintilla of hesitation about getting salaries and bonuses measured in the millions of dollars...
Social security is paid for by the the contributions of the current work force. It isn't a bank account where the money is salted away somewhere. Early retirement would reduce the tax base, and adding more retirees would increase the expenditures - the idea would turn an immanent crisis into an immediate crisis - while we are struggling to overcome the wreckage of 8 years of Bush and the Republicans' misrule.
Alan Grayson for President, Elizabeth Warren for Vice President, and Paul Krugman for Secretary of the Treasury!
--by not retiring.
I believe laws protect me, as long as I perform.
Teacher in CA
Isn't it true that California teachers do not pay into the Social Security System..?
Hartmann is talking about only using Soc. Sec. benefits to live on. As is stated above, relying on schemes like the stock market and risky savings plans like 401ks is exactly that - risky.
I don't give my money to people I don't know to fuck around with for their gain.
I don't have any debt.
If my current level of benefits were increased by 20%, by the time I reached 55, I could live comfortably and modestly for the remainder of my years.
Nothing wrong with that.
I agree with Hartmann.
that capitalists want full employment, or even anything less than about 4% unemployment.
no they want really high unemployment, actually. working people will accept low wages if the alternative is no job at all. its why they want to keep the working class large, keep the elderly in, keep them immigrants coming, they will drive down wages. if employment was full, wages would go up as people would have the freedom to leave their poorly paid job for a better paying job.
if they can't laugh while they watch the people at the middle and the bottom sweat to make ends meet.
Theoretically, high employment and high wages would translate to higher purchasing power... thus more money being put back into the economy... thus more corporate profits. But it was never about profit for these people, was it? I know understand why MBAs and economist tend to do so well in tests aimed at identifying sociopathic tendencies.
indeed, its about control.
that they want employer-provided health insurance to remain the incentive for most of us to stay in jobs that are deleterious; or to tolerate rude, abusive, unprofessional managers.
Again, no mention is made of the obscene amounts of money paid to these corporatists. And, look at how the mega-banks have posted 'profits' right after they've blown through our tax dollars. And, they're not being held accountable for how they spent this money.
Corportists¨are too busy stealing the bread out of our mouths.
Sounds like we're trying to imitate all those communist countries like Germany and France. Rush'll have a fit.
God's ears, my brotha...
...it's the best idea I've heard in a long,long time.
In fact it makes so much sense that it's bound to fail.
Lower the retirement age.
and then ignored...
Thom is generally well-informed, but this plan is fraught with problems. Consider:
(1) We're already facing some tough choices in regard to Social Security, e.g., raising taxes, because of the number of boomers, and compounded by the likelihood that tomorrow's recipients are likely to live longer than today's recipients.
(2) Thom's argument doesn't account for the fact that a lot of wage earners pay into the system but never recover because they die early. While it sounds morbid, the system depends on this result. Reducing the retirement age to 55 would completely change the landscape, and result in benefits being paid to a whole new cohort.
(3) Thom's plan presumes that the labor market will tighten because those age 55 will stop working. This is a pretty bad assumption. Many people already receiving Social Security continue to work in order to supplement their income, e.g., Wal-Mart greeters. Additionally, I suspect a lot of people will be unable to save enough to supplement their Social Security benefits, a necessity given that: (i) the present recession has wiped out a lot of 401k accounts; (ii) mortgages are not usually satisfied by age 55; and (iii) parents are often forced to delay saving in order to send their children to college, a necessity given the outrageous growth in college tuition. Accordingly, I suspect that allowing people to retire at 55 will not tighten the labor market, but instead result in a lot of double-dipping, thereby raising the costs of Social Secuity without the attendant benefit of decreasing unemployment.
(4) Thom's argument also fails to account for the lost productivity we'd likely experience. Frankly, at least as far as white-collar industry is concerned, there's a lot of productivity left between 55 and 65, given that experience is paramount. I'm not sure that we'd want to throw all that experience overboard. To the extent we allowed people to continue working, you're right back at square one, only now you're paying them Social Security, too.
practical on us. Geez.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I was already makin' plans.
Lower the retirement age.
I think you missed one thing in your evaluation.
He thinks that taking people out of the workforce and giving them a high social security payout will be offset by people filling the same jobs they were doing. Yes I agree it would lower unemployment. But if they are already running into trouble with social security how will increasing the number of people on it and increasing the amount going out per person be offset by people filling jobs that the newly retired already have?
Same number of jobs, same tax base. More money going out. It seems to me that would be like me having problems with my bills, so I spend more, with no more coming in to fix it.
If someone could explain to me how that works, I'd appreciate it.
The idea is that this would drive up wages which would increase tax revenue. He also proposes doing away with the cap on Social Security to increase revenue.
. . . he assumes an insular labor market.
Jobs are already being shipped overseas as fast as we can create them -- his conclusion that tighter employment will drive up wages is probably right, but those increases will be felt in China and India, not in the United States.
55-65 should consist of consultation jobs.
Eliminate SS and retirement altogether. Why should those lazy grandparents get out of putting in a full day's work?
What's that, Grandma? You say you lost all your savings in the bank meltdown, your house is being foreclosed, and you have no way to pay for a new place? Too fucking bad. Die in the street, you lazy bitch.
Yeah, they're really fucking compassionate, that bunch.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
you pretty much nailed what I'm going through. Three years ago, I left the mortgage industry because I refused to sell subprimes. I have been struggling since then to get my teaching certification in an insular district overrun by unprofessional administrators. In my first year as a teacher, I was told that I'm "too intelligent to teach these kids" (presumably, my predominantly Latino students don't have a functioning braincell among them...), and I was forced to resign in lieu of a 'non-renewal' clause in my personnel file.
Now, I cannot get an interview, no one will return my calls, and I am facing homelessness by the end of September. With my cadre of friends, I likely won't die in the street, but I doubt sincerely that I will get to teach again in this district.
Fortunately, these highly inappropriate individuals will not deter me from getting my certification so that I can teach. I will have to start over, but I remain hopeful that I can find a district (or some state other than Texas with its ridiculous TAKS tests) where my intellect, my exuberance and my dedication to our youth will be appreciated.
Lay them off. Let them collect unemployment while paying their credit card debt and desperately making their COBRA payments for 18 months. Then let the angst and the death panels take care of them before we have to spend any of the SS or Medicare Trust Funds on them.
They are boomers. It is all their fault anyway.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
n/t
I believe Ricky was playing with sarcasm. I also believe that Ricky might be a boomer.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
keeps me feeling young. That and the boner pills.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Big pharma must have a perpetual boner about the profits they reap from those little blue pills...
Sure the right wingers will bitch and moan, but they need to shut their fucking mouths now. They had their chance.
Labor always thinks that it easy to spend money. but no way to pay for it. This is the problem with the left they always have ideas but no way to pay for them.
.
those more enlightened share.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Unlike the right who blithely spend billions on wars of aggression, funding them with the surpluses of the Democratic administrations.
If you're gonna blow the right-wing horn, wild spending sprees are NOT the subject to do it on, Sparky.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
except, it's TRILLIONS, dear.
The hubris of those among us who whinge about spending for social programs rather than illegal invasions! What nincowpoops! What ultramaroons!!
i assure we live in a vastly rich and prosperous society. there is wealth all around us. we can easily afford an earlier retirement age. theres food, houses, and much more for everyone. all high unemployment does is lower wages for everybody, keeping more of the wealth at the top.
and higher competition for existing jobs. I just spoke to a young lady who coordinates substitute teachers for our district. She is dealing with hundreds of new applicants for a position that pays just $65 a day. If you are fortunate enough to sub every school day, that's a take-home of a skosh over $1000 a month.
Just an aside: the majority of the substitutes I've used in our district are wholly inappropriate as teachers. Thus, our students typically get a 'babysitter' who will find classroom management daunting, and for whom the subject matter is largely incomprehensible. Thus are we 'educating' our newest crop of factory fodder.
Ah noblesse oblige.…
TaxEat the rich.A Bankster in every pot.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
The top 1% only comes out to 3 million people, not enough to feed the rest of the population for any length of time.
Frankly, bringing back Madame La Guillotine might put the fear of reprisal into certain deserving hearts. Let the taste of their wealth turn bitter in their mouths
I can't imagine those people would taste good in a soup. Selfishness and greed do not good spices make.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
..RICH people?
Too rich, too fat, not enough fiber.
I'm afraid that diet would make me overweight and constipated.
for the chef but decline to participate in the meal.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Would "no experience needed" be in every jobs available ad?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
"No Irish!"
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
It's an excellent idea. Another advantage is that the change would offer a way out to people who are older and trying to find work, but cannot because so many employers will immediately jump on the younger candidates, ignoring experience in favor of youth. All those folks who are in bad straits, worried because they don't know how they'll survive, could at least retire and live modestly, as you say, instead of ending up on the street because they have no way to make a living.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
I've never heard that proposed, but damn, it make a lot of sense! Again, we see how it has always taken a progressive mind to lead humankind to new ideas and advancement.
Ideas like this are what causes progressives to be perceived as deranged. What positions currently held by people with 30 years experience in the workforce does Thom think new workers are going to assume? I am also amazed that Thom, who claims to have not only a progressive but also spiritually enlightened POV, would take a fixed pie-zero sum view of the job market. The solution is not reslice the pie, but to make it bigger. Let's help all workers and job seekers increase their skills and provide capital and incentives to those who would like to hire them.
you'd see old Thom wearing a pair of Birkenstocks, too. Every Thom I know has a pair.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Hell, I have several pairs and I'm not even named Thom.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
OK, not really
Skechers for me.
Hold on there. What makes you think workers with 30-year experience have any guarantee of KEEPING their jobs? People like that are let go every day in favor of young workers, who can be hired on as "contract" workers, i.e., part-time work, no benefits of any kind. Believe me, I've seen it happen many times.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
I wouldn't say workers with 30 years' experience are necessarily safe in their jobs. I am just puzzled that Hartman somehow seems labor as some sort of fungible commodity with no regard to the skills and experience of those being moved in and out of the workplace.
of vice versa.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Some tenured teachers have all the job security in the world & they are not great teachers b/c they know they can't get fired. How about filling those unmotivated positions with kids straight out of college w/new attitudes & new ways of teaching kids? Just this past year, so many teachers were let go b/c they didn't have enough years to be tenured (ie: recent college grads), but yet they're just as good if not better.
This is just one example, I'm sure there are plenty of others out there. Unskilled labor comes to mind as well. How about having younger workers do a 6 month or so apprenticeship to learn some of the skills. Yes I know time is not on their side, but you have to figure that if people are willing to learn, there should be others there to teach.
What are you talking about? Tenure has nothing to do with lowering the retirement age. The teachers that were 'let go' more than likely had to do with their abilities. Not having enough years for tenure is right, they have to show a level of high proficiency before being granted tenure. It is all about money anyway and if it wasn't for tenure, excellent teachers would be booted out because they make 'too much money'. (check out the average teachers salary in the US.) You make a lame argument against lowering the retirement age.
BriGuy27 apparently has no first hand experience in the insular world of teaching. Younger teachers are all the rage, both because they are perceived as more innovative and energetic, and because their beginning salaries are lower than the salaries of teachers who have a few years in the system.
Right now, the teaching profession is being overrun by unemployed professionals who see teaching as an 'easy' and comparatively 'safe' way to make an adequate salary while everyone waits for the economy to improve. We will always need teachers, right?
Unfortunately, many of these professionals are dismayed to find out how difficult it is to manage a classroom full of children, much less engage them in learning and instill in them a lifelong love of learning. For far too many, that's not even on their radar screen.
I taught for 34 years, it is not a walk in the park that many people think it is. We have classrooms with 38 students in them (saves money on hiring new teachers or keeping on staff that already exists in school districts), try spending a few days with that kind of work load and tell me about how easy teaching is. If you've never been in a classroom with students, please stop telling me about coming in with new ideas, and fresh ideas.
I supervise student teachers now and the 'new ones' are not made of the same stuff as the 'old ones' for sure. This may seem to be a pathway for unemployed professionals to get work, but it is not how we should be staffing our schools and giving our children a proper education that they deserve, just as giving our citizens health care that they deserve.
Chervilant is right, BriGuy27 has absolutley no first hand experience.
If Thom were a paid journalist, surely he could be easily replaced by some randomly selected 18 year old. I would prefer an 18 year old who can see the country of Africa from his or her front porch. Hey, how about the Palin kid? Isn't the pregnant one 18? She needs a job...
Alan Grayson for President, Elizabeth Warren for Vice President, and Paul Krugman for Secretary of the Treasury!
I'm actually in the age group Hartmann is talking about and could retire right now under a defined benefit plan with a decent pension augmented by a supplemental until SS kicks in. The problem is that paying the full shot for medical makes it unfeasible from both an exhorbitant expense standpoint and the uncertainty that being in a group plan that could dump me any time. They would also have to retool 401k rules for many to be able to make it. Although, at 55 there are already ways to withdraw without penalties if done right.
The obvious point.
*
I'm ready for my future as a Wal Mart greeter. I love those little lead toys from China. Always Lower Prices. Always.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
exceeded your skill-set.
All that sugar gives us the Audacity of Hope.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I bet if you shared some of your kool aid with woody, he might not be so grumpy. A little sweetness never hurt anyone.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
diabetics.
;o}
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
A tiny sip wouldn't hurt. Just to get the sugary yumminess of fake flavoring, water and gobs of sugar.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Pith and vinegar. And crawdads. All them Loozianny
boys likes the taste of crawdads.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
That we could lower the retirement age and increase benefits even as life expectancy is increasing. Counting on higher employment and payroll taxes to make up the difference sounds a little bit like Reaganomics to me.
Hell, just the mere threat of Star Wars and we stopped those Commie missiles right in their tracks. LEt's throw that Laffler curve at the plate and see who wiffs at it.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
One guy put it this way.
Instead of bailing out all those Banks:
With 40 million workers over 50, give each $1 million to retire. Creates More Jobs!
1.) they must buy one car. Auto industry saved!
2.) They must pay off their existing mortage or buy a new home. Bank loan deficit solved!
Donaldd
property taxes for even middle aged folk and pollute the air with all those cars.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
if part of the plan is that they buy hybrids or that brazen new electric car! Hell, if they are required to buy the electric car, presto! We have a burgeoning new industry that will require a whole new workforce!!!
Geez, Donaldd, you're brilliant, dude! When do I get my cool million?!?
Even if the retirement age is lowered, I can't see Social Security being raised high enough to cover living expenses.
Anecdote: My step-father retired at age 55 after 30 years on the state police. He had a fairly good pension ($2400-$2800/month + SS ten years later). At age 68, he got into some financial trouble (credit cards and a co-signing for a neighbor) It was so bad my mom had to legally separate from him to get him out of the house to save herself. Even so, her credit score tanked, but he was responsible for the debt.
At age 70, he had to return to work in order to dig himself out of the financial mess. After 5 years of working full-time, he is now recovering from the disaster, but it has taken its toll.
Most Seniors cannot live on SS alone, and many are remaining or returning to the workforce.
The average monthly benefit for retirees is $1,153 this year. And that's BEFORE Medicare deductions.
I like Thom's idea (very similar to my healthcare coverage idea), but I don't see how it can work in today's financial climate.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
SS, not just SS alone. And I don't believe it is a mandatory retirement, it is targeted towards specific cases.
It is basically a subsidy to reduce the pressure on certain sectors of the job market, which will not (or can not) recover quickly enough... and thus compound the problems in the recovery. It is not a new idea at all. The money invested in the subsidy returns to the economy anyways, and it allows people to retire with dignity, rather than force them to live like you step dad had to.
If we want to pretend we live in a civilized society, it is time for us to start acting like one.
Where are we getting those?
I am completely open to cutting the Pentagon's budget in a big way, but good luck with that.
I have always supported SS payments being withheld from ALL income, no caps, no matter the source of the income-but again, good luck with that.
My point is, without MAJOR changes in the way things work around here, we are all screwed. Seemingly long-term screwed.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
... and that is why proposals like these will never take hold, since they are made from a social perspective not one concerned purely on corporate profits.
The total cost for this proposal, would most likely be a fraction of the TARP funds. But as a society we're f*cked because it makes more sense to put public money in the hands of bankers to loan it to us back with interest, than give it directly to the people who need it most so that they can put that same money back into the economy (with a far quick turn around I may add).
A country which can fund the largest financial bailout in history, and two concurrent massive wars... yet has plenty of people not "getting" an economic proposal based mostly around the needs of large sections of our population, such country is indeed screwed.
only gets about $980/mo. Her home is paid for, and her property taxes are fairly low, but she has almost no discretionary funds, and must do her own yardwork (she's 70). God forbid she have a financial setback like your step-father's.
I doubt that even a 30% increase would be adequate to enable retirees to 'live modestly.' However, if we advocate for a better retirement system, I think the vast majority of our youth would participate in the workforce with increased fervor and an eye toward their own safe, secure retirement.
Why is it so very hard for our citizens to understand that the sweat of our brows creates the wealth of this nation, and our tax dollars are ours to spend as we see fit?!? Why can't we dedicate the vast majority of our tax resources to social programs that benefit US and our own infrastructure?!?
The corporatists sure have brainwashed a huge segment of our society...
Thom usually thinks things through. I don't think he did here.
One of the things which would have to accompany this plan is a "mandatory" barring of work (for wage earners, not Owners).
There is no way a Social Security check would cover the expenses of the typical 55 year old. Keep in mind that the average SS retirement check is between $1200-1300. that means half the people who receive checks get lower than that amount. The majority of "retirees" would have to keep working in order to cover bills.
It would NOT "fix" unemployment, it would merely create a new class of poor people.
Nice idea at first blush, but he doesn't even bother to look at the down side. It wouldn't solve as many problems as it would create. Thom needs to think on this more.
I've been on VA Disability for more than five years and will turn 55 next month. I KNOW what it's like to live on less than $1000 per month (and, oh, wasn't **I** overjoyed to hear there won't be COLAs for two years!)
"Keep in mind that the average SS retirement check is between $1200-1300. that means half the people who receive checks get lower than that amount"
eh? that implication doesn't seem in correct usage with 'average'. are you sure its half or is that just an assumption?
btw aren't welfare checks much less?
if it takes less people to run the economical machine, shouldn't we give the fruits of that machine to those that have worked it the longest... and then start getting the young to work and earn theirs?
The way "averages" were taught to me is that you add up a bunch of numbers, divide the total amount by the total of the numbers.
Like this:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Amount = 21
Divide by 6
Average is 3.5
Does that help? Not trying to be snarky, just showing what I mean by "average." Maybe half is wrong. I dunno.
but the numbers could look like this:
1
1
4
4
5
6
avg = 3.5 (eg: more than half is actually higher)
average is not the median.
the mean and the median are identical. Your example has two modes, 1 and 4.
Obviously, in some instances, the mean and the median are identical (and, you can construct a data set that yields the same value for all three measures of central tendency). However, in every instance involving a mean, the mean demarcates the data set exactly at the average. Thus, half of the data set's measured value is below the mean, half is above.
For example, if I assert that the average income for a US citizen is $17,000 (I think I'm actually pretty close, but I am too lazy to google it), that does not mean that only half of all US citizens earn less than $17,000. It means that $17,000 is the average income in a data set that is ostensibly comprised of all incomes.
BTW, Corporatists count on (pun intended) our citizens being challenged by simple math, hence the NCLB legislation that prevents teachers from actually teaching math.
I should know... I 'teach' math.
of the concept of average unless the payouts follow a normal distribution. That is not the case. More remedial math required. Your suspicion is justified.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The concept of average is not distribution-dependent.
Look up the difference between mean, median and mode. I suppose I could have been more exact by stating it requires a bilaterally symmetric distribution. The average might 1200 dollars but there may also be a lot of people getting a little bit more than that and a few people getting a lot less. If the distribution is not symmetrical one cannot say half the people get less or more than the average.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
the mean, median, mode, and range of the data set are distribution-independent.
Providing a single number as the "average" obviously does not provide enough information about the behavior of the distribution obviously.
Did you google all that, Tyler? lol
the new/ongoing strategy in this country is you will work until you pass and benefits are going to be difficult to obtain and costly. capitalistic imperialism gone wild.
I truly believe (not being an expert) real single-payer universal health coverage would do more for businesses and the economy in general and we can't get there yet.
UGH!
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
There would be a whole lot of self-employed, startup business and people dropping to part time work if the healthcare risk was made manageable.
nor am i an expert but i believe we would see a major turnaround in our economy in this country. having said that i believe there are those above the political/lawmakers fray who don't want a universal health care system in this country, because it would interfere with their investments in CHINA. china is the wallstreet darling. i don't see how we are going to slow down/stop outsourcing to asia. china is implementing a universal health care system this will only encourage more outsourcing and investing in china.
Would do all those things and it would lower auto insurance also.
A large part of what you pay for auto insurance is for medical expenses. The thing they don't really tell you is that the limits set as minimum is very small. In most cases it might be enough to pay for the ambulance ride to the hospital.
I forget exactly the number but I think it is around six hundred dollars a year for the thousand in coverage. But believe me if you have anything worse then a hang nail this won't cover the cost!
I ment to say ten thousand in coverage for about six hundred a year!
of course it would! if you could cut your GDP spent on healthcare in half, well thats a large chunk that could be used to invest in growth elsewhere.
... I don't see these proposals as an "either or" proposition. But rather different ideas, other than the current "lets throw shitloads of money to the banks and let's see what happens."
Yea, I'm full liberal and am kind of curious where the money would come from.
And thus the H1B visas were created to let any yahoo into the country to deflate the wages of software developers during the bubble. The hype about their being a critical shortage of qualified developers was just another lie to suppress wages.
everything that comes out of Greenspan's mouth is either blatantly disingenuous (wasn't he the one who pushed people to buy ARMs?) or designed to further the agenda of the Corporatists.
The only thing that paragraph proves to me is that Greenspan is a cunning linquist (which reminds me of a vile sexist joke that my old manager pulled out of his pants every chance he got).
The current life expectancies in the US are approximately 74.4 years for males and 80 years for females. If anyone thinks that changing the average number of years of eligibility for Social Security from 9.4 to 19.4 for males and from 15 to 25 for females will not have a profoundly adverse influence on the financial viability of Social Security they'd better take the course.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
So, the idea is to have fewer Americans working? Err.... How old is this Hartmann guy?
... these proposals are usually aimed towards "old" people who are in companies/sectors which are at risk of going under in this economic cycle. Rather than have these people being laid off, and thus be forced to compete with younger people for a reduced number of positions. You provide them with the possibility of an early retirement.
Thus you reduce the pressure in a depressed job market, you allow people to live with dignity. And all those new retirees have disposable income, which they put back into the economy, which allows more of the youngins to find jobs... many times providing services for the old people enjoying their golden years like they should. The youngins also have the benefit of being more easily trained to meet some of the changing demands from the work force, which older people tend to have trouble satisfying.
Now this does not apply to everyone 55 and higher, just to those at risk of losing their jobs and being left out in the cold.
Does this make sense?
you keep saying that this proposal will be aimed at those who are going to be laid off anyway. How does that fit in with "All those Boomers retiring would make room in the labor market for all the recent high-school and college graduates who are now finding it so hard to find a job." If the job does not exist for the 55 year old why would it exist for the 25 year old? Yes you have mentioned that the new disposable income that they have will open up service jobs, which are historically the lowest paid jobs. But one thing about this new disposable income, Social Security usually pays less than the person makes while working. They are going to still have the same bills but less income. How is that going to free up money to pay for all the services they want?
Also how would they limit it to people who are going to be laid off/out of a job anyway? You know with that equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
solution. But there are cases in which this proposal makes a heck of a lot of sense.
Think of it this way: you have a town where the factory making the trinkets just went under. Now, those jobs are never coming back. So the people who worked 30+ years, and now all about making those trinkets are SOL. They are out of a job, they paid their taxes and benefits all their life... and now they have to compete with younger people, who probably do not have to take care of a family, don't have a mortgage, etc. If you just let the market take care of it, you will end up with a bunch of people competing for the ever diminishing jobs, for less money, which in turn, depresses the local economy further.
I personally, would rather give the retirement money to the people who wish to retire early, probably with some conditions/incentives to make sure the correct audience access the program. And have a middle class, with plenty of disposable income to put back into the economy of their region. Thus providing for more jobs for those youngins which can afford a more 'aggressive' job market situation. It is not the bestests, most ideal solution. But it sure makes a heck of a lot more sense to me, than just let whole regions go down the drain in order to satisfy some sort of mythological sacrifices that must be made in the name of the "market."
I rather give their money directly to the people, than to a bunch of bankers, who never paid their fair share to begin with... and who will bitch and moan to put that money that we gave them into the economy, while charging us even more ridiculous interests for the "privilege."
I am really not interested in reading any more of your creative constitutional interpretation, I think I had my quota filled during the gun nut debates.
you never answered my questions about it. In your hypothetical, "you have a town where the factory making the trinkets just went under. Now, those jobs are never coming back. So the people who worked 30+ years, and now all about making those trinkets are SOL." Where is the money going to come from to pay the extra 10 yrs of Social Security? Also where is this extra disposable income going to come from? Even if Social Security paid the exact same as they were making, they still have the same bills with a few exceptions such as gas back and forth to work, lunch, work clothes etc.
Yes it will prevent some regions from just going down the drain(detroit for instance)but at what cost to the rest of the country? Can you explain how to limit it to people that are going to lose their job? Legally and Constitutionally?
Sometimes his answers have to be implied. He is a busy man.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Is about 54-56.
*
According to wiki, Thom was born in 1951. He is ready to be out of work?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Time for those old Birkenstock heels to be a wandering. Take him disappearing through the smoke rings of his mind.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Greater efficiency and growing populations are the enemies of those who earn their living from labor or knowledge instead of from capital, and also of the environment. For this plan to work we need to link immigration to the unemployment rate, with a commitment to stict employer sanctions and evolving smart ID cards, and foreign aid tied to education and population control instead of military assistance.
Doing this alone would just eat up more rural land from increased housing demand (not tied to work location) and encourage high growth countries to export their people to relieve pressure on their generally oligarchic and corrupt governments to allow change and equal opportunity at home. Wages would go back down, education costs would rise to properly accomodate second language learners and you'd have more social friction for the Republicans to exploit. I like multi-cultural southern California, but until we reach ZPG (or better, reduce population with incentives for the one child or childless families) immigration is a net negative if it continues to boost population in the target country and masks the need for change (including birthrates) in the country of origin. Unmet infrastructure needs, environmental degradation and destructive wage competition as well as deferred social evolution all go hand in hand with unregulated immigration. I don't like the suburbs and live in Los Angeles on purpose, but anyone who doesn't understand that doubling its size (or heading in that general direction) without making huge investments and social changes would make it an unsustainable nightmare, is living in a fantasy world.
"...with fewer people working and more people drawing benefits, it would bankrupt Social Security and destroy the economy. But history shows the exact reverse.
Instead, it would eliminate the problem of unemployment in the United States. All those Boomers retiring would make room in the labor market for all the recent high-school and college graduates who are now finding it so hard to find a job."
The problem facing social security funding is not unemployment of the young. The problem is that people are living longer and having fewer children so there are less workers supporting greater numbers of retirees. Lowering the reirement age will only increase that further. Thom isn't making a whole lot of sense here.
If the retirees are completely replaced by unemployed workers, an unlikely scenario, it would not add a single contributor to SS but the plan would effectively double the liabilities. I can think of no better plan to destroy SS. Surely this idea did not originate from the left?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The retirees now have disposable income, and they require a large degree of services. Guess who provides the work force to meet some of those demands.
Or you can just give tons of money to banksters, and hope they put it back in the economy, and charge us interests for the privilege. If that is your sort of thing...
Most economists agree 10% unempoyment is here for a good long while. Not only is this a drain on government resources, but when unempolyment is high, workers have no leverage. Management continues to reduce benefits and stiffle wages.
Of course, corporations love that, but it just increases the disparity.
that shifting people from employment to SS will increase their incomes? I am not questioning whether or not this idea might provide some overall economic stimulus. I am talking about bankrupting Social Security. The stimulus effect would be minor compared to the disastrous consequences.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
... the SS should be complemented with stimulus money. SS does not go bankrupt since it is not a forced retirement of all the 55+ working population. Simply that portion which is going to be laid off and will not find a job anytime soon.
When the ship is sinking, it makes sense to ameliorate the weight, by putting some people on rescue boats... rather than have everyone stay in the ship until the leak is fixed. You get a little more time to fix things if you reduce the weight.
Rather than throwing money blowing people off in a far away shithole, or giving it in droves to the same people who created this mess. What about giving it so that the people who worked and who paid for most of it... so that they can have a disposable outcome so they can live their lives in dignity, and helping the economy to boot?
Greater efficiency is driving the destruction of jobs and boosting profits as long as the population keeps increasing or stays the same. If we split the profit gain between society, which is the soil from which companies spring anyway (public roads, education and defense), and the capital owners, we could still have innovation and a decent life for most sane humans, that wasn't tied to work anxiety or performance. Most of my adult life has been spent recovering from job layoffs. Great, efficiency is good, just reallocate the affected workers, don't devastate their lives because companies go under in the competition, when we basically have enough, if we'd stop multiplying.
Actual food needs of the US can be met by a very small farm labor force. There is no reason for the spector of hunger or job insecurity to be everyone's companion. We need to slow or reduce labor growth (and environmental pressure from humans) and more sanely allocate wealth in our society. Otto von Bismark, not exactly a raging liberal, pioneered the social pension plan to reduce the risk of destructive revolutions of the French or 1848 varieties. Unlike Fox and its friends, he understood that a social pressure cooker could explode and that is a very ugly thing.
First of all, do you require people to retire at 55 whether they want to or not?
Second - as someone already mentioned, how do you replace skilled workers with 30 yrs experience with newbies?
And third - your idea of how it gets paid for just doesn't seem accurate.
Instead I think we should
1. Let people 55 to 65 buy into Medicare
2. Tax non-salaried income at the same rate as salaried income for SS. I've never understood how a 65 yr old who works at WalMart has to give back SS money for every dollar he earns over a very small number - not sure $25,000...? while people who earn their income from investments pay zilch.
... he is not proposing all 55-yrs old to retire. But allow the possibility for those who are going to be laid off and can't easily be retrained, or their 30+ yrs of experience is in a field which either has moved overseas or has disappeared completely.
Hartman said:
"All those Boomers retiring would make room in the labor market for all the recent high-school and college graduates who are now finding it so hard to find a job.
If enough Boomers left the job market, it would even flip the current dynamic of too-many-people-chasing-too-few-jobs upside down, and create a tight labor markets. Tight labor markets drive up wages."
Maybe not "all 55 year-olds" but he's certainly not limiting to displaced workers. Again, what's with this fixed-pie mentality? Why is it preferable to move people out of the workforce rather than finding ways to have everyone participate?
don't want to have to pay for the pie to begin with.
No matter how you parse Mr. Hartmann's comments, he was most definitively not trying to make this a mandatory "evacuation" of the workforce. But a simple proposal to reduce the current pressure on the work force.
It certainly makes little sense to try to expand the pie when the economy is contracting.
But the facts are that not everyone is able to participate!
For lots of reasons from physical to mental there are people that cannot.
So we can be like you and hate to give these people any of what you perceive to have made all by yourself without help from anyone. No one ever fed or clothed you or furnished you a place to live. Every place you go you build your own roads, and you schooled yourself, no thanks to anyone else?
Yes the myth of the self made republican man.
I heard a man say that if it is true that a human only uses 10% of his brain, then about any subject you can think of you stand a 90% chance of being wrong 100% of the time.
deleted
you mean besides SS and Healthcare, we have to reform the tax code too?
And I'm not just saying that because I am 55 and sick of working for corporate greed monkeys either.
It would reduce unempoyment to the level in which the workers would actually have come leverage with their management. Otherwise, most economists agree that 10% unemployment is here to stay for several years. This in turn, allows management to continue to reduce benefits and keep wages low.
Remember, this has nothing to do with the fact I'ld rather be sailing in the Keys, it's for the good of the country, dammit.
Hey just remember 55 comes earlier for all of you.
As for paying for it, you know, we could let someone else rule the world for a while. It seems to be kind of a no-win deal anyway.
he expects/projects.
For one, few individuals are comfortable/able to retire on social security benefits alone. Few who can afford to retire at 55 would alter their decision much based on when social security kicks in.
The impact would manage to increase entitlement benefits to a sector of society that on average needs it the least (at the expense of young families that can afford it the least), and it would severely damage the economic stability of Social Security and Medicare with a double hit of a massive rise in enrollment and a shrinking base for collection.
Even if I am wrong about this, it certainly isn't something I'd want to see us rush into.
just open up this program to everyone. no it's not a single payer system but that's not happening. i will admit i think that was a bad move by obama. he should have kept that on the table. this program exists in every state and has high marks from participants.
How long after reaching the age of 55 would we be sent before the death panels? If we are denied life by the panel, who gets our stuff?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
The State.
Proceeds from sale would be used to pay for your Death Panel Consultation. In the event that your goods did not generate enough to pay your debt - the debt would then settle on your children - and on and on until the end of time.
*
what a far-thinking idea...but what i'm curious is how quickly would social-security funds be depleted with lowering the age 10 years...that would be the only logical concern i could think of
I would expect from someone that does not understand our form of government. Someone that loves the word American but hates at least half of the people living here!
republicanism is a mental illness!
eliminate the "government". If I didn't have to deal with all of the current license fees, taxes, and regulations I would gladly start and run a business that would hire and put to work a few hundred or more people. Surely that would help tighten up the labor market.
I doubt we could make it on just SS - even with the increase he suggests.
*
What if there was an incentive attached, like committing to service to the country for 20 hours a week or thereabouts? I don't think I'd retire from my current job unless I had another one lined up. Otherwise I'll lose all my excuses for finishing that novel I've been writing for 20 years up in my head.
plans to deal with frictional unemployment. It is ridiculous to assume that the proposed crop of retirees, presumably mostly in senior positions would be replaced from the unemployment roles. No this would require that a massive number of people move up the ladder and that would increase frictional unemployment massively as well. This effect might be of short or long duration but it would a monster all on it's own. I can punch holes in this idea all day. Why don't you run this one by Krugman. I bet it just about gives him a stroke.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I heard this on the radio the other day and it didn't make a lot of sense to me. A 55 year old today is much more active than a 55 year old even a decade ago. They're active and still do sports and travel and like to buy silly junk. They will be living longer on average; this generation will probably be fairly fit into their 80's and 90's. They're not going to settle for a life for 30 or 40 years on a social security check even if it's a little bit larger. But the biggest flaw in this idea is that when faced with a smaller workforce, employers will raise wages. HA! More likely, they will find some way to outsource the work to low wage workers in developing countries.
As a healthy, active 64 year old in higher education, I really see no reason to retire yet. And I doubt that many other between 55 and 65 will feel motivated to just stop working. I still have professional goals and plans. And I do know that, if this were offered to me at an even more healthy, active 55, I would have assumed someone was just trying to get rid of me, to stifle my personal growth.
Also, I really feel no obligation to retire just so someone younger can have a job. When I'm ready to go - or health and other circumstances make it necessary to go, then I will.
I regard the concept of retirement - of doing no meaningful work - as one step above death itself. Maybe worse.
Agreed. Not only that - but 30 years of experience can be next to impossible to replace.
*
then this proposal is definitively not for you.
There may be, however, other people with 30+ years of experience in a sector which either is no longer competitive, it is disappearing, it has a new complete set of requirements/skills, or is in a sector which is simply never going to return to the US. What do you then? Spend the rest of your active years figuring out how to scrap by? Trying to go through the indignity of having to compete for bag packing checkout positions with 16 yr olds?
What if there are simply no jobs in your area? Do you make your own job? Do you begin a new business when banks are not lending? Do you invest your retirement in a new business when you only have less than a decade left for retirement, and thus putting your life savings on the line... because the people who got all the infusion of capital refuse to give it out? So you have to pay for the "privilege" of scrapping by?
Believe it or not, not every proposal has to be about you guys.
this proposal if ran the way the current Social Security program is ran, might just be right for them. They collect social security and still work. If I remember correctly, its been a few years since I discussed it with my dad, currently you can collect the full amount of social security at I think 67, and still work as much as you like with no reduction in benefits. If they lowered the minimum to 55 full social security would probably be around 60ish or so. They could make it where each dollar you earn is a dollar off your benefits though, until a certain age. That might solve some of that.
I don't think anyone can say how it will work because he doesn't.
Or how it will be funded. Just that the current President of Uganda likes it. Isn't Uganda another continent over near Africa?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
My old man was an Asst Postmaster and in 1972 the Government was having a hard time promoting the clerks who had 15 to 20 years of service, because all the Old Duffers like my Dad still needed 3 to 5 years till they could retire.
So the Government offered them a Bonus to retire early, and this opened up the log jam, got rid of a lot of older workers, and gave the younger employees locations in which to move up the ladder.
That's what would happen if people could retire earlier. Get the dead wood out of the way, and allow the younger employees a chance to move up.
An old retired fart.
In my 30+ years in higher education, I have noticed a lot of "dead wood." Some of that dead wood was older, some middle aged and some quite young. Some financial cutbacks where I teach have lead to some of the junior faculty leaving. Somehow the place has more energy and creativity with them gone.
Comments are closed on this entry