Older workers really are having a harder time, and this is why opening Medicare to people 55 and older would have helped the group that was slammed so hard in this recession. But, you know, I guess they're just going to let us hang instead.

Washington, DC—Older workers endured a staggering 331% increase in unemployment over the last 10 years, a new analysis conducted by the AARP Public Policy Institute shows. This dramatic rise in older unemployed workers has resulted in declining financial and retirement security for millions of Americans who have little time to make up the losses.

[...] The new analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by AARP’s Public Policy Institute shows a dramatic 331.4% increase in the number of unemployed Americans age 55+ and over from January 2000 through December 2009. For age 65+ workers, the increase in the number of unemployed was lower, but still a massive 235%.

During this 10-year period, the number of people unemployed individuals age 55+ increased from 490,000 to 2,114,000. The number of unemployed individuals age 65+ jumped from 143,000 to 479,000.

“Many older Americans are trying to reenter the workforce or stay employed longer for a variety of reasons—for millions of older workers, there is no other choice,” said LeaMond.

On another important measure, duration of unemployment—the length of time an unemployed worker has been looking for a job—older workers also faced an incredibly difficult time.

Average duration of unemployment for workers age 55+ increased from 18.7 weeks in January, 2000 to 34.7 weeks in December, 2009—a jump of 85.6%. Over the same time period, workers age 65+ saw their situation go from bad (24.8 weeks of unemployment) to worse (32.9 weeks), an increase of 32.7%.

Just about every laid-off person I know developed health problems - and the ones who don't have health insurance are even more terrified. (I had breakfast today with an unemployed friend who has severe anxiety attacks and is turning agoraphobic.)

That's why I don't pay any attention to the "experts" who insist the Dems should have concentrated on jobs and not healthcare reform. It's both. Concentrating on one and not the other is like selling somebody one shoe:

A growing body of research suggests that layoffs can have profound health consequences. One 2006 study by a group of epidemiologists at Yale found that layoffs more than doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke among older workers. Another paper, published last year by Kate W. Strully, a sociology professor at the State University of New York at Albany, found that a person who lost a job had an 83 percent greater chance of developing a stress-related health problem, like diabetes, arthritis or psychiatric issues.

In perhaps the most sobering finding, a study published last year found that layoffs can affect life expectancy. The paper, by Till von Wachter, a Columbia University economist, and Daniel G. Sullivan, director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, examined death records and earnings data in Pennsylvania during the recession of the early 1980s and concluded that death rates among high-seniority male workers jumped by 50 percent to 100 percent in the year after a job loss, depending on the worker’s age. Even 20 years later, deaths were 10 percent to 15 percent higher. That meant a worker who lost his job at age 40 had his life expectancy cut by a year to a year and half.

Additional investigation is still needed to understand the exact connection between job loss and poor health, according to scientists. The focus is mostly on the direct and indirect effects of stress. Acute stress can cause biochemical changes that trigger heart attacks, for example. Job loss and chronic stress can also lead to lifestyle changes that damage health.

[...] “We’re just at the very beginning of studying pathways,” said William T. Gallo, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Hunter College in New York. “We want to find out how we can intervene so we can lessen the effects of job loss, or eliminate them.”

See, I would have been a lot happier if Obama's economic recovery plan forgave school loans (or at least a portion of them), instead of throwing money at bankers. But I guess there's a reason why I'm not in charge!

On Tuesday, the AFL-CIO released the results of a disturbing new Peter Hart survey, "Young Workers: A Lost Decade" that found that about a third of workers under 35 live at home with their parents, and they're far less likely to have health care or job security than they were ten years ago. Even then, in a 1999 survey, when they faced economic insecurity, they still had reasons to be hopeful.

Those days are long gone. A quarter of young workers say they don't earn enough to even pay their monthly bills, a 14% rise from the last survey. As Richard Trumka, the presumptive incoming president of the AFL-CIO, said in a press conference today:

We're calling the report "A Lost Decade" because we're seeing 10 years of opportunity lost as young workers across the board are struggling to keep their heads above water and often not succeeding. They've put off adulthood - - put off having kids, put off education - and a full 34 percent of workers under 35 live with their parents for financial reasons.

Thirty-five percent are significantly less likely to have health care than older workers, only 31 percent make enough money to pay their bills while putting anything aside in savings, and almost half are more worried than hopeful about their economic future.

That's one reason that Trumka and other labor leaders announced this week a new outreach campaign to recruit young workers -- and a stepped-up drive for the Employee Free Choice Act and health care reform. They're using the upcoming Labor Day, with the expected involvement of 100,000 union members in just the AFL-CIO alone in events and actions, as a launching pad to spur Congressional action.

Young people do need to find their collective voice, the way the AARP speaks for the middle-aged and elderly. Because what's happening to them isn't an accident. It's the result of corporate-centered policies.

It would make more sense for the government to keep extending unemployment benefits until the recession lets up, because the effects of this poverty-inducing trend are far more harmful to the long-term economy than putting out cash now to keep people afloat:

Reporting from Washington -- Instead of seeing older workers staying on the job longer as the economy has worsened, the Social Security system is reporting a major surge in early retirement claims that could have implications for the financial security of millions of baby boomers.

Since the current federal fiscal year began Oct. 1, claims have been running 25% ahead of last year, compared with the 15% increase that had been projected as the post-World War II generation reaches eligibility for early retirement, according to Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration.

Many of the additional retirements are probably laid-off workers who are claiming Social Security early, despite reduced benefits, because they are under immediate financial pressure, Goss and other analysts believe.

The numbers upend expectations that older Americans who sustained financial losses in the recession would work longer to rebuild their nest eggs. In a December poll sponsored by CareerBuilder, 60% of workers older than 60 said they planned to postpone retirement.

Goss said it remained unclear whether the uptick in retirements would accelerate or abate in the months ahead. But another wave of older workers may opt for early retirement when they exhaust unemployment benefits late this year or early in 2010, he noted.

The ramifications of the trend are profound for the new retirees, their families, the government and other social institutions that may be called upon to help support them.

On top of savings ravaged by the stock market decline and the loss of home equity, many retirees now must make do with Social Security benefits reduced by as much as 25% if they retire at age 62 instead of 66.

"When the recession ends and the economy bounces back, there may be a band of people for whom things will never be the same again. They'll still be paying the price for 10, 20, 30 years down the road," said Cristina Martin Firvida, director of economic security for AARP, the nation's largest membership organization for people 50 and older.

In the meantime, my friends are telling me their college-aged kids can't find summer jobs. Thanks, BushCo!

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- Jose Villareal once had a successful career as a franchising executive with Pepsi Co. Now, at the age of 67, he can't even get a job as a school custodian.

Mr. Villareal is among the growing numbers of retirement-age Americans battered by financial losses who are trying to get back into the work force -- or never left it.

Participation in the labor force by workers over age 65, which has been creeping upward in recent years, hit 16.9% in April, the highest for that month since 1971, the Labor Department said Friday. Meanwhile, unemployment for workers in that age group was up sharply in April from a year earlier, to 5.8% from 3.5%.

"We're just living day-to-day," Mr. Villareal said.

In an April survey, 22% of workers nationwide said they were "not at all confident" that they will have enough savings for a comfortable retirement, surpassing the number who are "very confident" for the first time since the survey began in 1993, according to the Employee Benefits Research Institute, based in Washington, D.C. A fifth of those workers said they now plan to work into their 70s. One in 10 doesn't plan to ever retire.

Retire? What's that? I'll probably have to keep plugging until the day I keel over.

Mr. Villareal's predicament is increasingly common in this Sunbelt city, where a fifth of the 215,000 residents are 65 or older, compared with one-in-eight nationwide.

Scottsdale's economy has long thrived on retirees, tourists and second-home buyers bringing their wealth to the city. Now, the massive loss of wealth in the U.S. has left the city vulnerable.

[...] The Villareal family's money troubles started earlier this decade, but have been exacerbated by the bad economy.

They lost much of their savings and cashed out their retirement funds in 2000 after a string of pizza restaurants Mr. Villareal opened in Mexico went bust. He then turned to running a small consultancy, but business dried up over the past year as the economy slowed.

Taking a big cut in pay, Mr. Villareal spent several months working in the cafeteria of a local high school, his daughter's alma mater, until a back injury ended that stint. Among other efforts, he applied for a custodian position in the school district, for which he was judged overqualified.

"I don't buy $200 shoes like I used to," said Mr. Villareal, dressed in a white polo shirt bearing a EuroDisney logo, chino shorts, loafers and ankle socks. "I'll wear these clothes for another 11 years -- what do I care?"

Because Mr. Villareal can't get a job, his 62-year-old wife, who had left the work force two decades earlier after the birth of their daughter, started working at a discount retailer where she earns $10 an hour.

Rep. McKeon tried to get the word criminals stricken from the record. He was a little too late.

George Miller (D-CA): It's a devastating picture when you meet your constituents who have lost their retirement, who have lost big chunks of their retirement and they come and talk to you at the shopping center, they talk to you in the grocery store, they talk to you in a town hall and they tell you what it means to their plans.

We were all stunned as a nation when pensioners got their plans wiped out and devastated by Enron. We called those people criminals. Here we call them legislators. Because people are getting -- people are going to get a devastating hit on their pensions, and we're going to say it's the law. There we said it was a crime. We said it was a crime.

Download | play -WMP

Continue reading »