Why We Can't Raise the Social Security Eligibility Age

[JDPriestly]

According to our very own U.S. Department of Commerce, about one half of Americans over the age of 65 have disabilities. Here's the quote and the link on this.

What Constitutes a Disability

A PERSON IS CONSIDERED to have a disability if he or she has difficulty performing certain functions (seeing, hearing, talking, walking, climbing stairs and lifting and carrying), or has difficulty performing activities of daily living, or has difficulty with certain social roles (doing school work for children, working at a job and around the house for adults). A person who is unable to perform one or more activities, or who uses an assistive device to get around, or who needs assistance from another person to perform basic activities is considered to have a severe disability.

. . . .

Disability is no respecter of age, sex or race. Even among children ages 6 to 14, for instance, about 1 in 8 had some type of disability. Nevertheless, the
likelihood of having a disability increases with age — half of seniors 65 years old and older have a disability. (See figure.)

Although age is the main factor affecting the likelihood of having a disability, there also are differences by race and ethnicity. For example, within
the 55- to 64-year-old group, the proportion with a severe disability was 20 percent among Whites not of Hispanic origin, 35 percent among Blacks and 28 percent among people of Hispanic origin (who may be of any race).
. . . .

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cenbr975.pdf

I have worked with elderly people who are deaf. They don't last long, yet many of us over 65 have hearing loss that interferes with our ability to follow speech that is rapid or muffled, conversations in a group when there is background noise (think of most restaurants at lunchtime) or voices through a wall.

Then there is vision. It is almost taken for granted that at around age 45, you need reading glasses. Some don't, but many of us do.

Most important, as you age, it takes a little longer to recall things. This is very annoying to young people when they work with older people. But what young people don't know is that many older people feel very embarrassed and defensive about this. Our memories do not work as quickly as they did when we were younger, but that does not mean that they are not working. Recall just takes us longer.

So, increasing the age at which we can take Social Security should not even be considered.

And we should not compare ourselves to Europeans on this. In many instances, Europeans have been eligible to retire from certain jobs in their 50s. If they want to raise that age, that's their business. But we should recognize that retirement at 65 is about right considering the physical impairments that so many of us experience by that age.

Raising the age for Social Security in our country to 70 will also just cause more problems for businesses. Inevitably an employer, faced with an opportunity to hire a younger, quicker, physically fitter, more attractive person will find an excuse to fire an older worker -- and get sued for it.

If the right-wing think tanks want Americans to work longer then they need to invent ways to prevent our brains and senses from aging. Now that would be nice. But I doubt that they are willing to invest in it. Probably wouldn't pay -- because the task would be overwhelming. Older people commonly have a variety of other physical problems that I haven't mentioned here -- like a tendency to fall, arthritis in the hands and fingers, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure.

The idea of delaying the retirement age to 70 at least at this time in history is unrealistic.

Just sign me, over 65.

[SlimJimmy]

1. I'm ten years your junior, but I still completely

agree with everything you just wrote. From wearing "reading" glasses to a slower recall for memory, we all seem to feel our age as we ... well, age. For those with a desk job (like me), I don't see raising the retirement age to be much of a bother. But for those that depend on relatively good health to work, there is certainly a point to be made. I guess all those "desk job" folks in Congress might have overlooked a few things.

[Uben]

2. We can't rule it out altogether

Life expectancy was much shorter when SSI was set up. And, retirement age has already been raised to 67 for those born after 1960.
That will have to increase as life expectancy increases because it will not be possible to sustain it. There are no easy fixes, and sacrifices will be needed. Saying we can't raise the retirement age is unreasonable unless someone comes up with a miracle cure.
Life in the U.S. is dynamic and we will have to change as the nation changes. Debt increases is not an option. Cuts will be made and they won't be popular. That is why neither party has touched the issue, they know they will be crucified unless both parties can agree on a solution. Raising the cap on contributions will extend the current solvency, but it will not do so forever.

[CTyankee]

3. Isn't the whole point REALLY about slowly weaning the Americanpeople off of SS?

Republicans have always hated SS. They don't like the government providing anything to people. So this is just their way of creating a "credible" reason to slowly erode SS benefits so that eventually there will be a vanishing point and SS will be a thing of the past...JMHO

[Uben]

13. I don't know what republicans want.....

...I've never been one. I don't think the point is to wean people off SSI as much as it is making it economically possible to assist our aging population. You know as well as I that wages have been stagnant for a decade, moreso than the cost of living has raised. That means the ones supporting those on SSI have less to spend, yet they are being asked to give even more now than before.
OF course, the problem is that the wealth is being transferred to those on the top of the economic ladder, and they are not being made to pay their share proportionately to what they make. Rather than raising the cap on contributions, they need to be made to pay their share proportionately to their wealth. That means they still pay after they reach retirement age, and no one in congress wants to touch that issue. Instead of tying SSI contributions to wages, it needs to be tied to ones overall wealth for the duration of ones life. That seems to me to be the only fair way to fix it. We all know how the wealthy work to hide and protect what they have, and they have done that through lobbying congress as well. Hell yeah, they got the money to do it!

Billionaires should have to give as much of their wealth, percentage wise, as the rest of the population, even after they reach retirement age. As long as we permit them to keep their wealth, the system will eventually fail. You will never be able to convince them this is fair, They'll tell you they worked harder and made more so they could have more. Yeah, well, you have more because you don't pay as much as the rest of us, percentage wise.

This country is not the same as it was fifty years ago. I know, I was here then, too. My generation had opportunities today's doesn't. We made things in America and that created jobs. When we allowed companies to chase cheaper labor and did not make them pay more into the system, it all started going downhill. We also need to make foreign corporations who do business here pay into the SSI system. They take wealth away from our nation so they should have to pay according to how much they make. If you wanna do business here, you play by our rules, not yours!

[eridani]

20. Right. What young workers obviously need--

--is a lot more competition from grandma for entry level jobs.

[Dr.Phool]

5. Some jobs take a toll on the body.

31 years of operating a locomotive, with all the vibration and banging have pretty much ruined my lower back. I went on disability at age 49. Brakemen had it even worse. Getting on and off of moving trains on uneven terrain, took more than it's share of knees and backs.

I'm 58 years old now, with severe arthritis in my low back, and an MRI a couple of weeks ago revealed a herniated disk, which was the source of all my pain and leg weakness.

I've always been fairly athletic. A martial artist, and a decent golfer, but during my last attack that lasted 3 weeks, I couldn't raise my leg to put on a clean pair of underwear.

Assholes like Congressmen, who have never done a days physical work in their lives, other than play 120 rounds of golf per year, might think that's a good idea. I know a lot of people who couldn't survive working until they're 70.

[JDPriestly]

9. All jobs take a toll.

There just comes a time when you know you should stop pushing yourself. At that point you focus on supporting others, on helping them. That's what retired people do -- support their children and others around them. That's how retired people contribute. If you have a job in which you have to read a lot, you may always enjoy reading, but you will not be able to read as many hours a day as you did when you were young. I'm speaking in generalities, so there are exceptions. But as a general rule when you are older you need a different work pace if you are to work.

[JDPriestly]

7. Sorry, but i'm 67. Certainly healthy people should be encouraged

to work as long as they can and still want to, but trust me, the average person cannot work full time not at the pace that employers now demand for long after 65.

I'm fitter than most, but I have all kinds of problems. I planned to work until I was 70 but was fired to make a job for a younger person. Now, I think that my plan to work until 70 was probably unrealistic. And, yes, I work at a desk job but guess what, my sciatica becomes dreadfully painful if I sit too long -- the result of an injury I had in my 20s. I can get rid of the pain by doing an exercise, but I need a couch or bed and lots of space to do it. Try fitting one into a small office or cubicle. Can't be done. I have a number of other little problems that you would not notice if you met me. And I am by no means, no means at all disabled.

I really, really, really wanted to work much longer -- but first, decent employers won't even consider hiring me at my age -- and the job I loved was given to another person.

By the way, I am told by my family that I am a workaholic. So it isn't laziness or unwillingness to work on my part that is the problem. I even tried setting up my own business. In this economy, you can't set up a small business at the age of 65 in my field because the investment you have to make to get started does not make it financially feasible. So, we'll see how you feel at age 67 -- if you make it that far.

Judges and Supreme Court Justices, CEOs and top managers can work longer because they have people who do their research, grunt work for them. Generally, your judgment improves with age. In my experience, I have become wiser especially in terms of assessing other people. But employers only value those qualities in very high-level employees. They want speed in other employees.

[nashville_brook]

25. delete - wrong place

[starroute]

14. Saying "sacrifices will be needed" is not realistic

For one thing, you're asking the poorest and most vulnerable to make the sacrifices.

For another, rather than everyone working longer, many people are likely to fall into a gap between when they have to stop working, for whatever reason, and when they start being eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Not only will those years be particularly tough to get through, but people in that situation will be forced to tap what should have been their retirement funds -- meaning that the next 20 years after that will be far more painful than they should have been as well.

There will be a cascade of effects that will also place financial burdens on their children -- in ways ranging from having to help support the old folks to given up any hope of an inheritance.

What sounds like a modest difference on paper is likely to become a perfect storm as the ripple effects kick in. For that matter, I don't even see the age 67 retirement figure going down easy as the people who are now in their 40's get closer to dealing with it as an actuality.

[TheKentuckian]

15. Why not increase revenue if need be and why do you want to increase the supply of workers?

Increasing the labor pool will place a lot of downward pressure on wages.

[Uben]

18. Increase revenue?

How do you expect to do that with a government that is broke? I'm all ears!

[TheKentuckian]

23. Raise/eliminate the cap, apply the tax to all income not just work, increase the rate

Of course recover the raided surplus by getting it from military contractors and the wealthy who were the ones who benefited.

There are options.

[eridani]

19. That is complete horseshit. Life expectancy from birth is totally irrelevant nonsense

The dramatic increase in that number is almost 100% due to drastic reductions in infant mortality. People who die before reaching adulthood are 100% irrelevant to discussions about Social Security because they will never pay into it, and never collect from it.

The real question is: if you reach age 65 at all, how many extra years from that point onward can you expect compared to 65 year olds in the 30s? The answer is about 3 years. That isn't so scary, considering that a significant number will still die before they reach that age after having paid into the system for all that time.

[Enthusiast]

21. Yes we can!

We can rule it out altogether.

[MadHound]

24. And what do you expect people to do at that age

Try being sixty five, much less seventy, and stand on your feet all day doing some job. Sorry, but I don't think that Pops would be really handy for a construction job.

Yes, people are living longer, but given the physical deterioration that happens as one ages, that longer life doesn't translate into a longer working life. An old body simply can't stand up to the rigors of most jobs.

I'm forty nine, and stared feeling my age about five years ago. That's one reason why I went back to school, I'm a big guy and have made my living, in part, with my physical abilities. I recognized then that I couldn't continue doing that, so I needed to get a job that was less stressful physically. Sure, I can still do everything I could as a kid, but it hurts now, and it takes me longer to recover. That's why I'm saving my physical labor for my own use rather than getting paid for it.

Extrapolate that out another fifteen, twenty years and the situation gets ugly. Bodies break down quickly, and to expect a senior citizen to put in a full day's work in any job is simply ridiculous. Yes, there are those specimens who are the exception to the rule. Most seniors simply can't keep up due to physical or mental problems, or even just natural aging.

[JVS]

27. Until something is done to combat age discrimination against workers over 50, it should be ruled out

[dkf]

4. Social security disability income is available but hard to qualify for.

Basically you can only retire if you can do so without needing social security or you will work most of your life.

In a way retirement is something pretty recent I imagine. After all if you were farming or hunting you retire when you don't need to eat.

[JDPriestly]

8. I have a lot of experience with rural communities and aging.

Farm-workers who own no land really have it tough. When they can no longer work, they basically just subsist unless they have Social Security and already have managed to secure housing and maybe a small space for gardening and a few chickens or can live with their children and enjoy their children's support.

Farmers who own their land and equipment or at least have good mortgages on their land and equipment (at the lower prices when they started out), have a couple of alternatives.

First, if they own their land and have a child or can adopt a child who is interested in farming, they can usually live with that child, help out as they are able and live off the bounty of the land and the child's work. Usually, the farmer offers the years of experience and expertise that the adult child needs to make the decisions that make the farm successful.

As a second alternative, the father may be able to sell the land to the child -- giving the father income from the sale of the land. If the child who gets the land has siblings, the father either tells them they will inherit nothing or gives them gifts before or after his death in some other form.

As a third alternative, the farmer may simply sell his land and use the proceeds to supplement Social Security and other retirement savings.

Remember, a person who has farmed for years, unless severely disabled, can probably keep a small garden to supplement his income. He may even be able to sell some produce every once in a while. And even when a person who knows how to farm becomes too elderly to keep his or her own garden, that person can probably find someone to tend the garden.

In addition, older people simply need less -- in terms of food, clothing and everything except maybe medical care and medication and physical help in getting through the day if they are severely disabled -- than younger people.

Remember, during the 1930s, many farmers lost their land -- either to drought and pests or to the banks. That was the shift from the primarily agrarian America that we had been since Europeans arrived and even before to a largely urban and small-town society. That is why Social Security was created when it was.

In agrarian communities, elderly people are easily provided for as long as the soil is producing. But in cities, we all depend on money -- on our incomes to survive. Too many people over 65 just cannot work any longer. Social Security is a means to give our urban population some very limited livelihood once they are no longer accepted in the workplace.

My husband taught until he was well over 65. But even teachers are forced into retirement. If you are 70+ and a university in my state fires you because of your age, good luck. Courts have given the universities a pass for age discrimination in certain cases. Sad, but true. Now, judges are viewed as able to work until they are totally senile. That federal judges should not be fired due to age is a principle that was clearly stated in the Federalist Papers. Unfortunately, a lot of judges are unsympathetic to claims of age discrimination because -- they are immune from it.

Teachers would be considered white collar, but one of the reasons they get pensions is that generally they are not wanted in classrooms once they are say 70. Pensions are a way to pay them off. There are exceptions, but as a rule schools push elderly teachers out of the classroom other than for the occasional graduate seminar in college. If you teach high school science or some subject that is in great demand, or if you are really respected (say a Nobel Prize winner or great researcher) in your field, you might have a chance to teach longer.

So, raising the retirement age won't work. The government will end up either letting seniors die in misery or putting them on welfare. Neither solution will be acceptable to Americans. The third alternative is that unemployed parents in their 50s and 60s live with their children. That's great provided everyone gets along. But, generally, American houses are not large enough to accommodate small children, working parents and grandparents. If you see the farmhouses in Europe in which several generations live harmoniously together, you will see that the elderly members of the family have their own space in the house. That works. We don't build our houses on that model.

[Enthusiast]

22. Thank you for some excellent points. nt

[Cleita]

6. We need to lower it to open up jobs for younger people

for one thing.

[izquierdista]

10. We have more to remember

Takes a bit longer to search terabytes of memory. A lot easier for a brand new formatted zip drive to read out a 1K file.

[SoCalDem]

11. These days companies can get rid of older folks & NOT get sued.

and they do it all the time. If a boss wants to get rid of an employee there are gazillions of ways to do it without a law suit.

As companies downsize, they automatically dump more work on the remaining employees . If they carefully select the "dumpees", they can set up an "early-retirement" for those older folks they want to eliminate:(

[thelordofhell]

12. Social Security is SOLVENT.....it's the government that's broke

The feds have been sticking IOU's in the Social Security fund since Ronnie Raygun made the 1st MAJOR looting to pay for his obscene tax cuts for the rich. It has been used as a bank since then and now those IOU's are coming due and the government's still broke.

By doing nothing, Social Security will still be around for another 50 years.

[Hubert Flottz]

16. I think the GOP longs for the day that somebody in the GOP even more

ruthless that Bush and Cheney will begin a new T-4 program like some other right wing know it alls once did.

Death and Deliverance: Euthanasia in Germany, 1900-1945. - book reviews

The Nazis created a medical world obsessed with how much butter or meat can be saved by every "unnecessary" person destroyed. The elderly, the infirm, the mentally handicapped -- Germans all -- were lumped with other "inferior" peoples.

Six weeks after the invasion of Poland, Adolf Hitler dictated a secret memorandum permitting German physicians to kill handicapped patients in German hospitals. By the end of the war, at least 20,000 men, women and children were killed under the edict.

Some were shot, poisoned or starved to death. About one third of the victims were treated to the gas chambers, the first time that those infamous death devices were used.

snip...

The excuse for "mercy killings" is not a recent development. In the 17th century, the great English writer and philosopher Francis Bacon was an advocate. It is only with the German medical-political axis, beginning with World War I, that German physicians rationalized that the handicapped should be extinguished "for the greater cause"; the nation's welfare.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0876/is_n72/ai_16940036/

In America's new preemptive war age where the military sucks the economy dry, where torture and murder and invading Iraq under false pretenses like Hitler once invade Poland have become the norm, prove to me that our country's fanatical greed driven right wing, is not on the brink of such fucking insanity as the Nazi's T-4 program.

[4_TN_TITANS]

17. I totally agree...

Out my parents and my wife's parents, 3 out of 4 didn't make it to 65 without being disabled. The one who did, my mother (67) is in the hospital for breast cancer right this moment.

Four out of four didn't make to 70 in working condition.

[nashville_brook]

26. all that, and there's no jobs for older people. so what we're really saying is "starve old man."