I think we need kind of a retirement "amnesty" for people who are out of work and over 50

[NNN0LHI]

I think any long term out of work person in that age bracket should be offered immediate SS and Medicare retirement benefits if that is their choice.

Let me tell you why I think this. I was once one of the long term employed. During the 1980's I was laid off over 6 years total. Most of the time we would get laid off for a year and then called back for a month or two and then get laid off again. But the longest continuous lay off I had was just short of 2 years. And I was really hurting financially by the time I got called back. Didn't really lose anything because I never worked long enough to ever really accumulate anything. Lot of my friends lost their houses and everything. And I will never forget that. It did something to me. My attitude completely changed after the lay off that lasted almost 2 years.

But I was young then. 30 or so. And I was able to snap out of it enough to slide into retirement. If we didn't have 30 and Out where I worked I don't know what I would have done? Only thing kept me going was the dream of retiring at 48.

But the problem I see is we still have long term unemployed who are much older than I was going through this same thing right now and they don't have any option like I had to retire. What are they going to do? Something is going to have to be done.

Does this make sense? And I pulled the age of 50 out of the air. So if you are 48 or 49 don't get mad at me for using it as an example.

Don

[Safetykitten]

1. That is an excellent idea.

[razorman]

25. Interesting idea. I am in my mid-50's, currently running a small business. I get scared to death

that something might happen to my operation. I am a barber, working alone. While business has slowed the past couple of years, I am still getting by. If (God forbid) I came into work one morning and the building had burned down for instance, I would be S.O.L. I am aware that even in good times, no one wants to talk to you if you are over 40. These are NOT good times. As a self-employed person, I would be ineligible for unemployment, and we could stand to lose everything.
If something like that happened, I expect I would be grasping at straws to keep my wife from becoming destitute. So, an idea such as you propose is appealing. I know that there are many folks worse off than myself, and I thank God that I am still working. This is rather selfish, I expect; but a somewhat better safety net for certain groups, such as older, self-employed people should definitely be considered.

[Honeycombe8]

2. I agree. A person in his 50's, long term unemployed, is not likely to ever find employment.

It's possible, in some cases. But if you're 55, low skilled or in an occupation that has suffered a lot in the recession, you're probably not going to find another job. No one is going to hire a 55 year old as a trainee in a new field. No one is going to hire a 55 year old for anything, probably, if the employer provides insurance, because people in that age range statistically have many more health problems than younger people do.

I think it should be maybe age 55 and older. But I agree that something should be done.

It's a serious situation that is being ignored. It's being ignored because there is no solution, really. Hopefully, they have retirement savings that they can live on and buy health insurance for years until they qualify for Social Security and Medicare. If they don't, hopefully they have an employed spouse. If they don't have that, either, I can't imagine what they can do.

[defendandprotect]

93. Also, this has been going on since the 1960's ... laying off those in their 50's ....

many of them never recovered --

and certainly today even more difficult to recover --

PLUS, we also have to understand what's been going on with young graduates since the

1980's --- many couldn't get jobs for 6 months or more -- today it's sometimes taking

a year or longer to find a job.


But, AFTER these grads did get jobs, they often got laid off after a few years --

They found other jobs quickly, but also many have been laid off two and three times --

Now, they've reached their 40's and they're not invested in any private pension palns.

And, health care benefits aren't what they used to be!


So many complications of this economy based on unregulated capitalism which has been

very destructive -- and we have elected officials who have been largely ignoring it all!!


Capitalism is created not only a criminal atmopshere running our "economy" --

but it has stolen nature and our ability to survive on this planet from us -- !!


There are no dollar bills which can cover that -- and we have to STOP judging everything

by the yardstick of a dollar bill --

Our lives are cheapened by such thinking -- so is nature and our planet!

[droidamus2]

162. Agreed

Another group of workers are like me with a degree, 15+ years of experience as a programmer/analyst but stepped out of the IT business to try to establish my own crafts business (believe it or not I can actually make money selling tie-dyed clothing and other craft items). Due to Susan having kidney failure and going on dialysis our business never got to the point of being able to support us and we went through all our savings and retirement funds (except a $70000 pension fund that i can't touch for a few more years). So 3 years ago I started looking for full time employment in the IT field, oh yeah I just turned 57. The IT field changes so fast that if you are way for any length of time you basically need to reenter the market at or close to an entry level and work your way back up. It seems nobody wants to give an over 50 IT worker a chance to do that. Since a great deal of workers in the IT business don't have longterm careers at one place it shouldn't be because at some point I will retire (don't see doing that until I am 70 with my current financial problems), it shouldn't be because I am willing to come it a lower wages in order to gain current skills, so could it just be age discrimination? Yes, I have been able to find some jobs through temp agencies but of course the agency takes a good chunk of what the company pays you. The closest I got to an IT job was as a data entry clerk for the US Immigration and Naturalization service. It is definitely frustrating but all you can do is take a day at a time, keep applying for jobs and hope somebody gives you a chance. Having the option to 'retire' wouldn't solve all my financial problems but at least it would give me a consistent income and health benefits. Oh well I have to go submit some more job applications.

[daleanime]

3. Love the idea...

but start with 60 and lets see how it goes.:bounce:

[dkf]

4. If most people retired at age 48 or 50 the SS system would collapse.

Not enough paying into the fund.

[Trillo]

5. Bankers create money out of thin air.

Workers must labor for money.

Something is seriously wrong with the two divergent realities.

[Imajika]

8. Your response to dkf's point is meaningless...

Are you proposing the government attempt to create money out of thin air to pay for something that obviously can't work?

There are not enough people paying into Social Security and Medicare to allow the eligibility age to be reduced to 50. Period. It can not and will not happen.

[Trillo]

22. Your judgment is flawed: "It" has apparently worked magnificently for the bankers!

"It" being creating money out of thin air.

[Safetykitten]

27. You have to have a special wand and a special helicopter.

[TheWraith]

74. Please explain what "it" is. In detail.

Because you're attributing magical powers which do not exist.

[Trillo]

127. Not "magic". Debt-based fractional reserve banking.

See http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=money+creation+out+of+thin+air">here if you need more explanation. No need to retype it here.

edit (cut&paste of those search results as they exist today):

Money Created "Out of Thin Air" | Richard Benson | Safehaven.com
www.safehaven.com/article/1819/money-created-out-of-thin-air - CachedSimilar
Aug 1, 2004 – Money is created in two ways: First, money creation comes from ... Second, it can simply be printed up "out of thin air" by a central bank. ...

Web of Debt - Dollar Deception: How Banks Secretly Create Money
www.webofdebt.com/articles/dollar-deception.php - CachedSimilar
Jul 3, 2007 – The creation of money has been privatized, usurped from Congress by a ... admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its ...

Crash Course Chapter 8: The Fed - Money Creation - Crash Course ...
www.chrismartenson.com › Home › Crash Course - CachedSimilar
Crash Course Chapter 8: The Fed - Money Creation. Email ... At the Federal Reserve level, money is simply manufactured out of thin air and then exchanged for ...

Money Creation Done by Govt - Chapter 8: The Fed - Money Creation ...
www.chrismartenson.com/forum/money-creation-done.../13698 - Cached
Feb 21, 2009 – The US government creates money out of thin air. ...
Show more results from chrismartenson.com

Money creation – With the creation of money out of thin air by the ...
yareo.net/money-creation-with-the-creation-of-money-out-of-thin-a... - Cached
Sep 5, 2011 – Money creation Question by September: With the creation of money out of thin air by the federal reserve….? to combat the economic recession. ...

Money creation – Is the money you invest in a corporation (company ...
yareo.net/money-creation-is-the-money-you-invest-in-a-corporation... - Cached
Aug 28, 2011 – Can commercial banks really create money out of thin air ...

[GOTV]

151. I'm not an expert but I think there are 2 way banks create money and neither are cost free ...

... One is what I believe you are talking about, just reduce the amount banks have to hold in reserve and suddenly banks have a lot more money to lend. This looks like more money because I have $1000 in the bank and they loan $500 of that to you, which you put in the bank and now it's like there's $1500 in the bank.

The cost is greater bank insolvency because they may not have the cash on hand if I show up to get my $1000 and they only have $500 of it. They can't pay their debt and go under.

The other way is to just print more money. The cost of that is that it devalues the money we already have. So if they print enough of it my $1000 might only be worth $999 now. I've essentially had $1 taken from me to create that "free" money.

[patrice]

26. Why is it necessary to insult Trillo to make your point? Don't you care that you can hurt someone's

feelings?

You could have made your point without that "meaningless".

The fact that that was unnecessary makes it look as though being mean matters more to you than whatever other point you make.

[daleanime]

28. No problem....

remove the payroll limits, this would help with the income inequality and more then cover lowering the retirement age.:evilgrin:

[dkf]

52. Depends on if you intend to keep the system where you get back what you put in.

If you do you just obligate yourself to more payments out the back end. If you sever that connection then all benefits are subject to whatever congress decides to pay.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. we do not have a system where you get back what you put in.

We have a system that provides a guaranteed pension for everyone, and that obligates all working people to pay into that system. There is only a link between the amount of monthly benefits you receive and your individual contributions, not the total 'you get back' and 'what you put in'. Our system already provides lifetime benefits, as it should, to people unable to work for a variety of reasons - and those people may not have 'put in' anything.

Why on earth, in the midst of a profound global economic crisis, should we not seriously consider the excellent proposal of the OP to take the prolonged unemployed 50+ population out of the work force by opening up SS to them? This is exactly what a compassionate progressive society would do. We can afford trillions in new deficits for war, but nothing for peace. Why is that? When are we going to demand answers?

[Safetykitten]

82. Nice!

[dkf]

86. The vast majority get what they paid in or more.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/ran5/an2004-5.html

Scan the tables for the negative internal rates of return. They only happen at the higher end for singles with the assumption of increased payroll taxes.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. oh sure tack away from your original assertion, how clever.

no thanks. What you said above was dead wrong.

[dkf]

90. No there is an assumption that social security is a payback of what you put in.

Otherwise it could be considered welfare. This is the same argument against means testing.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. no it is a system where everyone pays in and everyone gets benefit

it is not a "system where you get back what you put in." You can keep waltzing around your original wrong assertion, but it remains wrong.

[dkf]

101. Tell that to this poster

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x627337

"Social Security is our money. Workers fund Social Security, not the government "

"Workers fund Social Security and Medicare, and retired or disabled workers are entitled to have their contribution and the contract they made with their government honored."

Most people see a relationship between the amount of money contributed and the payout.

[Safetykitten]

88. Uh, his point just flew over your head. Clue....The good society. The one that takes care of people

[defendandprotect]

94. Social Security has paid off as well as the stock market -- 10% ---

it's on a par with it --

That's been the traditional return from Social Security --

but Obama has taken Scoial Security backwards in eliminating the COLA's now

for the third year!!

This means thousands of dollars lost every year for seniors!!


And keep in mind, it wasn't the GOP or W Bush who did that -- it was Obama!!

[dkf]

112. It got budgeted from the general fund.

Technically every person and the fund gets credited the same exact amount as if they paid the entire tax.

The social security fund is an accounting entry anyway.

[defendandprotect]

115. Social Security had nothing to do with general budget -- but its surplus got thrown into it ....

to disguise the huge costs of the MIC --

Social Security was never intended to run a surplus -- above a minimal amount necessary --

but was later engineered to run huge surplusses to serve as slush funds for elites!



Social Security funds earned interest -- basically doing as well as the stock market/

Wall Street --

[GOTV]

152. Wouldn't this add greatly to the cost of SS? You'd be adding over 15 years of payout ...

... to retirees. You could be tripling SS payout. That money will have to come from somewhere.

[RaleighNCDUer]

146. You've been buggin on SS long enough to know that it has NEVER

been a program where you get back what you pay in. some people get more, a great many get less, and millions never see a cent of it because of dying before eligibility.

You also know SS was never meant to be a retirement plan, but a retirement supplement plan.

But you've been lying about SS for years - why stop now?

[eridani]

133. There are if you raise the FICA cap n/t

[patrice]

30. Money is created out of nothing all of the time. The problem is about spending priorities. nt

[NNN0LHI]

7. Most people in that age bracket are still working and wouldn't qualify for early SS and Medicare

I am only talking about the ones who aren't working.

Don

[Imajika]

12. Many would just quit working..

If people can claim SS and Medicare benefits at age 50 for being unemployed, you'd have droves of people that just wouldn't work. Many of those that get laid off now and find other work just wouldn't bother searching for that new job, they'd just take the entitlements and be done with it. This plan would simply encourage people to retire at 50. Not all would, but more than enough to destroy the system.

[Safetykitten]

15. Oh dear, a new talking point. "Senior golf queens".

[NNN0LHI]

16. Only the long term unemployed people in this age group would qualify

I consider long term unemployed at being out of work a year or more. Someone who just recently quit their job would not qualify.

Don

[Safetykitten]

17. Exactly. Like I said, excellent idea.

[GOTV]

154. Wouldn't it be easy to become one of the long term unemployed?

I'm 50 and have enough savings to live for a year or two. Especially with UI. I could get myself fired and just not be able to find the right job.

[seaglass]

69. I'm 53 and I would. I despise my job but the chances of me getting another are nil.

So I stay here, thankful and busting my ass for a job I hate. My boss told me 2 weeks ago that I was a critical employee and I won't get laid off unless the company folds. I would gladly give my job to someone else my age if I could retire.

[Warren Stupidity]

83. for some value of 'many'.

people employed and being paid considerably above ss benefit levels would not 'quit in droves'.

[eridani]

134. I wouldn't call opening up employment opportunities for younger people

--"destroying the system."

[dkf]

36. Anyone who gets laid off after 48 would be eligible I presume.

If unemployment benefits and SS keep people afloat for the rest of their lives the incentive to work another 17 years may not be there.

[NNN0LHI]

50. Any long term unemployed person laid off a year or more and met the age requirement would qualify

But the window for doing so would be temporary. Perhaps 6 months for someone to make up their decision. And no mandates or penalties. Just a one time option.

Don

[dkf]

81. Most people dont get called back to a job.

Being laid off for a year isn't hard to accomplish if you prefer it.

And everyone wants to retire as early as possible, wouldn't they? I would say it's a pretty small minority who prefers to work. I would love to retire at 40.

[newspeak]

9. well, hubby had a great job with benefits

he, with other managers in their fifties, was laid off about three years ago. Found a job with a temp agency that pays about 14/hr and most goes for health insurance. He took out his retirement to pay off the house, so we at least had a house. Then, last year's IRS day came-we believe in paying our taxes, but we got hit with a 6,000 dollar penalty for taking his retirement out-it was not a 401k, it was a company retirement and the company did not warn us about the penalty.

I think of corporations worth billions not paying anything, and we, in a time we need the money, must pay penalties. I believe the 401k penalty was created during Reagan or bush, because people were losing their jobs and had to pull the money to survive-so they found a way to penalize withdrawing it. Thus, hitting those already in dire straits.

[SheilaT]

64. That's the real problem.

The underlying compassion is nice, but it's unworkable.

[TBF]

100. Maybe that's what should happen. This "system" only benefits the top 1%. Fuck them. nt

[Yupster]

105. Also workers aged 50-60

are usually the highest paid workers. So they contribute the most to social security.

It seems like people are trying to ruin the social security system on purpose.

Cut back the amount of money going in and pay out more. Sounds like a way to ruin it quickly.

[Vincardog]

109. No if we eliminated the cap on SS income.

[DrunkenBoat]

124. Wait, according to you the system is *already* collapsing. Which is it, now?

[xxqqqzme]

155. I don't believe "most' people

would retire at that age. I was disabled at 47 and was quite unhappy I had no choice when it came to continuing in my profession. If I could have continued, working I would have. I have a good friend who is an RN. She is in good health, attractive, active, current in her field. She is a caring, sensitive person so I imagine she is a good nurse. She is 60 and though she has been on many interviews, she cannot get hired. She has been out of work for over a year. She is too young for SS & medicare. She knows Drs who will see her if the need rises, but she knows that can change in an instant. And she wants to work.

[Imajika]

6. There is no way we can afford that...

Your basically saying we should lower the SS and Medicare age to 50 for anyone who wants to be in it. That's not even remotely realistic. Even in a best case scenario, under a far more progressive tax system we could never, ever afford such a scheme. People live much longer now then they did when these programs were created, letting folks claim what are effectively government retirement benefits at age 50 is just not even in the realm of the possible. We will be lucky just to avoid the eligibility age of these entitlements from being raised.

[NNN0LHI]

Not permanently

I am talking about opening up a window of perhaps 6 months where someone of that age who has become one of the long term unemployed and whose job hopes look dismal would be offered the option to retire. A one time, take it or leave it deal.

No mandates. :)

Don

[Pigheaded]

67. How many.gov programs

stay "temporary"??

PH

[defendandprotect]

117. Nonsense ....Social Security has a $2.7 TRILLION fund ....and Medicare would benefit ...

so would government --

Basically we should open Medicare to everyone age 50 and older, anyway!

If you believe all the RW propaganda about Social Security/Medicare you'll

never figure out what's really going on!

[defendandprotect]

118. .. but we can afford 2 wars bankrupting the Treasury ... and bailouts ... oil subsidies-- ???

A billion $$$ a day in interest on the debt -- !!


Costs of allowing capitalism to exploit nature, natural resources, animal-life

and even other human beings?

Loss of the planet as our home?


Rather than judging everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill we need to dump

capitalism -- and move on --- especially if we value democracy --


If we want democracy we need economic democracy and capitalism ain't it--!!

[eridani]

135. No, people do NOT live longer. There is far, far less infant mortality

Life expectancies of lower income women are now going down. If you make it to 55, your further life expectancy is not that much longer than it was 70 years ago.

[Fuddnik]

153. A single-payer national health care system would take care of the Medicare part.

Everyone would be covered from cradle to grave, cheaper and more efficiently.

Medicare for all. Look up HR 676, it's doable just like everywhere else in the civilized world, except here.

But, since you're hitting all the right-wing talking points, "People live much longer now then they did when these programs were created". There is, right now, over a two trillion dollar SURPLUS in Social Security accounts. This living longer issue was tackled back in the '80s, under Reagan, and payroll taxes were increased to keep it solid and solvent.

"We will be lucky just to avoid the eligibility age of these entitlements from being raised." Bullshit. Read above paragraph.

[OmahaBlueDog]

10. I think the reality is that people in this age range are going to need job reeducation

We're all living longer. It'd be nice if the funds were there to give us all retirement and medical at 45 or 50, but they simply aren't there in an age in which many of us are going to live well into our 80s or 90s.

We really need to be putting our money into teaching old dogs new tricks. Upgrading or teaching new skills; mid life college education, and getting people to understand and accept that what you do for a living in the last 15-20 years for your work life may be completely different than what you did in the first 15-25 years.

[Safetykitten]

14. ...and that would be doing what exactly? Other than saying "welcome to"...

[OmahaBlueDog]

20. You might find this article interesting

If all the posted jobs in America were suddenly filled, the unemployment rate would fall by at least 3 percentage points.

From: CGI’S Surprising Jobs Statistic

Also from the article:

“We can argue all day about how to create new jobs,” said former Georgia Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond. “But we’re overlooking the fact that there are jobs…that are not filled. We talk too much about what we don’t have, and we haven’t focused our efforts on what we do have.”

That line generated considerable applause on Wednesday. But the question remains, how do you fill those open positions? Part of the problem is that many of today’s unemployed don’t have the skills they need to fill those jobs. In Georgia, Thurmond—rather than the government running a job training—started a program in which the government connects private companies with the unemployed and pays the firms to train workers for a six-week trial period.

Once that period ends, the firms can then decide who they want to hire. The companies were not required to provide benefits, but the state helped the workers with childcare, among other things. The result: Since 2003, he said, the program has had a 62 percent success rate, and Clinton, in his recent article for Newsweek, advocated it as an approach that could be mirrored elsewhere.

Read more at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/30/cgi-s-surprising-statistic-of-3-million-unfilled-jobs-in-the-u-s.html

[Safetykitten]

24. "Once that period ends, the firms can then decide who they want to hire."

Is this a joke? Please tell me this is a joke.

[wickerwoman]

66. It's not just a question of retraining or upskilling.

Let's say you're a middle manager at a small IT start-up and you need to hire a junior programmer for your team. You're 32, recently promoted and just starting to learn how to manage people. Do you hire:

1.) A 21 year old college graduate who grew up with the latest technology, is fired up and excited about their first "real" job, and who, frankly, is easy to boss around because they're used to being a student and don't know any better; or

2.) A 52 year old returning student who has been laid off for three years, can't accept a very low salary because of student loans, a mortgage, their own kids in college, etc., was a manager in their last job, and thus will be constantly judging your management skills, has minor health issues that are only going to get worse, is bitter/depressed/cynical about their last job and extended unemployment and will be retiring before they can really move up with the company.

Every single middle manager I know (and I'll be honest, me too) would hire the kid. Less baggage. More adaptable. Will grow with the company. Cheaper.

So while technically a 55 year old can retrain for a new job, the truth is they are very, very unlikely to be hired in a new field (or even for a more junior position in their old field) because younger managers feel awkward about bossing around someone older than them, they are assumed to have health issues or attitudinal baggage, they are blamed for losing their old job, etc.

[OmahaBlueDog]

76. I think there are a lot of ways to look at this problem

You are right -- the 21 year old is fired up, has the latest skills, and the most upside potential. They also have a much higher percentage of taking long periods of maternity leave, or jumping to the next-new-thing once an opportunity presents itself.

The 52 year old may be bitter and cynical, and may have minor health issues. The 52 year old also will probably not be looking to hop jobs, and probably isn't looking to take the middle manager's job.

Also, whatever your age -- if you can't lead people older than yourself, you aren't a competent manager.

[wickerwoman]

103. Very true.

But in my experience the majority of managers aren't competent, or at least tend to take the path of least resistance. Even if you can manage someone older than you, why put up with the extra hassle? And it's very untrue that an older worker would be less of a threat to the middle manager's job. My last company I worked with a guy who was a brilliant saboteur of applicants and coworkers who were older, more experienced and more competent than him. He also went out of his way to avoid hiring men because they asked for higher salaries and were more competitive and challenging. He set up a whole department full of 21-22 year old girls with *no* experience because they looked up to him and were easy to boss around. The entire rest of the company was desperate to get more experienced and competent people into that department but he completely submarined anyone over 25, anyone with more obvious qualifications to do his job, and anyone who had been with the company longer than him that he could find an excuse to get rid of.

And the point is that there's relatively little we can do to force companies to hire people over 50 when they obviously prefer to hire new graduates.

It's not a realistic strategy to say "all you laid off 50 year olds, go back to school and fill the jobs that need to be filled". Even if a 50 year old laid off construction worker has the brains, focus, drive and talent to become a programmer or a biomedical researcher, they're still going to the back of the jobs line behind all the kids.

We need to acknowledge the reality that our current system chews people up and throws many of them on the scrapheap long before they reach 62. "Retraining" won't fix the problem, and neither will expecting everyone to be able to start their own businesses. People are *dying* waiting for Medicare to kick in and they deserve a better response than "go where the jobs are".

[OmahaBlueDog]

107. While I understand your point, we can't just accept that people are done at 50

I'll agree that getting workable medical coverage for all workers is part of the equation. Maybe in addition to training, we also have to look at what can be done in the way of SBA loans to get talented people who can't be rehired a chance to open their own businesses.

Bottom line: If the average life expectancy is upwards of 75, we can't accept the notion that someone will work to 50, and then the taxpayers will carry that worker the remaining 1/3 plus of his/her life. The money just is not there. If one is able to work, one should be working - even if it means flipping burgers or being greeter at Wal Mart.

[wickerwoman]

121. The money would be there if parasite corporations and outrageous management compensation

wasn't siphoning it off.

"If one is able to work, one should be working"- I couldn't disagree more. I recently read that only about 10% of what people get paid for as "work" actually contributes to the genuine needs of society. The rest is just a lot of mindless paper pushing aimed at getting us to consume things we don't really need to enrich some bozos who couldn't give a toss about us. At best it's a huge waste of time and energy, at worst it's destroying our planet.

What real greater societal purpose is served by an 80 year old granny working as a greeter at Walmart, having to stand up 8 hours a day aggravating hip and knee problems, varicose veins and arthritis which then have to be paid for by taxpayers out of Medicare? Wouldn't it be better and more cost-effective for her to be at home taking care of her health? Wouldn't society benefit more if she had time to babysit her grandkids, freeing her daughter up to work more hours, or if she had that time to volunteer through her church sewing quilts for charity fundraisers? Wouldn't it be more effective from a societal standpoint for her to spend that time gardening so that food didn't have to be shipped in from hundreds of miles away contributing carbon emissions and causing billions in potential damage from climate change effects?

Why not just say "here is a person who has worked hard for 30 years, has raised three great kids, has paid her taxes and volunteers at the library- she's worked hard enough and she deserves some time to relax and explore what else life has to offer"?

The money is always there for war. It's always there for weapons. It's always there when banks or major corporations fuck up. Why isn't the money there for ordinary people who have contributed to society and are tired and deserve a rest and a chance to enjoy life?

The most frustrating thing is that it's not even efficient or cost effective to keep older people working. It just feeds into the unhealthy mentality that your job is your life and that if you're not getting paid, you're not doing anything worthwhile.

[OmahaBlueDog]

123. ...

<<Why not just say "here is a person who has worked hard for 30 years, has raised three great kids, has paid her taxes and volunteers at the library- she's worked hard enough and she deserves some time to relax and explore what else life has to offer"? >>

While I'd love that, it's not how life works. Unless you are fortunate enough to have saved a lot or have invested exceptionally well, you should reasonably be expected to work for 90-95% of your adult years, if physically and mentally able.


<<What real greater societal purpose is served by an 80 year old granny working as a greeter at Walmart>>

First, if we go back to the OP, we are talking about 50 year old granny, not 80 year old granny. Under any circumstance, it would be reasonable for people to expect 80 year old granny to be collecting Social Security. That said, working keeps granny healthier. Notwithstanding the ailments you mention, it gives granny socialization and it gives her a reason to get up every day. Of course so does babysitting her grandkids, and if that's what she wants to do, that's her choice. The taxpayers, however, shouldn't be expected to foot the bill for 50 year old granny performing free babysitting.

<<I recently read that only about 10% of what people get paid for as "work" actually contributes to the genuine needs of society. The rest is just a lot of mindless paper pushing aimed at getting us to consume things we don't really need to enrich some bozos who couldn't give a toss about us. At best it's a huge waste of time and energy, at worst it's destroying our planet. >>

So you support 90% unemployment?

[raccoon]

141. Great post. nt

[eridani]

137. Yes we can. Non-farm productivity has increased by a factor of 4

--since the end of WW II. That leads to the inevitable reality that if everybody is going to have a chance at work, everyone is going to have to work less.

[RaleighNCDUer]

149. Thank you. Well said.

At 58, I have NEVER felt more vulnerable than I do today, because I know that this is very likely the last full-time job I will ever have. If it went away, I'd be tearing tickets at a movie theater, and I'm not so sure about even that, because of the hours on my feet that are required. Even if I should re-train, taking a year out for that, whoever hired me (if anyone) would only get me for 6 years, max. Probably less.

I'm not worth the investment, and they know it.

[onpatrol98]

166. Sometime older returning workers think or better yet...know that they know more than their manager

You're right. It's not always a question of retraining. Then again...maybe we should retrain managers to look for older workers. I don't know.

Sometimes older returning workers really do know much more than their newly minted managers which is awkward for both parties. A bit of resentment on both sides. But, not every manager is intimidated by an older more experienced "new" employ. And, not every older worker has a chip on his/her shoulder thinking, I can do this kids job better than he can.

As for baggage, sometimes younger workers have issues. For instance, textaholics, cell phone addicts, boyfriend, or girlfriend problems, child care issues. Sometimes older workers have already worked all of those things out of their system. Except, child care issues can turn into adult parent issues. Even if an older worker is retraining to enter a new field, they still a working history. So, you know they probably have a good work ethic. That's a little harder to tell with a new young graduate.

I think we need to find ways to help all workers be more productive. And, I don't mind if you have 5 employees, fire 2. We lose a lot of knowledge...even life skill knowledge when we use age as a discriminator.

I know employers who won't hire people with tatoos and body piercings everywhere.

I like the idea of allowing employees to retire earlier. I'm not sure if the OPs idea would work. But, it's a nice thought.

[newspeak]

171. oh please, hubby is 58

he's gone to job interviews and has years of experience. Few are choosing those in their fifties.

[wickerwoman]

174. Are you sure you meant to reply to me?

My point was that it's very hard for people to retrain for new jobs and then compete with 21 year olds for graduate level jobs.

I'm 35, just finishing up my second masters degree and am having a hell of time finding anything even in what is supposd to be a "hot" field. I can't imagine how hard it is for people in their 50s to try to break into a new field.

[Dragonfli]

19. WE are not living longer, the wealthy and SOME office drones only are, working stiffs are not. /nt

[Safetykitten]

21. And there it is. The awfull truth.

[OmahaBlueDog]

106. I think it's a bit more than simply the wealthy and some office drones.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/us-life-expectancy-_n_836662.html

ATLANTA — U.S. life expectancy has hit another all-time high, rising above 78 years. The estimate of 78 years and 2 months is for a baby born in 2009, and comes from a preliminary report released Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

About 2.4 million people died in the United States in 2009 – roughly 36,000 fewer deaths than the year before.

Deaths were down for a range of causes, from heart disease to homicide, so experts don't believe there's one simple explanation for the increase in life expectancy. Better medical treatment, vaccination campaigns and public health measures against smoking are believed to be having an impact.

U.S. life expectancy has been generally increasing since at least the 1940s, though some years it held steady and a few times it temporarily dipped.

[Dragonfli]

114. That is where you are wrong, us poor folk and especially poor black folk die pretty young

214 million middle Americans, with a per capita income of $24,640 and an average life expectancy of 78.

16.6 million whites in Appalachia and the Mississippi Valley with an income of $16,390 and a life expectancy of 75.

1 million Western Native Americans with a per capita income of $10,029 and life expectancy of 73.

23.4 million black middle Americans with a per capita income of $15,412 and a life expectancy of 73.

5.8 million southern low-income blacks with a per capita income of $10,463 and a life expectancy of 71.

7.5 million high-risk urban blacks, living in counties with a homicide risk that tops the 95th percentile of U.S. counties, with a per capita income of $14,800 and a life expectancy of 71.

[OmahaBlueDog]

122. OK, but every figure you quote ther is 70+

And those are "averages", not outside limits.

Even if we went with the lowest figure you present, you'd be talking about 20+ years of paid retirement at 50 by the logic of the OP. I'm just not seeing how that's even remotely affordable in the current economic climate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

150. And the people making the rules are the wealthy and their office drone minnions.

I wonder if Geitner has ever MET a construction worker.

[Dragonfli]

173. I spent my life in the trades, people like him look right through you like you aren't there

I have remodeled McMansions and they only see the work cloths, they ignore you completely, they do not even offer you water in 90+ weather.

It is amazing really, sort of a real life (but even more extreme) "upstairs downstairs" lord, servant type of mentality.

[Coyote_Bandit]

34. I'm in that group

I completed my third graduate degree in 2001 - and I completed another year of full-time technical training in the spring of 2010. I also continue to go to continuing education courses annually even though I am not required to do so.

You are wrong to assume that all of us 50ish unemployed folks have not maintained or upgraded our skills.

[OmahaBlueDog]

78. I assume nothing, but statistically, those with degrees are far less likely to be unemployed.

Total, 25 years and over = 8.3%
Less than a high school diploma = 14.2%
High school graduates, no college = 10.2%
Some college or associate degree = 8.7%
Bachelor’s degree and higher = 4.6%

Source: BLS - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Statistically, those with degrees have an unemployment rate that is half that of the national average and a third of those with no diplomas.

I'm sorry about your situation, and I hope your studies pay off.

[gkhouston]

138. And that in itself can be a problem. If you're 50-ish and have

been continually broadening your education, you are now "overqualified". x(

[seaglass]

73. How old are you? Not being snarky but if you haven't hit your late 40s

early 50s you may not understand that it is really difficult to get a new job in your 50s even when you have the exact skills being sought. Age discrimination is real.

.

[OmahaBlueDog]

108. ..and it's difficult to get a job in your 20s, and it's difficult to get a job in your teens

...and it's difficult to hold down a job and be a mom.

Your question is a no-win trap. I'm not playing. If I say I'm between 0-40, you will respond that I can't appreciate your viewpoint. OTOH, if I say I'm between 40-100, you will respond that I should know better, or I must have so much money that I couldn't possibly understand the plight of working folks, or one of the many other responses one gets at DU from people who write "no offense intended", "I' not trying to be snarky", or (my favorite), "meaning no disrespect."

On average, we're all living to 70-78. Some are dying younger; some are living well past 100. If we're talking about allowing people who are able to work to retire at 50, it's going to make an already bad situation with retirement plans, pensions, and SS worse.

[seaglass]

111. Nah, I wasn't going to respond in any of those ways. I just think if your

not over 50 you don't know how real age discrimination is. Never mind that women over 50 are invisible in society. I have a job, I am fairly rewarded and my employers and co-workers appreciate me. But I know even if it wasn't for this shitty economy that I would have a difficult time getting another job at this pay if I needed to. I did not mean my comment in an offensive way - I wanted to see where you were coming from. A man in his 30s would likely have very different experiences than a woman in her 50s and I wouldn't expect you to understand.

I have 2 kids in their 20's. One is in her last semester of college and student teaching; she has worked so hard and of course I am worried about whether she will be able to get a job as a teacher. The other hasn't found his way yet, is unskilled and I do not see much hope for him career-wise unless he goes back to college, a trade school or joins the service.

I KNOW how good I had it, I was able to start a career in my 20s work my way up the ladder and had a great job for 20 years. All this before I got a college degree. I realize that it's next to impossible for kids to do that nowadays.

[OmahaBlueDog]

129. I'll say this - aside from gender, our work experiences don't sound too dissimilar

However, I went to college, and then to work. In a lot of ways, I wish I had that to do over.

I wish your kids luck. I think the teacher will ultimately do OK. I worry about the other one. I have two nephews who haven't found their way, and the way they are currently headed may well end in jail. The Service wouldn't be the worst idea for either of them.

[raccoon]

142. Well said--I never had a thought about age discrimination--until I ran into it myself. nt

[eridani]

136. We are going to need slashed work hours at the same level of pay as now

How can you keep having fewer and fewer people making more and more stuff, and then put the unnecessary workers in the category of disposable human garbage?

[yankeepants]

11. I love you

You are the first to suggest this (that I know of)

53 pushing 54 laid off, laid off again, and then again. I have not worked full time since 2008. It seems that no one will hire you in this age bracket regardless of education and experience. It has, however, given me the opportunity to pursue my life's dreams: dog training and owning my own property management company but it is all "catch up" at this stage. Working pt and starting my own biz but time is running out on how long I can recoop any of my loses for retirement. At this point I am looking forward to little more than SS.

If there is any way that we can stay connected and start a movement in the direction that you suggest, i am on your front line.

Sincerely,
YP

[patrice]

38. Me too. 3 times in 10 years. I don't believe in America anymore.

[SheilaT]

68. Don't look now,

but I'm over 60 and have been able to find work. Although from what I read here and elsewhere apparently I am the only person in this entire country over the age of 50 who has been hired by any company anywhere.

[Safetykitten]

84. Well, apparently you are in great demand. Tell us your field so we can rush out...

and get that third undergraduate or master's degree.

[SheilaT]

168. Registration Rep at

the local hospital. If you graduated from high school they'll hire you.

It's absolutely entry level work, and does not pay a great deal, but the health benefits are quite good.

I really, really, really am sick of the "Absolutely no one over age 50 gets a job" line. Yeah, I do understand that if you were at the top of your profession it's tough, and if your job has been outsourced to India it's bad, and if you're in a shrinking field, it's even worse. But unemployment is somewhat less than 100% or even 50%.

I guess I'm lucky that I've been living a reasonably modest life-style most of my life, and so when changes occurred it wasn't all that terrible for me.

[frazzled]

13. How about incentives to hire and retain over-50 employees

I do think full retirement at 50 is too young, especially when so many people are living well into their 90s. 40 or more years of retirement is not really something to look forward to for many.

We pretty much know why older (and I use that term advisedly: 50 is not even CLOSE to old) workers have trouble retaining and finding work. Employers worry that they cost more, both in accrued salaries over the years and in benefits (they raise the cost of health insurance). But they bring experience and steadiness and mentorship to the workplace, too. Employers need to value that, and perhaps get some kind of tax incentive for hiring or retaining workers over 50.

There's also a civil rights issue to this. The "gray panther" issues are drifting down to a younger generation and we need to stand up to equal rights for "older" Americans.

[Safetykitten]

18. People do not need "mentorship" to stock shelves on the swing shift.

IF and that's a big IF they COULD get the job.

[patrice]

40. I'm overqualified. I need to be re-trained to be a grocery clerk. nt

[frazzled]

49. I said retain, not retrain

Jeezus, do so many really want to be put out to pasture? I'm advocating for reTAINing workers in their current positions.

[patrice]

53. I live in Brownbackistan. I post under my own name on the internet & in FB. I don't have a lot of

hope in getting a fair chance at a job around here, because of religious-political discrimination, and I can't leave my house yet, because it's the last good investment I have and the market is bad.

[undeterred]

23. Most ridiculous post ever made on DU.

There are plenty of highly qualified people coming and going from the workforce over the age of 50. The idea that we all need to be retrained is insulting. The idea that we are all in poor health is incorrect.

Employers who are practicing age discrimination - which is extremely widespread - need to be prosecuted for it. So do employers who are discriminating against the longterm unemployed. The idea of putting certain groups "out to pasture" is preposterous.

[Coyote_Bandit]

29. Ummmm......

I'm in that age bracket, long-term unemployed and WANT to work. I'm well educated and have skills. I need to work - for reasons that are as much psychological as financial.

[undeterred]

32. According to this post we're never going to find employment.

And we're certainly not going to get what the author of this post is suggesting, so I guess life is over. :sarcasm:

[Safetykitten]

33. Well you may be the happy minority. Good for you.

[undeterred]

37. Who's happy?

I lost my job due to sexual harassment and I've been unemployed since February. I'm looking for another job and expecting to find one. I am very well educated. Am I supposed to start believing that's NEVER going to happen?

[Safetykitten]

42. Belive what you want for youself, but others are in completely different situations.

[undeterred]

46. Everyone's situation is different.

But coming to this post feels to me like having other people try to take away my last shreds of hope. Some of us are still trying- let us at least have that.

[Safetykitten]

48. Well as the sympathetic posters on other topics have said, and I am paraphrasing...

Since you do not have a job, either you are not trying hard enough, or you need to lower your expectations.

But keep trying. I did and after quite a long time have one.

[undeterred]

55. ???

Makes no sense with your other comments.

And in this post: A person in his 50's, long term unemployed, is not likely to ever find employment.

[Safetykitten]

59. Read carefully...it would be great to have a program that would take care

of the long termed unemployed that are older than 50. You would opt in.

Get it?

[Coyote_Bandit]

54. Are you suggesting

that I'm supposed to be happy to find myself involunatrily retired at age 50?

Fuck that idea. Even with early Social Security and Medicare. I should reasonably be able to expect at least another 15 to 20 working years.

On the other hand, perhaps the US should make a one time lump distribution of the future value of all Social Security and Medicare benefits due available to folks like me. We could use it to buy our way out of this failed nation.

[Safetykitten]

56. Well then go get a job. It's not rocket science. Others are unemployable at that age.

[Coyote_Bandit]

65. Well, aren't you just a ray of sunshine and encouragement?

The obstacles to finding employment are hard enough to overcome without someone telling you just how likely you are to fail - and to fail permanently.

I would choose to avoid anyone in real life that did not encourage and support me in my very real efforts to find work. An anonymous name on an internet discussion board certainly does not deserve to be treated any differently.

Welcome to my fucking ignore list.

[Safetykitten]

71. Nobody is telling you that you will/are failing. Others may like the option.

So conversely you would be "telling them" that they should just keep plugging away, no matter what the situations they may be in.

[RaleighNCDUer]

157. Encouragement is like prayer - well meaning, but essentially worthless.

And it is not a poster who is telling you the odds are against you - it is an official 9.1% (unofficial 16%) unemployment rate that is telling you that.

You may be in your prime at 50 - many people are - but your prospective employer doesn't know that. He sees someone who has seen too much of the world to be bright and eager, someone who it will be hard to manipulate, someone who expects more than a 22 year old kid; someone who is just coming into the age where you go from popping 1 multi-vitamin a day to 5 prescription drugs a day; someone who is likely to raise their medical costs.

Whether that is all true or not, THAT is what prospective employers see. And if you are going into job interviews without that perspective on your mind, you will never understand why you are not getting call-backs. You will have to work, in every interview, to counter ALL those unspoken assumptions, not simply rest on your resume.

Me, I could NOT counter therm. They'd be true. If I were to lose the job I have I could very reasonably expect to not get another F/T job. I'm a bad risk, and I know it. And I, for one, don't eagerly look forward to working till 70. As both my parents have Alzheimers, I will be doing well to even reach 70. By your prescription, I should be working right up to the time I'm taken off to the locked ward.

We are not meant to live for work - we are meant to work to live. A life spent simply enriching the higher-ups is nothing short of slavery, and what's the fucking point?

[truedelphi]

130. I am loving your last suggestion. n/t

[NNN0LHI]

43. I am not talking about a mandate here

I am talking about opening up a six month window for anyone who wished to retire voluntarily right now could.

If someone wasn't interested there would be no penalty for not taking the offer.

It would be good for you too if you wished to keep working for whatever reason. It would make the pool of applicants a little smaller increasing your chances of finding a job.

Don

[defendandprotect]

126. Of course not -- and it is a good idea -- and a novel one -- !!

[hfojvt]

31. not really

Americans who work do not want to pay taxes to support people who don't work.

One thing I think is sorta curious about social security though. Here's my last social security statement just four months before my 49th birthday.

It says if I work until I am 62 (about another 13 years) at an annual income of $14,482 (my income from 2009, which happened to be a year when we got 27 paychecks) that my monthly benefit would be $599 a month.

If I work until I am 67, another 18 years, my monthly benefit would be $880 a month.

If, however, I become disabled RIGHT NOW, my monthly benefit would be $886 a month.


Clearly, it is in my financial interests to become disabled right now as that pays better than 18 more years of working and paying taxes. Doubtless most of the disabled don't think so, but my neighbor across the street doesn't seem too bad with just one artificial leg. Nor does the young fellow who did a year in the army and said when he came home "it turns out I have a bad back". His bad back never seemed to bother him. So having his bad back certainly seems better than having any number of my bad jobs.

[GoCubsGo]

39. Exactly.

I'm sick of being called "lazy", "slacker", "parasite", and every other filthy name in the book. I just want my fucking job back. I didn't want to leave it in the first place.

[Safetykitten]

47. Well keep trying. I did, and I make 10 bucks an hour...a fraction of what I used to make...

and I am DAMN GLAD I have the job.

[GoCubsGo]

35. I don't want to retire.

I want to work. I didn't bust my ass in college, and spend 3 years of holy hell in grad school so that I could "retire" at 50.

[Safetykitten]

45. Don't then.

[treestar]

41. I still don't understand it

We don't get laid off due to turning 50. We don't lose our minds at 50. Heck, we know more at 50 or more than we ever did. Just makes no sense to me.

Are we inflexible, maybe?

I know there is an argument about pay, but one looking for work from a place of unemployment might not demand to be paid more.

[Safetykitten]

44. Kinda sinple. Long term unemployed after 50, you get this option.

Want to work? Fine.

[roamer65]

51. The Rethuglicans have a far simpler plan.

Over 50 and unemployed? Go die.

We need to drill this into people's head in 2012.

[patrice]

58. It's a little scarey how easily that can be sold to the general public. (Just like war.) It can be

dressed up in various faith-based initiatives and everyone's problem loved-ones can be sweetly sung into the hereafter, all dressed up in social emo goodies, and much to the general relief of all.

Did you E-V-E-R think we'd invade and occupy a sovereign nation and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including 10s of thousands of children? Domestic policies based upon "Let them die" are REALLY not impossible at all.

[patrice]

61. Case in point, see post #57.

[defendandprotect]

57. Great idea -- !! Get these people out of the work place and open jobs for younger people -- !!

[Coyote_Bandit]

72. I wondered just how long it would take

before somebody popped up and suggested that young people need jobs and old people don't. Sometimes DU is soooooooooo predictable.

[defendandprotect]

79. Only YOU are suggesting any such thing -- !!!

Providing a retirement basis for anyone who can't find a job after 50 --

and that's been going on since the 1960's!!!! -- is a response to the needs

of those over 50 --

but -- like Social Security -- in its intention -- retirement also brings

openings for youth --

Do our 70 year old grnadparents really want to be flipping hamburgers at MacDonald's?

Or are you suggesting that the majority of those unemployed -- or elderly workers

who collect Social Security AND WORK -- are CEO's?


:rofl:

[Coyote_Bandit]

98. Ummmm......

"Get these people out of the work place and open jobs for younger people"

The meaning of that statement seems pretty obvious to me.



I'm 50ish and long-term unemployed - unless you really consider that desk in a spare bedroom job creation. I need to work for both financial and psychological reasons.

Throwing a little money my way might temporarily address the financial need to work - but it completely fails to address the psychological reasons. It does nothing to make me feel like I am productive and able to provide for myself.

Matter of fact, the psychological impact is that at the age of 50 with over 20 years of education and with a reasonable expectation that I can work at least another 15 to 20 years - I have now become a burden no longer able to contribute and dependent upon somebody else's idea of a social safety net. Thanks, but no thanks.

I've known a lot of folks that have worked well into their late 70's and 80's not because they had to but because they wanted to. That includes at least a couple of multi-millionaires who did physical farm labor - ya know, the work that Americans won't do. But. hey, I guess that's ok since they didn't take a job away from a younger American worker.

I've also known some folks that gladly retired at the age of 65 after a lifetime of contributing to Social Security - only to be forced to return to work to meet their financial needs. I know an 85 year old woman right now who works several days a week cleaning houses in order to be able to buy food. Both she and her husband worked and lived a modest lifestyle. She created her own job by offering her services to people she thought might need them. She didn't take a job away from a younger American either.

Retiring at 50 would be stupid. I would forgo 15 to 20 years of contributions to my benefits. I could not expect the benefits that might be paid to me to be sufficient to meet my living expenses for the remainder of my life. I would forego work and income during the remaining productive years of my life - but likely be required to return to work to meet my most basic needs. And that's assuming the government did in fact hold up its end of the bargain.

[defendandprotect]

125. Unemployed are a negative counter to wages and employment -- do you not understand that?

The larger the pool of workers -- including unemployed -- the more downward pressure

on wages, benefits -- and possibilities for employment --

I'm 50ish and long-term unemployed - unless you really consider that desk in a spare bedroom job creation. I need to work for both financial and psychological reasons.

It's not your spare desk in your bedroom -- it is that you are part of a huge pool of workers

who are -- not willingly -- putting downward pressure on salaries, benefits.

I'm sure you want a job -- and I hope that you find one -- but what would be wrong with having

the additional safety net of Social Security and Medicare?


No one is saying that you couldn't work -- couldn't look for employment -- it is soley an offer

of an extended safety net --

In fact, I think we should reduce all employment to 5 hours a day -- almost everyone can do that!

And, additionally, I don't think anyone is saying that you have to accept -- !!


I've known a lot of folks that have worked well into their late 70's and 80's not because they had to but because they wanted to. That includes at least a couple of multi-millionaires who did physical farm labor - ya know, the work that Americans won't do. But. hey, I guess that's ok since they didn't take a job away from a younger American worker.

We all know a lot of people working into their 70's and 80's -- most especially because they

have to!! Many "retired" people are holding two part time jobs --

We also know 40 year olds who are long term unemployed and running out of benefits --

both unemployment insurance and health care/COBRA!

There are also many young people working with serious health issues -- and watching their health

benefits dwindle -- and co-pays increase.


And, again, we also have young people who are leaving school and who can't find employment

now for a year and a half --

Let's make retirement affordable -- which will open some jobs for youths -- after all, that was

one of the goals of Social Security.


Meanwhile, this is presented as SUPPORT for the long term employed -- not as a personal

vendetta against YOU!!

[Coyote_Bandit]

132. I propose that young folks

be required to stay in school or serve a stint in some form of national service (military or otherwise) until reaching age 35. Keep 'em out of the workforce so that us old farts can have jobs. They can give up the first 15 years of their careers so that we can work the last 15 years of ours.

A proposal to make retirement and Social Security and Medicare available to workers at age 50 will only make it more difficult for older unemployed folks who want to work to find employment. But I guess that's ok since we have the "option" of retiring. Given this option we would have to overcome the negative stereotypes regarding age, skills, employment status and health - with potential employers knowing that we need not work because we can retire and draw benefits. That's no option - the effect of that is to retire older workers regardless of their desire to remain in the workforce.

What I understand is that the economy in this nation SUCKS - and none of the dumbshits in Washington are even making an effort to even pretend to address its most basic challenges. They just want us to go shopping. It they wanted to fix it they would focus on penalizing offshoring and outsourcing. They would endeavor to increase busines competition. They would try to rebuild the manufactuing industry. They would put stimulus funds into new, small and microbusinesses. But they won't even pretend to do any of that. By taking care of the big corporate boys and the banksters they can build their own fucking golden parachute when they leave office.

Use the search feature here at DU ad you will find other DUers who have in fact suggested that older folks should leave the workforce so that youner folks can have jobs.

Anybody who wants to put me in a position where it becomes even more difficult to find employment and I am therefore involuntarily retired at the age of 50 - especially if my retirement benefits them - is in fact undermining my interests.

[defendandprotect]

139. Ironic ... nothing about this is mandated ... but you want to "REQUIRE"

that youth be forced into staying in school -- or some form of national service --

even militaty!!

Wow -- !!

Yep -- I'm sure those grandparents would rather be working into their late 70's and 80's

than retired!!

Agree with yhou on our elected officials -- majority of them millionaire and multi-millionaires!

And about capitalism itself -- if we want democracy, we need a new system of economic democracy --

and capitalism ain't it!

Capitalism isn't about competitition -- it's about killing the competitition!

Again -- if you are retired, you can always work -- however, youth do not have the option of

retiring -- that's why it's important to move them into the workplace -- and that's in some small

part what the goal of Social Security was. Not too many in their 70's and 80's want to be in

the workplace -- and, again, this isn't a personal vendetta against you!

[Coyote_Bandit]

165. You just don't get it do you?

Or maybe you just don't want to get it.

Just because retirement at age 50 is not required does not mean that it will not have virtually the same effects as if it were.

Employers already discriminate against older job seekers. Under this bigotted proposal employers would have even less motivation to employ older workers. They would know that any older job applicant who couldn't find work could just retire and, therefore, really didn't need the income. An employer choosing between two equally qualified, equally personable applicants is going to tend to hire the ne who most needs the income.

BTW, all four of my grandparents and both of my parentws worked well past retirement age - because they wanted to. Dad is nearly 80 and until an illness last year was working several days a week. It gave him something to do and made him feel useful. He didn't need the money and usually refused his paycheck or donated it to one of two local charities. I doubt many of the youngsters today would be willing to do the dirty physical work that he was doing.

[ecstatic]

60. what about funds to start a business?

That would be cheaper, add jobs, and it would make more sense, IMO.

[patrice]

62. Co-operatives + Co-housing. nt

[Pigheaded]

63. Sign me up right now!!

[SheilaT]

70. As for the medicare side, there should be

medicare for all. I actually think it will happen, perhaps inside of ten years.

As for taking SS at age 50, just go on line and look at the difference between your benefit at age 62 and at age 70, and try to figure out what the discount would be for beginning to take it twelve years earlier than the current earliest age. Most people would be lucky to get three hundred bucks a month at age 50.

The second issue is, of course, the unwillingness of taxpayers to support a large number of early retirees.

[undeterred]

75. You coudn't even sell this in Sweden.

[Safetykitten]

77. No, because they are Commie, Socialistic, money flinging, Marxists, that actually have a functing

society.

Oh, feel free to add whatever to what they are. Thoughts were just at the top of my head.

[undeterred]

99. Its not that I am AGAINST it.

But we have right wingers trying to push the retirement age towards 70. What on earth makes anyone think we're going to lower it to 50?!

[Warren Stupidity]

85. most of western europe has an extensive 'safety net'

that makes this sort of proposal unnecessary. By the way the old age pension system kicks in there at 61.

Total fail.

[defendandprotect]

96. .. which has been under constant attack by international capitalism/corporatism ... !!

[Vinca]

89. Plan B (aka Republican Plan): euthanasia pills.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. Welcome to Logan's run.

Meet you in the giant bug-zapper in the sky.

[gulliver]

91. It is a nice thought, but I think we need to get them back to work.

I don't think it is good for the economy to have them sidelined. The plane needs more engines. I just think we are not organized well enough that the simple reality of "more workers is more wealth" can emerge. Too much conflict, like Clinton says.

[defendandprotect]

140. Think, we have to notice that's not happening -- how many more 99'ers ????

[defendandprotect]

95. We also need everyone to move to a 5 hour work day -- opening up new jobs for unemployed ..!!

'WE ARE ALL LABOR' -- and that's how we should all be unionized, informally --

Setting the wages, standards, working conditions -- benefits --

forcing corporations to come to the people's union for workers -- !!

[Codeine]

104. My company would collapse in that situation

and I and all my coworkers would be out of a job. Stupid idea.

[DaveJ]

158. Why is that bad for the company?

My company operates from 8 am to 8 pm, so it would be perfect for us. Actually it would be a 6 hour day, with a lunch break, making 5 work hours.

I'm actually more in favor of 2-3 day work weeks. The problem is most people would proceed to work a second because they need or want more money. It is impossible to survive on less because everyone else will drive up the standard income.

I still think it is worth a try. It actually is sane and rational to not want to work.

[Codeine]

159. It would entail more employees.

Each of those employees costs the company more in medical insurance fees and other costs. And the employees all be financially screwed because we can't possibly increase wages without the company going out of business -- like many (most?) small businesses we are hanging on by our fingernails.

[DaveJ]

161. Yeah I thought that might be it

Our system is screwed up. No single thing can fix it. Ironically, if we had government healthcare then more people would have jobs. But Republicans would never have that.

[RebelOne]

97. I was working until I was 70 and then was laid off.

Fortunately, I was collecting social security at that time. So I just decided to retire. I don't think most laid-off persons are that lucky. I had a few dollars in my 401K and some money in my IRA, so it will be a few years before I have to eat cat food

[glinda]

110. Excellent idea.

[Shagbark Hickory]

113. No. What would make sense is creating jobs for them. nt

[Logical]

116. Wouldn't this cause SS to fail sooner?

[bklyncowgirl]

156. I think that if this was offered it would have to be at a lower rate than if you retired at age 62

I'm in my mid fifties and unemployed. I'm in good health, tech savvy and all that but employers aren't interested in hiring someone with my management background and age.

Being able to take something from Social Security while at the same time perhaps starting my own business or working part time would be a great help.

[BiggJawn]

119. Excellent idea, Don.

Everything I've been reading (except from the AARP, who says 65 is the new 30) says that if you're in your 50's and you lose your job that your pretty much hosed.

[madinmaryland]

120. Interesting concept. But how would you stop teabaggers from abusing the "amnesty" or as they spell

it, "amnety"

[1776Forever]

128. Heard a fairly well off 30 something today say Fire Fighters & Police should not be able to retire

at 55 and I wanted to jump in and ask him what his work experience had been. Had he ever been a volunteer Fireman? I turned around and he and his buddy were walking away from me and I wondered where he got his ideas from. This was in Ohio and he was talking up the SB5 bill that he said should go through because the Fireman and Police get too much pension. There are a lot of Repubs like him that think even 55 is too young to make a person stop working so it would take a huge outcry from that group to help these pipsqueaks realize what it is like to be 55 and looking for work in this day and age. I have been there and had to give up my home for it. I tried to work at Walmart, K-Mart, McDonald's, etc. in Florida and found nothing for 3 years and believe me my resume and background was really amazing for someone my age. They will get theirs someday and it won't be pretty!

[mmonk]

131. Our age seems to be the throw away age. It's harder for us to get work.

If we do, it will usually be on a limited "contract" basis with no benefits. Thanks for the thought.

[sfpcjock]

143. Yes, because it frees you from the labor pool

that it will be difficult for you to rejoin on your own. It seems that the pool is now so huge that out-of work-older-people are not being seriously considered for their job applications now.

[harmonicon]

144. It seems like an overly baroque solution to a problem that can be simply solved.

The US just needs to have a real social safety net like first world countries have.

I'm in my 30's and have been out of work for a year. I have one super-part-time job starting next month. While the wage is good, it's only a few hours a month, so I need something else. Since I live in the UK, healthcare is a human right, and I appreciate that a lot. I don't know what my doctors visits and prescription would cost in the US even with insurance and I don't want to think about it. There is no reason that the US couldn't have a system like the NHS.

Because of the visa I'm here on, I'm not eligible for benefits like job-seekers allowance, but all permanent residents are. It's not a lot of money, but it doesn't run out like unemployment does in the US. There are also housing benefits available to the out-of-work and those with especially low incomes. Again, the US could simply implement such policies, but there is zero political will to do so.

[Modern_Matthew]

145. I love this idea. My dad will be 52 and is looking run-down these days...

Was recently diagnosed with Type II Diabetes.

I'd like to see him get an early retirement.

[spinbaby]

147. Here's an alternative suggestion

Let's leave Social Security alone for now and just lower the age of Medicare to 50. This would accomplish two things: First, it would make over 50 employees more attractive to employers because they wouldn't need health insurance. Second, it would add younger, healthier people to the pool of Medicare recipients, improving its demographics.

[ebayfool]

172. Best response in the thread!

I'm 57 & if I had access to health care I'd be much better able to work! Housekeeping for 20 years (oil field work - welding inspector - & waitressing before that) breaks the body down when there is little medical as the problems come up. Hard to get jobs when you walk in limping from the bad knees, blown disks, & foot problems! And all the retraining in the world won't mask that 1st impression.

[Codeine]

148. Creating a privileged class of early retirees

who get to sit on their asses an extra ten or fifteen years while their contemporaries work seems like a remarkably bad idea.

[DaveJ]

160. Depends. People can be productive after retirement.

I rarely see that happen though. My parents just play golf, garden, boat on the lake. I think I will continue to develop software, which I can do regardless of age, as long as my brain still works. I never really respected people who's ultimate goal is to do nothing and spend life on the beach, that seems comparable to becoming plant life to me.

[rosesaylavee]

163. Going into my 4th year of being underemployed.

Maybe some kind of volunteer /community service option for those of us over 50 to qualify for aid? I already am working 2 jobs AND volunteering. I have a lot to contribute but am doubtful I can maintain this pace for several more years.

[Logical]

164. This is where the term "bleeding heart liberal" comes from. n-t

[NNN0LHI]

167. I have been called that exact term right to my face before and you know how I responded?

I said thank you.

Don

[onpatrol98]

176. I thought you were going to say...

Well,at least I have a heart...

[DeSwiss]

169. K&R

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hres365ih/pdf/BILLS-112hres365ih.pdf">It's A Start - (HOUSE RESOLUTION 365)

[bvar22]

170. I wouldn't limit it to long term unemployed,

...but expand Medicare to include everyone over 55.
This WOULD reduce the unemployment rate,
and open up good jobs to younger workers.

Another fringe benefit is that this WOULD be the first step to expanding Medicare for ALL.

This wouldn't even need to be labeled as an "Expansion of Medicare",
but could easily be marketed as "Emergency Aid".
You could sell THAT even in the most RED of RED States.

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AnnieBW]

175. K&R

Most of my friends who are long-term unemployed are over 50.