|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
![]() |
matmar
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 11:11 AM Original message |
How would lowering the retirement age for SS to 55 help with jobs? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jtown1123
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 11:21 AM Response to Original message |
1. NO, because those workers would be paying into Social Security for those that took |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nuclear Unicorn
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 11:54 AM Response to Reply #1 |
9. I'm not sure I'm understanding |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jtown1123
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 12:04 PM Response to Reply #9 |
14. That makes sense. I think it's been suggested as a temporary measure. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
matmar
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 07:19 PM Response to Reply #9 |
26. Thanks for the insight. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FarLeftFist
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 07:49 PM Response to Reply #9 |
34. This would lower the unemployment rate at the very least. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nuclear Unicorn
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 09:30 AM Response to Reply #34 |
40. Actually, no it wouldn't lower the unemployment rate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 10:13 AM Response to Reply #40 |
50. Sure it would. Bill is no longer looking for work and neither is Joe. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nuclear Unicorn
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 10:53 AM Response to Reply #50 |
52. That's a bit over-simplified. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 11:29 AM Response to Reply #52 |
57. There are X number of jobs. There are 1.2X people competing for them. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nuclear Unicorn
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 12:43 PM Response to Reply #57 |
59. I agree a labor surplus depresses wages but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 06:23 PM Response to Reply #59 |
62. "depressing the supply of labor won't help wages." Of course it does, that's why unions work. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProfessorGAC
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 11:00 AM Response to Reply #40 |
54. That's Not Right |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nuclear Unicorn
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 11:19 AM Response to Reply #54 |
55. That's just a statistical categorization, not a measure of economic productivity |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProfessorGAC
![]() |
Sun Nov-06-11 05:24 AM Response to Reply #55 |
63. You're Dodging |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RaleighNCDUer
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 11:26 AM Response to Reply #9 |
56. That's all bass ackwards. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nuclear Unicorn
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 01:04 PM Response to Reply #56 |
60. urm |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bemildred
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 11:22 AM Response to Original message |
2. And Medicare too, that would make older workers more desibable. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wryter2000
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 11:23 AM Response to Original message |
3. Social Security is not "government assistance." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jtown1123
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 11:28 AM Response to Reply #3 |
4. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
matmar
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 07:14 PM Response to Reply #3 |
25. My bad. Didn't mean it that way._ |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sad sally
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 09:33 PM Response to Reply #3 |
38. Except the amount everyone pays into has been reduced with the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wryter2000
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 01:20 PM Response to Reply #38 |
61. The "holiday" was a bad idea in many ways |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ejpoeta
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 11:33 AM Response to Original message |
5. if those 55 to 65 were no longer in the employment race then you would have |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
matmar
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 07:20 PM Response to Reply #5 |
27. I like the idea also. But how would it work? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ejpoeta
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 07:39 PM Response to Reply #27 |
31. you lower the age to qualify. this takes most of those folks out of the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
matmar
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 07:47 PM Response to Reply #31 |
33. It's invested in Treasury Bonds. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nuclear Unicorn
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 09:44 AM Response to Reply #31 |
41. Not quite |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 11:44 AM Response to Original message |
6. If you think SS is a meager sustenance at 62 or 65 or more, I imagine it would |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RC
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 12:12 PM Response to Reply #6 |
15. BINGO! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DavidDvorkin
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 11:46 AM Response to Original message |
7. Add Medicare to that, and I think a lot of people |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
razorman
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 11:46 AM Response to Original message |
8. It might give me some hope for my own future. I realize this is selfish, but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flamingdem
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 11:57 AM Response to Reply #8 |
10. It's a good idea, not selfish, but human nature and politics |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dtexdem
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 11:57 AM Response to Original message |
11. Social Security is something beneficiaries have paid into. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Matariki
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 12:02 PM Response to Original message |
12. Social Security isn't "government assistance" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
matmar
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 07:25 PM Response to Reply #12 |
28. I know. My mistake |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dkf
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 12:03 PM Response to Original message |
13. For every year under the full retirement age you get a cut in benefits. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RaleighNCDUer
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 12:31 PM Response to Reply #13 |
21. You do NOT get a cut in benefits. The benefits are calculated to be |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dkf
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 04:12 PM Response to Reply #21 |
24. Well you get a smaller monthly benefit. To many here that is a "cut". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RaleighNCDUer
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 12:15 PM Response to Original message |
16. More expensive older workers would be replaced by less expensive |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madfloridian
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 12:17 PM Response to Original message |
17. Calling SS "government assistance" gives you away per motive. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
matmar
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 07:31 PM Response to Reply #17 |
29. Bad choice of words. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NorthCarolina
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 12:22 PM Response to Original message |
18. Unrec. Social Security is not "Government Assistance". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kestrel91316
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 12:24 PM Response to Original message |
19. Social Security is NOT "government assistance". It is a pension benefit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jtown1123
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 12:28 PM Response to Reply #19 |
20. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
matmar
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 07:36 PM Response to Reply #19 |
30. Oh for Christs sake it was an honest mistake |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ItNerd4life
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 12:50 PM Response to Original message |
22. Economics 101 - It's a horrible and stupid idea |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JoePhilly
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 12:55 PM Response to Reply #22 |
23. You PAY into social security and they calculate your benefit based on what you paid in. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
matmar
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 07:44 PM Response to Reply #22 |
32. I disagree. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eridani
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 08:11 PM Response to Reply #22 |
36. If you were figuring in productivity gains over the last 50 years-- |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FarLeftFist
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 08:14 PM Response to Reply #22 |
37. Yes, it's called 'Pay It Forward' and happens to be a remarkably genius way to run a society. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 10:04 AM Response to Reply #22 |
46. SS is insurance, funded by the membership. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TBF
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 07:54 PM Response to Original message |
35. Unrec for the right wing meme ... nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mmonk
![]() |
Thu Nov-03-11 09:35 PM Response to Original message |
39. The businesses would hire them. They wouldn't have to offer benefits. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 09:56 AM Response to Original message |
42. It would drive up costs. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
backtoblue
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 09:59 AM Response to Original message |
43. It would just make more people out looking for jobs, but not |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 10:00 AM Response to Reply #43 |
44. So more people looking for jobs... creates jobs? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
backtoblue
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 10:02 AM Response to Reply #44 |
45. That's what I'm saying that they're saying... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 10:07 AM Response to Reply #45 |
48. Still not following |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
backtoblue
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 10:11 AM Response to Reply #48 |
49. It's a VERY bad idea |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mainer
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 10:04 AM Response to Original message |
47. Who says 55 year olds don't NEED those jobs? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RaleighNCDUer
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 10:47 AM Response to Reply #47 |
51. Nobody is talking about mandatory retirement at 55. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
newportdadde
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 10:59 AM Response to Original message |
53. Many/Most of those companies would NOT replace those workers. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lumberjack_jeff
![]() |
Fri Nov-04-11 11:32 AM Response to Reply #53 |
58. Employers hire enough people to fill orders, and no more. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sat Sep 07th 2024, 07:44 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC