Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Seems simple enough.
CsG
Simplistic is closer to the truth. When you have so many people who don't make enough money to be able to set aside much, if any money on their own to supplement their retirement, then we will just make them work till they drop?
What a plan!! ROFL. I especially like letting the old people go on disability. When they can't do phyisical labor they will end up working at a fast food joint, not on disablity.
Just because people live longer doesn't mean that they are capable of labor until they are 70 and if they aren't capable of phyiscal labor it doen't automatically follow that that they will qualify for disability. Even if they did, that's would be the next thing the Repug's would be whining about.
You did not read the article did you?
Yes I did:
What about the minority of people whose strenuous jobs or poor health make work after 65 too difficult? The Greenspan Commission, which proposed the original age hike to 67, solved that problem in 1983. Social Security already has a separate benefits program for people with disabilities. "The disability benefits program can be improved to provide cash benefits and Medicare to those between age 62 and the higher normal retirement age who, for reasons of health, are unable to continue working," said the commission.
My point is that when you are unable to continue your job as, say a machinist making $20/hr or digging ditches for $10/hr that you will have to start flipping burgers since you are still capable of working, e.g. not disabled. If one so choses they can do that now by their choice if their health is good, or can do it part time to supplment their SS and still get their SS checks.
Despite what Greenspan is trying to infer, I know better. He says nothing about not being able to preform their current job, he says unable to continue working. To me that means flipping burgers at $6/hr with no health benifits, etc. It will be the people least able to set aside money to supplement their retirement that will suffer and will end up working till they are ready to drop dead. Many people who don't have physical jobs may be able to continue working to age 70. I have a friend who just retired at 70. He love his job and was making so much money he didn't want to retire, but diabetis changed his mind.
Those that can't cxontinue their regular employment won't automatically be put on disablity if they are still able to do some type of employment. This idea looks good on paper, but that's it.
you missed this from the first paragraph
Two years ago, Johnson and Steuerle added that the percentage of 55- to 59-year-old men who said health problems interfered with their jobs had declined from more than 27 percent in 1971 to less than 20 percent in 2002.
People are living longer healtheir lives and the retirment age should reflect that.
Living longer doesn't nessecarily translate to being able to physicaly work that much longer. It also groups all the people (desk job versus physical job) in the same group.
The percentage of 55 to 59 year olds who have had less health problems is a meaninless statistic, we need to know what the RETIREMENT age (65 to 70 year olds) stats are and we need to know that info by job type. Why didn't Johnson and Steuerle include those stat's? Hmmmm??
The fact of the matter is that generally most people doing physical labor are not going to be able to work as long as people who make their money using their brains. Those are generally going to be the same group of people who haven't been able (due to their lower income) to invest and save as much as the others for their retirement.
I already know too many old people who just sit in their house/apartment all day long and waste away because they can't afford to do anything. Many older people who are healthy enough continue to work past retirement age, do volunteer work, etc. but many just aren't strong enough to work any more. After working hard all their lives, I don't agree with making them go thru the indignity of applieing for disability.
Once again you have shown you did not read the article as the article discusses how manual labor jobs are disappearing. Feel free to comment again after you read the article.
In its 1935 report, Roosevelt's committee attached a table of occupations held by employed Americans aged 55 or older. More than 80 percent worked in agriculture, manufacturing, trade, or domestic and personal service. Fewer than 10 percent worked in professional service or clerical occupations. Today's economy looks nothing like that. In 1999, Eugene Steuerle and Richard Johnson of the Urban Institute reported that the percentage of Americans working in physically demanding jobs?defined as jobs "requiring frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing more than 25 pounds"?had fallen from more than 20 percent in 1950 to less than 8 percent in 1996.
Facebook
Twitter