How to increase employment in a time when there are few new jobs.

[ThomWV]

If you want to see the number of the unemployed go down in a time of precious few new jobs how about this. Reduce the amount of the Social Security payout for every year a person works beyond 65. That would very quickly open up existing positions to new hires while not adding many (there would be some die-hards) to the ranks of those now seeking jobs. And to answer those who say this would break Social Security even sooner, to them I say then go ahead and lift the cap enough to cover any anticipated new outlays. Just because there is a cap doesn't for a second mean that the cap can't be adjusted.

[hughee99]

1. So you are suggesting that people who don't retire at 65,

and continue to work (and continue to pay into SS), should get LESS money back from SS because of it?

[ThomWV]

3. Nope, if they continue to work they shouldn't pay in any more

But their annual benefit should be decreased by a certain percentage for every year they work past 65.

[hughee99]

6. The repukes will love this.

In WV, I'm sure you've had to deal with your share of repukes. Ask them about "libruls" and big government and you'll hear some version of this...

"The libruls want to make everyone dependent on government programs so they can use the threat of taking those programs away to get the people to do what they want."

These people working past 65 have every right to SS just like anyone else who paid in. The government has no right to tell them what life decisions they should make, and no right to try to coerce them into making a decision by threatening to take away something that is rightfully theirs. If you want to REALLY politicize SS, then this is the way to go.

[Donnachaidh]

8. what a nice way of saying you're forcing them out of the workforce

un-frigging-believable. :puke:

[NNN0LHI]

10. Do workers continue paying into SS after retirement age?

I swear we had some real old guys where I was worked who after they reached retirement age were no longer required to pay into SS or Medicare any more. No more FICA withholding taken out of their check every week. That is why they wouldn't retire and kept working until they were finally carried out of the place feet first on a stretcher.

Don

[hughee99]

12. As long as they're getting paychecks, they're still paying FICA

I'm not sure how that gets handled at tax time and if they get reimbursed.

[Statistical]

18. Yes.

Regardless of when you "retire" (begin to collect from SS) you will still pay FICA taxes on every dollar in wages up to the annual cap.

[Donnachaidh]

2. ahh -- the politically correct way of increasing the Social Security Retirement age

Actually quite a Rovian Twist.

FAIL.

How's about focusing on new manufacturing -- rather than trying to take away CHOICE from the Seniors? Covetousness is the lazy way out.

[ThomWV]

4. You lost me on that one.

Its effect would be to decrease the age of the workforce, not increase it.

[Donnachaidh]

7. you're making it into a choice elders cannot make

And yes, it would decrease the age of the workforce, by forcing elders to retire early.

WHY should they if they are capable of doing the job? for YOU to benefit? Why? Because you're *younger*? Agism is just as vicious as racism, but in this country it's allowed.

Sorry, you're advocating taking away seniors' RIGHT to work, by a very low blow - forcing them to economically retire when they should not HAVE to. If they are CAPABLE of doing the job -- THEY should have the choice to retire. Forcing THEM to retire because someone younger needs the job?

AGEIST LAZY BULLSHIT.

[Fumesucker]

9. There has to be demand before manufacturing does any good..

I'm a micro manufacturer myself, one of the hardest things about it is finding a product that people will actually buy, particularly in these times.

[Donnachaidh]

11. no argument there -- but advocating pushing seniors out of jobs they can do

is a pretty ludicrous way to *fix* the problem. It's indicative of the panic going on about jobs - society is turning on it's own - because we are NOT getting the help we need from Washington.

[Fumesucker]

14. I'm pretty close to being a senior myself..

Old enough that I don't expect ever to get hired again, just for reasons of insurance if nothing else..

There are quite a few jobs that I've done in the past that I'm not really physically able to do any more, not on a regular ongoing basis anyway.

At some point it does become the duty of the elderly to stand aside and let the young have a place.

[Donnachaidh]

16. *duty to step aside* -- IF they cannot do the job, perhaps

But I also know of some younger folks who cannot *do the job* -- so should they also be required to *step aside*?

Once again -- we CANNOT fix the jobs problem by *eating our own*. We must demand that our government and the corporations who expect ALL of us to support them to step up and fix it.

Pushing seniors out of jobs they are capable of doing is a vicious idea put forth by lazy individuals who don't care who they have to crawl over to get *theirs*.

It's certainly not something that should be advocated by ANYONE claiming to be a Democrat. Period.

[county worker]

17. "it does become the duty of the elderly to stand aside"

Hey, why don't you just die and you wouldn't have a problem. That's what you're telling older people to do. "Just get the hell out of the way you old bastard! It's your duty to give a young person your job!"

I'll bet you wouldn't say that to a black person would you? Your a bigoted piece of work!


Screw you!

[Fumesucker]

21. I'm sixty..

How old are you?

[county worker]

25. 64

And I am going to work until I am 70. I will get Medicare next year. I'll get social security in two years and a pension when I reach 70.

I worked hard to be where I am and I'm not about to go into poverty because someone thinks it's my duty to do so!

[Fumesucker]

29. Apparently unlike many older folks I remember what it was like to be young..

And things are much more difficult in many ways for the young today than they were when you and I were young.

The constant dollar value of the minimum wage peaked in 1972 and has been dropping in fits and starts ever since, housing is far more costly, likewise transportation, insurance, food, clothing and so on.

In the next few years I plan on bringing in a talented young person to take over my portion of my business, showing them the ropes and teaching them everything I can, then I will let them slowly buy me out. I'm done raising a family and I don't need much in the way of material things, I'm really more interested in a life of the mind. I figured out quite a while back that the wanting is almost always better than the having and I have no one else to take care of besides my two small dogs.

I'll be surprised if I make it to 70, both of my parents died of cancer by the time I was twenty, that's pretty much the way I expect to go, I'm actually a little surprised I'm alive now.

[county worker]

30. I was born to a factory worker who at his peak made $60 a week.

I started working when I was in the fourth grade. When I graduated from high school I was making $10/hr as a grocery store dept manager. I was drafted and sent to the Vietnam war. When I got out I went to work and realized that I needed a skill if I am to survive. I went to college full time and worked full time. I owned a duplex which paid my housing. I worked for over 30 years to get the position I have.

I remember it being hard. We are born when we are born. It isn't our choice. We are dealt a hand and we have to play it. With luck, taking responsibility, and chance and knowing the right people we may be ok, we may not.

In my 30 years of work after college I have been divorced, was alcohol and drug dependent, was bankrupt, was clinically depressed and homeless. I may be homeless again I don't know. Today I am ok and I aim to do what I can to stay that way without hurting or stepping on someone else.

[Donnachaidh]

24. thank you! It's BIGOTRY to advocate pushing older Americans out of work

BIGOTRY.

And flat out laziness on the part of the advocates. Seems it's much EASIER to target jobs already made, than to actually have to find a way to CREATE jobs.

Lazy mother--------!!!!

[county worker]

26. Maybe it's nature's way of thinning the herd from the bottom up.

If young people think we should give them our jobs and we don't they'll have to starve or get off their asses.

[Donnachaidh]

34. it's a mindset I've seen accelerate in my area -- the younger ones think they are OWED something

I've seen adult children throw fits because their parents won't SELL their homes to get the little bastards out from under credit card debt they brought on themselves.

I've seen adult children plot about putting a single parent in a nursing home - as long as *they* can keep control of the paid for home, in order to rent it out for another income stream for *themselves*.

And those SAME adult children who succeed in putting parents into nursing homes won't LET their kids visit - usually finding all sorts of excuses. But most likely they FEAR having their kids see what they have done to their parents.

Because karma will most likely kick them in the head 30 years down the road when the grandkids do the SAME to them.

So you youngsters keep pushing for a measure to kick people out of their jobs when they reach a certain age - to benefit the younger ones.

No one owes you shit. But push people out of their jobs because of age - and it's almost a given the old karmic kick to the head will be visiting YOU in the future. And YOU won't have shit-all to say about it.

[Fumesucker]

38. You think everyone young is like that?

You think everyone old is sweetness and light?

People aren't like that, there are good young people and evil old people.

[Donnachaidh]

40. not at all -- but go ahead and make ME the villian

It makes the initial argument about pushing seniors out of jobs that much more *palatable*, doesn't it? :eyes:

[Fumesucker]

41. You missed the part where I'm a senior myself..

I'd love to be able to retire but unless I can build up my business to the point I can slide an apprentice in to take over for me I'll never be able to, I'll work 'til I drop.

[county worker]

46. There is a term for it. It's called elder abuse.

[Fumesucker]

37. Is it possible to be bigoted against yourself?

Because I'm an "older American", old enough that I never expect to be hired again.

[Donnachaidh]

45. do high horses give you bigger saddlesores?

enquiring minds would like to know....

[wickerwoman]

39. I imagine if someone is still working at 65

it's because they need to still be working at 65. The reason is none of my business. Pushing them out of that job to give it to someone else who may or may not need it more is really ugly and unethical.

Better to focus on creating new jobs in fields where we actually need people (like upgrading infrastructure and retrofitting older buildings to be more energy efficient.)

[Fumesucker]

42. There really aren't that many jobs that last forever..

Like the buggy whip manufacturer, most jobs and most skills have a certain finite lifetime in which they are generally useful.

Indeed, there are a couple of buggy whip manufacturers still left, but now it's an extremely limited trade in high priced, low volume luxury goods.

[county worker]

15. Find a product people will buy?

That has always been the problem! If that were easy we'd all be in business!

[Fumesucker]

22. It's a constantly changing market..

What sells this year may well be outmoded or out of fashion next year.

As Alice found out, you have to run like hell just to stay in the same place, if you want to get anywhere you have to run twice that fast.

Not to mention that you have to find a small enough niche that the big manufacturers are not interested in it, they'll squash you like a bug if the niche is too big and they want to control it.

[county worker]

23. I have been a controller of manufacturing companies most of my life.

I understand manufacturing and the marketing study it takes to stay in business.

Like I said, if it were easy we'd all be doing it.

It reminds me of the movie "A Leage of Their Own" One of the women wanted to quit because it was just too hard. The coach says, "It's supposed to be hard, if it was easy everybody would be doing it."

[Jackpine Radical]

5. I have another way.

Shorten the work week without shorting the paychecks--that is, let the workers share in the benefits of their own increased productivity.

[county worker]

19. If you shorten the work week without shortening the paycheck you are decreasing productivity.

If two people do the work of one there is less productivity.

[Statistical]

20. However productivity in the US has risen 30% in last 20 years while wages are flat.

Thus an American does roughly 30% more work per $ than 20 years ago.

Workweek could be shortened 30% at same pay and productivity (work per $) would be roughly equal to what it was in 1990 (you know that horrible economic period).

Of course 30% reduction might be a stretch however one could cut workweek by say 5 hours. Make 35 hours the standard work week with overtime beyond that. 40 was simply an arbitrary number. There is no reason (with productivity continuing to gain) that the human race NEEDS to work 40 hours a week from now until the Sun burns out.

[county worker]

27. Productivity is increased by using computers also.

It takes less people to do the same work because the work is computerized.

[Hannah Bell]

28. productivity is measured by goods produced/hr of work, not by paychecks.

having two people do the work doesn't do anything to productivity unless they do it slower or faster.

[county worker]

31. You can also measure productivity by the cost of what is produced.

You are right in one sense and so am I.

I am saying if it cost more to produce the same, in dollars there is a lost of productivity or more resources used but less output per a unit of resource. Or increase in capital without an equal increase in output of product.

[Hannah Bell]

32. standard measure & measure used in us productivity stats = goods per hr of work.

[county worker]

33. Suppose your process was machine intensive rather than labor intensive and mine

was labor intensive. How do we compare productivity between us?

Also, in the statement the poster said to shorten the work week but not shorten the paycheck. He/she did not say that production would increase per hour. If one person makes 1 piece per hour in 40 hours they made 40 pieces. Shorten the work week to 30 hours and they make 30 pieces. Add another 30 hour shift and you get 60 pieces with no increase in productivity.

[Hannah Bell]

44. i made one claim: standard measure of productivity is goods produced per hour of labor time.

your post is irrelevant to that claim.

productivity is compared by goods produced per hour of labor time whether a business/industry is capital-intensive or labor intensive.

i made no claims about whether shortening the work week would affect productivity.

however, past experience tends to show it would increase it.

[county worker]

47. I said machine intensive not capital intensive. If something is machine intensive

you can't measure it by labor hour, cost accounting 101.

Shortening the work week would only increase productivity if the same number of units were produced in the shorter week, for example, 100 units produced in 40 hours and 100 units produced in 30 hours.

The idea in the original post was to shorten the week to have more people working. You can increase out put by having 60 hours of work instead of 40 but if both people produce the same units per hour as the one person did in 40 hours there is no increase in productivity.

[Jackpine Radical]

35. Obviously.

That has nothing to do with my point, which was merely that the workers ought to share in the fruits of their own labor. If their productivity goes up, for whatever reason, then all the benefits should not accrue to the stockholders and managers.

[county worker]

13. That's bull shit! This is not a zero sum game!

I can't understand people who can solve one person's problem by giving another person a problem.

You need to create jobs for all not screw those you don't care about on behalf of those you do!

[OnionPatch]

36. It's easy to assume

that older people don't want to continue to work. I know I'm counting the hours until I can walk out of that building for the last time. Not everyone feels that way. But enough of them do that I think you could be onto something. You can't force older people out of the workforce, that's just wrong. But if the cap were raised on SSI to the point that people who are 60 could retire with full benefits, a whole lot of people would retire voluntarily. Try getting the elite 1% to contribute even the tiniest amount toward helping the working class, though. Not gonna happen with our pandering politicians.

[TheKentuckian]

43. I don't like the punitive factor. If you lower the age of full benefits

Enough will self select to come most of the way to your goal while allowing the people who can and want to continue to work to do so.

The sentiment that it is lazy thinking refuses to acknowledge the reality of conditions. With increasing levels of automation, growing population, and out of control globalization.

The existing dynamic is not capable of an infinite number of productive occupations but rather ever less.

An economy isn't magic. There is no let there be jobs, that is supply side absurdity.
Any solution that isn't the status quo from taxes to trade to work week to benefit structure or anything that isn't the existing paradigm is poo poohed.

The formula has more than run it's course for what we have thought of as the American Dream and broad prosperity. You can't have automation and near slaves producing everything and everyone can have a productive forty hour a week job that pays a living wage.

The time is coming for real structural changes. Whole industries with big profits with few American jobs and even less shared prosperity spring up all the time.

What in the world does laziness have to do with there being a lack of jobs? That is just madcap lashing out.

[MadHound]

48. How about this,

We create massive jobs programs on the order of the WPA and such. Our infrastructure is out of date and badly need of repair and upgrading. Set people to work doing that. Fully fund education instead of attacking it, that would put hundreds of thousands of teachers to work.

Spend money on people instead of wars, that will get jobs flowing in this country again.