Laboring Longer a Growing Trend For Americans 603
AxSpark writes "More and more Americans have the tendency to work after retirement and this number is growing day by day. Last year this number was 6 million people of 65 and over working. The reason for that is quite evident: pensions are not enough for sufficient living."
Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
It could be that a lot of people are still healthy enough to continue working after age 65... and some people actually want to!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Understand, it was the fact that there were no dependent young that made those boomers rich all their lives.
Society is indeed wealthier if that young man and that young women stay single and work overtime th
Uhhh, what the hell are you talking about? (Score:5, Informative)
The boomers had plenty of kids. My parents were boomers, and I've found there is no lack of people around my age. The population growth in the United States is still positive, in case you haven't noticed. No, there isn't a perfect distribution among age groups but where do you get this idea that baby boomers didn't have any children? Do you see a massive gap in our population? I sure don't.
Re:Uhhh, what the hell are you talking about? (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to look at history, not present day. It's not that the boomers didn't have kids - they *delayed* having kids, and had fewer of them. There is a significant dip in the number of births in the late 60's (i was born in '68). I noticed when I was a kid that there seemed to be a lot fewer kids in my grade than the higher and lower grades; their response was that, when I was born, it was very "unfashionable" to have children.
So now the boomers are starting to retire, and their kids are in their 20's, maybe early 30's - not peak earning years. the bulk of the taxes comes from those later in their careers, and there are a lot FEWER of them than there needs to be. So, IF we can get through the next 20 years without bankrupting the system, the boomer's kids will be supporting me. I'm not holding my breath.
As for population growth in the US, it is mostly due to immigration and higher birthrates among immigrant populations. Xenophobia aside, this is a GOOD thing - Japan and Europe are about freaking out right now because they are simply not reproducing enough to support their aging population, but they won't accept immigrants into their society in any meaningful way. Americans are going to have to deal with their caregivers probably speaking a foreign language and having different color skin, but they will deal. Japan is placing their hopes in robots - anything but outsiders. And Europe is placing their faith in...?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a massive gap among the middle-class populations that pay the taxes. Middle class folks have smaller families in order to afford their standards of living, and poorer families tend to have more, but live in cheaper conditions or are subsidized.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately for us, we're still in a position to attract skilled immigrants to make up the labor shortfall...That gives us the benefit of their labor, without having to have paid their costs as they were growing up.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately for us, we're still in a position to attract skilled immigrants to make up the labor shortfall...That gives us the benefit of their labor, without having to have paid their costs as they were growing up.
Some are skilled, some are not and many are here illegally. There is no labor shortfall--only a wage shortfall. When you've got companies that are allowed to take their business overseas to use what amounts to slave labor without fear of tariffs. Or using illegal labor here, which has driven down wages. These are not jobs that American's won't take. These are jobs that Americans expect a fair wage to be set.
And illegal immigrants are hardly cost-free. We're paying for their medical, their children's education and medical. They're paying no income tax, they send the bulk of their money back over the border and have no plans to become American citizens. That's hardly a recipe for a successful country.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fortunately for us, we're still in a position to attract skilled immigrants to make up the labor shortfall...That gives us the benefit of their labor, without having to have paid their costs as they were growing up. No, you're not. You make immigrants feel like criminals and second class citizens, people are afraid to come to your country on business these days.
If only they came to this country to do things the right way instead of avoiding taxes and stealing peoples identities, then I would have no issues with immigration. As it stands the illegals need to either do it the right way or take the high way home. They are un-needed in our society as illegals. Illegal immigrants take jobs where they are paid under the table in with cash, so they are not taxed. My brother has his identity stolen by an illegal immigrant and fucked up his credit, and made him owe over 19K in back taxes to the IRS. He is lucky he wasn't arrested for tax evasion.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're wrong about immigration... people still come here in droves. The only unwelcomed ones are the ones that come here illegally, and that's always been the case and it's always been quite clear.
On the rest... I have to agree. The federal government has phenomenally screwed things up for about the past 80 years or so. It's a bipartisan screwup that's been going on for generations.
There absolutely needs to be zero deficit. I know some would argue about deficit as a percentage of GDP; I hear things like "Well, you bought a house, right? That was like 3 times your annual salary! Sometimes it's OK to have debt." Yeah, sometimes the government has a war [insert witty thing here] sometimes there's a natural disaster... but to go deeper into debt, year after year, with no end in sight, is just plain ridiculous.
Anybody who has any financial difficulty right now (carrying debt, interest rates go up, spending too much of their income to repay debts) knows this... if you were the federal government's accountant, you'd quit at such reckless spending. And it's been shown time and again how if a private corporation or individual tried some of the accounting "tricks" the government pulls, they'd be spending time in jail.
Re:Um, or... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the rub though... Money is created from debt... With the current monetary system, a reduction in debt also means a reduction in money. And since debt increases exponentially, there is always more debt than money. Running a balanced budget would cause an exponentially accelerating monetary collapse.
Basically, the banks have pwned you!
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well said. At 44 years old, I expect to work until 70, and I expect to pay higher Social Security taxes along the way. It's not good or bad policy, just reality.
There is only one thing that could help make a difference for most Americans - owning lot's of foreign investments that we could sell off for a while during crunch time. Unfortunately, we've become a debter nation [blogs.com], so that plain went to Hell in a hand basket.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be financially secure by the time you're 60, though. All it takes is living below your means, something Americans just simply refuse to do. You are absolutely right that we've become a debtor nation, but as individuals as well as a whole country.
You know what? I don't care what anyone says; 99% of you don't need $100/month cellphone plan. If you are leasing your vehicle, you've likely made a really bad choice. I could go on and on... it's quite possible to save enough money to live purely off the interest (not touch the principle... and have a really nice "gift" to leave your children or favorite charity) if you make it a goal. Unfortunately, for most people, their lifestyle choices come first.
As we've delayed the maturing process in this country for so long, many people don't ever "grow up" and become responsible people. A nation of instant-gratifiers who whine that the government needs to help them out because they spent all their money on expensive cars and trips, put it all on credit so that they've ended up spending twice as much for something than they would have if they paid cash, and end up retiring with a buttload of debt that takes up half their retirement income.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good post. People simply don't have their priorities in order. As I've said, we've delayed maturity for so long that many adults on into their 30s and higher have never reached the mental maturity they need to be responsible for themselves. They've just spent too many years being dependent with parents willing to string them along.
By and large, people don't need cable, or cellphones, or anything of the like. We need to keep pointing out that the "poor" people in the U.S. have a higher standard of living
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but living for today doesn't mean not planning for the future.
What's irresponsible to is to put yourself in a position where other people must take care of you.
Re:Um, or... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone has a child; how does that put themselves into a position of dependency? And if it does, they shouldn't have had a child to begin with.
Wow. You really need to consider that life is a lot more complicated and messy than a couple of econ books.
First, 80% of the US population would have to wait beyond child bearing years, if ever, to be assured they have enough resources saved to have children. Do we really have to belabor what that does to society?
Second, there is no such thing as assured even when you have created a pile. People get sick or injured. Investments go sour. Jobs are lost and industries go away. It can be shocking how quickly a nest egg evaporates.
I am not suggesting that your message of responsible behavior is bad. It just needs to be tempered with reality and maybe a little compassion. I have met any number of people singing that song over lunch one day and quite a different song five years later.
Re:Um, or... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Informative)
then there is this little thing called math......
say you work from the age of 20 until 65.
say you invest $6k / year during those working years.
say you get a measly 5% return on your investment and you have an investment that calculates it's interest once per month.
do the math.
that's $1,017,440.39 at the end of the run.
not very difficult to imagine.
yes the initial years of $6k year might be tough, but then again, so is not having any money at the age of 65
Don't like those numbers?
use $4k/year and work till 70.
you end up with $893,257.12
it's not rocket science.
it's compound interest.
and if you invest it wisely, you don't even have a tax load on the earned interest and principle.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Interesting)
Jackbird just has this defeatist attitude that I find a lot of people (who want to justify not planning for themselves) have.
If people were allowed to invest that 12% the government takes, they'd find it a lot easier to save enough for retirement, and unlike SS, you get to leave it to your kids when you die, which helps them reach their retirement goals (unless they're stupid morons and blow it on gold plated furniture or something).
This is one of my complaints with SS: if the goal of the welfare system (including SS) is to lift families out of poverty, SS it completely detrimental to the cause, as it denies families the generational accumulation of wealth.
Re:Um, or... (Score:4, Interesting)
No matter how you play with the numbers, it's simply not possible for everybody - or even a large portion - of society to become wealthy simply by investing. Somebody has to actually do the work and produce the value that nonworkers (investors) consume. If you want to spend $1, somebody has to make good on that by working to make what you want.
My grandfather worked for an oil company for 25 years, then drew an inflation-adjusted pension from them for 25 years. Those days are over! It's not about responsibility, it's about demographics. American was in the growth stage of mushrooming population since its inception, but now those days are ending, if not by choice, then by rising prices for everything as land, water, and energy become ever more expensive. That changes things in a major way. Just ask Europe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So... lets outsource the caregiving to countries with young populations...
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Think again.... Most people don't have the resources. I know people over 65 who work 2 jobs, 7 days a week, to pay medical bills, rent, and food.
A handful of people work because they want to. Most work because they have no choice. Do you think the greeters at Wal-Mart are there because they want to? Or because they have to eat?
Your statement is the sort of spin I'd expect from the neocons. Ultimately, people want to work because the alternative is starving, or not taking your meds, or living on the street....
As someone who is nearing that age, I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to retire without working. It's not easy, and our broken medical system is a huge part of it.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Informative)
my parents work to pay for health insurance.. their house and cars are all paid for - they have no debt - they have a savings.. but having to pay over 1k a month for insurance and still having 8 years till medicade kicks in .. yea they work just to have health insruance
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhhh... I think you meant MediCARE. Eligibility is 65... so your saying your poor, pitiful parents have to WORK at age 57?!? What a tragedy!
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, my grandmother was in that situation until relatively recently. She kept working until she was about 75 and ill health forced her to stop working - note, not "retire".
The reason for this? She is a lazy bitch who never worked a real job in her life and relied on whatever man she was with to provide for her. Her first husband (my grandfather) left her. Her second was a great old guy who finally died of Parkinson's and left her a wad of cash. the third guy was a bum and a hustler and took that money when he ran to Mexico - literally.
She never really saved any money, never invested herself in a job with future, and never planned. She doesn't have a pension because she never had a career. Social Security is keeping her afloat, and the fact that she scammed her way into a religiously affiliated care facility. And when that runs out, my Dad will take care of her, because as neglectful as she was, she is still family.
Yes, there are plenty of people who had bad luck, and perhaps don't "deserve" what they are dealing with in their old age. But that does not negate the fact that there are also those who squandered their good luck, and are now asking others to pay the price.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
My Dad is 78 years old and still runs his own accounting business. I truly suspect, as does he, that if he didn't, he'd be dead by now.
He uses the extra money he gets during tax season to take expensive vacations, usually in the late summer or fall, with my mom.
Nearly everyone my parents knew that didn't keep active have already passed on.
That said, if people can't afford things, I'd say it's partial evidence of the giant failure of social security. Would those pensions have lasted longer if that extra 12% went into a 401k instead of the SS black hole? Do people realize that SS has, since the first year, taken in more money each year than it's paid out? Where did all this money go? There'd be trillions of dollars if they'd have saved and invested it (even at safe moderate rates of around 5%). So where is it? The federal government takes every penny extra and leaves a worthless IOU.
When Bush pushes a spending deficit of $400 billion, he's not including $200 billion (yes, nearly $200 billion) that the federal government is "borrowing" from SS.
Even people earning minimum wage would generally have sufficient retirement funds if they were saving 12% in a personal retirement plan.
People also don't understand their pensions. They should be able to tell way ahead of time if they will receive an adequate amount of money.
The band-aid solution that was SS is making less and less sense. A real goal would be to create an environment that allows people to save enough of their money for retirement. Get the government out of the SS boondongle, refine the tax structure so that people are encouraged to save. Hey, even make it mandatory if you have to, but at least allow people to decide for themselves how to do it.
Indeed - sitting at home doing nothing, very dull (Score:5, Interesting)
I know whan my dad retired he was bored out of his mind since he loved the job he did. If he could have stayed on working I know he would have done. Plus just because you hit 65 doesn't mean you suddenly arn't interested in earning money. I don't see working beyond 65 as a problem personally unless the person is unwell or unfit to continue in the job.
And of course , if you're a COBOL coder you'll probably still be in demand until the day you go face down in your keyboard (or should that be punched card stack?)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It could be that a lot of people are still healthy enough to continue working after age 65... and some people actually want to!
This reason gets my vote. Boredom is a sure way to the grave, as well. I know people who are retired from TWO different jobs, and they still enjoy working. Granted, it isn't full-time, but once you get used to living a certain way, hold habits die hard.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should we trust someone else to plan retirement for us? Yes, yes, I know, 40 years ago was a different time, but for those who didn't work a cushy job that came with a pension (my paternal grandparents were farmers, my maternal grandparents knew the pension would be insufficient), you realize you need to sock money away for retirement.
Myself, I plan on being financially independent by 55 (and have the plan to do it), although I have no intentions to stop working. At that point in time, work is no longer a necessity, you aren't doing it because you NEED it, but because you WANT it, and I can stop to take a trip with my wife whenever we feel the urge, or go visit the kids, etc. It's a good place to be in.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or perhaps the company that they put their OWN MONEY into raided the retirement fund and there's nothing left.... Or it went belly up. Or it managed to pawn the retirement fund off on the taxpayers. Or the stock market crashed.
Retirement should not be a crapshoot. It should be managed by an entity with the resources and accountability to actually pay what it promises.
I'm looking at SS, Military retirement, city retirement, and personal 401(K), IRA, etc. for retirement - and all of that still doesn't add
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Informative)
You don't put all your eggs in one basket and you never count your chickens before they hatch. One in the hand is worth two in the bush. Etc. You diversify your investments. This in investment 101.
Retirement should not be a crapshoot. It should be managed by an entity with the resources and accountability to actually pay what it promises.
Find an investor you trust. For me, I work with my dad (an insurance agent who has a finance background) and we make a financial plan. I don't want the government managing my future. I believe I can do better, I know I can do better - my Roth has had positive returns this year.
Heck, the contribution cap for an IRA hasn't changed in 20 years...
That's why you don't put all of your money in an IRA
It's pretty hard these days to 'save up' for retirement. Not because people are living frivolously, but because wages have essentially been flat for the last 20 years in the broad mid-career band, while everything else has been going up, including the number of hours worked.
I don't get a pension. I don't factor social security or any other government program into my retirement plan - I assume they will not be there for me. No tricks about it, I put over 20% of what I earn into interest-bearing accounts. Spread the wealth. 401(k), Roth IRA, a little in a money market. If you are filling all those buckets then move to "hard" investments like land, buildings and businesses. There are always mutual funds, index funds and stocks too. Yeah, you live a little below your means, you live in a little smaller house than your coworkers. So what?
You have to start investing when you are young so that the money can grow with time. Don't wait. I'm 26 and have been saving for retirement since I was 23 and graduated from college. Now sum up 20% of my income power by 30 years or so, in interest-bearing accounts, minus inflation and it's enough to retire off of around 55-60 if you are determined and have your debts paid down.
Re:Um, or... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now sum up 20% of my income power by 30 years or so, in interest-bearing accounts, minus inflation and it's enough to retire off of around 55-60 if you are determined and have your debts paid down.
Interest-bearing accounts minus inflation is negative now (and it's only going to get worse), so raised to the power of 30 that 20% of your income is pretty damn little.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Either they choose to keep working, or they didn't put enough of THEIR OWN money away for retirement.
It is not possible for a significant fraction of the population to "put enough of THEIR OWN money away" so that they can sit on their asses for 25 years while enjoying a middle class lifestyle.
At the end of the day, somebody has to produce the goods that will be consumed each year. If too many people try to make "investments" for an extended retirement, they'll find that when they try to redeem them that the investments will be devalued until it matches the available goods produced by active workers.
The total goods consumed each year must be produced by people who work each year. The only way to manage this is to delay the average retirement age to maintain the overall ratio of workers vs. ass sitters. This really has nothing to do with whether the mechanism of supporting idle retirees flows through government paper notes or private paper notes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why oh why is it that the folks who try and set up retirement plans seem to ignore this fact? I think what happens is that they look at an individual who is able to save up a lot and retire free - th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Without state-run, mandatory retirement fund, people living on the edge will never save a penny. In my own country (and yours), millions of people make just enough to eat and pay rent. How are they supposed to make retirement plans and pay health insurance?
Fortunately we have a mandatory retirement and health care systems, if those people are ill they are entitled to medical care and when they are old they'll have a pension.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You willfully blind people, always talking about money. Look at demographics. Look at how they are affecting what is currently happening in Japan. Old folks homes with robots and minimal staff, looking like the worst elements of the Matrix
Look at hyper-inflation.Watch some old videos of Russian grandmothers trying to buy bread with wheelbarrows of cash.
Understand that this is the future for all western cultures. Blame the chemist who sells the birth control and the feminists and capitalists who tell young people they should get an education and a mortgage and put off child rearing till their 30s or later. Blame the aftermath second world war for creating the cultural trauma that created this malignant social order. But for fucks sake, understand what is happening.
(Emphasis added)
I would like to understand "what is happening". I'm assuming as a pre-requisite for that, I would first need to understand what you are talking about. Do you have any recommendations for further reading starting from scratch for someone who knows nothing about history nor politics nor economics? I'm so uncertain about what you are talking about, I'm not even sure if those are the appropriate domains one needs to be knowledgeable within to understand what you're saying.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
How is health care related to old age pensions being insufficient ?
Fix health care, and all you do is make old people live longer, thus further burdening the pension system.
The fact is, in most western countries, the average age is increasing. The people on pensions now are being paid with the taxes you and I pay today. When 30 years down the road, we are pensioners, there simply won't be any money left to pay everyone a pension.
I was advised as far back as 1987 that I shouldn't rely on the UK state pension, and should think about a private one ... here we are 21 years later, and oops, pension payouts aren't sufficient ... anyone surprised ?
Re:Um, or... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US the cost of healthcare outstrips what you can expect from pensions and government programs, so healthcare eats into your retirement income.
Yes, we all know that no one who isn't within 10-15 years of collecting isn't going to. This doesn't mean that people who are collecting today are stupid for doing so. The spiking costs of healthcare make what would have been a livable stipend insufficient.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The other thing is that in the US pensions are employer-run (or farmed out), not government systems. Not only do we know that Social Security will be nearly impossible for us to collect, but employer pensions are going out the door as well, in favor of a 401k or nothing at all. The message is to start investing in your 401k as soon as you have the option, and to keep rolling that money over into other retirement funds when you change jobs.
Additionally, health care only adds so much to our life spans. Averag
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC in Europe its a pension whether it comes from a private employer or the govt.
Private pensions aren't actually that good an idea. Lot of industries (steel, auto, airline) that gave pensions to employees are currently struggling under massive pension debt because of technological advances that have substantially reduced the workforces in those companies...Pretty much the same thing that's going to happen to the US in a decade or so.
It'd be better to have a government-run pension plan that everyone pays into (than a private system) to help the system itself adapt to the changing workforce.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um, or... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't the pension, the problem is that while we have "legacy" companies saddled with pension liabilities, we have simultaneously exported most manufacturing to countries to avoid paying fair wages and benefits.
50 years ago, consumer goods were made here, so your money represented an investment in your community, state or country. Today, when you buy something, you benefit employees of the mass retailer, the retailer's shareholders, and a few other players in shipping.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies off-shored those obs to save costs. If they didn't the cost of everything would be higher the nit is now. Would you want to pay $10 for a gallon of milk? Or how about $50,0000 for that basic car?
Look at the companies that are having pension issues. Most (if not all) also have unions. Those unions were needed back in the 1920s and 1930s. But they have out lived their usefulness. They are now dragging down the companies and the people they are supposed to be protecting.
Airlines, auto makers, truck d
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you want to pay $10 for a gallon of milk?
Interesting that you should mention that. In Hawaii, where almost everything is "off-shore", a gallon of milk costs about $10.
Off-shoring only works as long as you have goods to trade back. If a cargo ship can't haul goods both ways on the route, then the route isn't worth as much of their time, and shipping costs go up. WAY up.
Re:Um, or... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're confusing the symptoms with the disease.
The union companies are the last ones left, because the bargaining power of the workers made it more difficult to just fire everyone and move to Mexico, Indonesia or China.
Prices have stayed low because the US has essentially been selling off its assets for the last 30-40 years to pretend that everything's all good. Sorta like getting laid off and selling your furniture so your neighbors don't think you're broke.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Informative)
Would you want to pay $10 for a gallon of milk?
Your milk is produced domestically. Milk is collected from farmers in big trucks, where it gets boxed or bottled by domestic workers. My milk costs less than $1/L.
[...]$50,0000[sic] for that basic car[...]
Domestic cars are currently quite inline with foreign. Granted, many of the parts still come from overseas. The real reason foreign cars do so well is because they are reliable (domestic is working on this).
[...]unions were needed back in the 1920s and 1930s. But they have out lived their usefulness.
I would argue that things are moving back towards the way they were in the 20s and 30s. We have large companies (walmart for example) that pay peanuts, and rake in huge profits. Could they afford to pay thier employees more? What about provide health insurance? It seems to me that there is an unequal distribution of wealth. Unions are not the sole answer, but a start in the right direction. Also, the Unions aren't bringing down the company, it's the pension plans that the companies agreed to pay out.
[...]Unions[...]almost always cost more to the company forcing it to either raise prices or look else where to cut costs.
Agreed. Unions increase labor costs. What does that mean? It means that Joe trucker makes and extra 3/hr and gets a pension and possibly minor health care. It means that apples cost $.85 vs $.75, but the trucker has a better chance to support his family. The trucker also has more money to spend, thus investing in the local economy. Moving jobs outside the country also moves all the money outside as well. Instead of paying 1000 workers $100/day they pay 2000 workers $2/day and one big wig a $25,000,000 bonus, which will get deposited in an offshore account and never get taxed.
,The loopholes are huge. Look at GM's $17 million a year just on Viagra
One day you will need Viagra. These people are old, give them their pleasures. If you want to cut out loopholes, how about start with the tax system. It seems that the more money you make, the more exemptions are available to you. IMHO, off shore bank accounts that are used for tax evasion are one of the biggest prolems right now. These criminals are stealing from the less fortunate (you and me) by not paying their fair share of taxes and rely on the average citizen to make up their shortcomings.
The world is (and always has been) ruled by the elite, for the elite. I would like to have it run by the elite(i'm a realist), for the people.
Re:Um, or... (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, 50 years ago the rest of the civilized world was in ruins after the WW2. Russia and most of it's sattelites had walled off their sandbox and wouldn't play with the Europeans. As to the "developing" world 50 years ago, close to 100% of their population was unskilled, and many illiterate.
Today Europe has superior infrastructure and access to cheap Russian energy and minerals, which is not good for America.
What's even worse for America is that China and India have invested a lot in education and now possess a highly skilled workforce, willing to work for cheap.
Now compare that to the decay we see in our schools and our infrastructure, and draw your own conclusions.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're saying is that laissez faire economics that favors the plutocrats is preferable to are more logical nationalist or even socialist system.
Thousands of highly skilled workers made shoes in Maine in the 1980's. Today they are chronically underemployed and their communities are in disarray because our society allows Chinese children with an inadequate standard of living to manufacture them instead.
The fallacy that Chinese are only fit for stupid assembly work is just as racist as the notion that African-Americans should be restricted to the fields that was common among white folks in the 19th and early 20th century.
The United States imports millions of laborers from places like Mexico and Guatemala specifically because they are easy to exploit. There are thousands of unemployed, low-skill workers languishing on the streets or eventually in prisons because they have no place to work.
Re:Um, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you're wrong.
It benefits the offshore trading partners when a country like the US stops adding value to products and instead simply consumes. One way trade isn't trade, it's wealth transfer. The Europeans called it colonialism.
When you bought a widget for $1 made within your country, that money contributed to the US economy. The workers, the people who build factories, the people to harvest raw materials, power companies, the sandwich cart, the uniform supplier, etc. You're creating value.
When you buy the same widget for $0.10, you're injecting capital into the offshore trading partner's economy and gaining nothing in return. The offshore economy is adding value and creating wealth.
Just like the other guy who responded to me blaming the unions for all of our ills, you're misidentifying the symptoms with the disease. Immigrants aren't a problem, the problem is that government policy has made it increasingly difficult for low-skill Americans to get appropriate jobs.
Re:Um, or... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually no.
See that widget will languish in a warehouse now, because no one wants to pay 10 times as much as a similar widget from another country. The company that made it won't get any orders for their over priced widget, and they'll go out of business.
That benefits local workers how exactly? You can't just say, "Local production always produces local benefits." It doesn't. In fact, what you're talking about isn't trade at all, it's a type of economic isolationism, which generally results in inflation, overpriced goods, and poverty.
This is the most basic economics.
Re:Um, or... (Score:4, Interesting)
When you bought a widget for $1 made within your country...When you buy the same widget for $0.10, you're injecting capital into the offshore trading partner's economy and gaining nothing in return.
Actually when you buy something that previously cost $1 for $0.10, so you are getting an extra $0.90 in wealth while transferring $0.10 in wealth to the other country. I could use that $0.90 to invest anywhere I want, perhaps in my own county, my own state, my own country, or in another country.
That said, the US exported $65 billion to China in 2007 (http://www.uschina.org/public/exports/us_exports_to_china_2007.pdf) and US exports to China have risen 300% from 2000-2007. The market is growing, and I know I have had conversations in my company about how we can sell into the expanding Chinese market as they become richer.
From 2003-2006, US exports overall grew 8.3% average annually, more than twice as fast as the US economy in general (http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/2008_erp_ch3.pdf). The US is the world's largest exporter, doing with $1.5 trillion in goods and services exports in 2006. The United States is the top exporter of services and second-largest exporter of goods, behind only Germany.
Even if we want to just look at manufacturing, US manufacturing output is at an all-time high. Real value-added manufacturing output has risen every year since 1987, except for brief declines during the 1990-91 and 2000-01 recessions. The United States is still the world's largest manufacturer. (http://www.uschina.org/public/documents/2007/05/uscbc-7-myths-about-us-china-Trade.pdf)
government policy has made it increasingly difficult for low-skill Americans to get appropriate jobs.
The US minimum wage means there is no market for low-wage, low-skill jobs here. However the truth is that many of these jobs have been eliminated with automation rather than being exported. Robots will eventually take all of these jobs globally (assuming the continuation of the current long-term pattern of world wide economic growth).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to know why pensions are dying, look no further than the auto industry - most US auto companies offer(ed) pensions and were not able to compete with Chinese and Japanese companies that do not. It also looks bad from a debt load on the company's bottom line (unless they saved for it, but this is America - since when did anyone save? - they do, however, have to set aside some money). Pensions also put the employer at risk - it counts against their debt and ability to borrow.
401k has no such disa
Re:Um, or... (Score:4, Insightful)
The AC is right. The insurance that doctors must pay to protect themselves in case they are sued is huge. often the insurance pays off the person rather then go to court so the doctor's rep is not tarnished. Which raises the insurance rates. These costs are passed to the doctors customers (us) and out insurance raising our rates.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Fix health care, and all you do is make old people live longer, thus further burdening the pension system."
I totally agree. Before health care can get one more cent of tax payer money, the 'name of whatever state run retirement plan' needs to be corrected to plan for such longevity for the masses. And when the Governments plan on raising the retirement age further, there comes the real problem: Age discrimination. At some point it is always cost effective enough to get rid of the gray hairs for younger fo
One more way it could be. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One more way it could be. (Score:5, Insightful)
If only... (Score:5, Funny)
If only there were some sort of government solution that would guarantee retirement income for everyone. That would fix everything.
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
If only people didn't look to government solutions and planned for own retirements.
Re:If only... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If only... (Score:4, Funny)
If only people could figure out the difference between 'too' and 'to'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Planning for your own retirement requires discipline and sacrifice (unless you make ludicrous amounts of money). Discipline and sacrifice are (generally speaking) in short supply here in America. The less money you make and the more necessary expenses you have (i.e., children) the mo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When someone (probably with enough cash) says this they get +5 insightful inmediately.
Now, if someone with no car said "if only people didn't expect the goverment to build roads" he would get -1 crazy.
You know, maybe if I didn't have to pay for the damn infrastructures so lazy people can drive to work I could save more money for my retirement?
Investments! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Investments! (Score:5, Insightful)
Make it optional. I am smart enough to save for my retirement, so let me do it myself. I've already realized that there won't be any social security for anyone my age so I'm already saving with that in mind. Lets go ahead and take the next step and let me opt out of paying the social security tax completely. Obviously this won't happen since SS was never a 'savings' program anyways. SS was always designed as a wealth transfer program. A way to take care of the old by taking money from the young. The problem is that this plan only works when you have enough young people to take care of the old people.
Re:Investments! (Score:5, Insightful)
Make it optional.
Bad, bad, bad idea.
Social security is supposed to be the bare minimum income to subsist post retirement. By definition, anything less than that means you're can't survive. (If you really think social security today provides for luxuries, then we could debate reducing the percentages and payments.)
If you make social security optional, many people will chose to opt out (like you). Of those, some will invest on their own and earn more than social security would get them. Some though will earn less. By definition, the people who earn less can't survive.
What happens to all those people who lost their self-invested social security money and can't afford to survive? Simple. Government handouts . Just look at what's been happening recently with mortgages or the financial industry. You'd be foolish to think that the government wouldn't rescue any large group of destitute Americans whether those Americans did it to themselves or not.
Let me summarize then: Optional social security costs taxpayers no less than mandatory social security, because the government will have to pay for it all one way or another.
Oh, and producing large groups of destitute Americans is bad for social stability - and unstable societies protect its wealthy citizens far less than stable ones. It's sound planning to keep the masses subsisting regardless of your wealth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Social security is supposed to be the bare minimum income to subsist post retirement. By definition, anything less than that means you're can't survive."
No - that's what Social Security was SUPPOSED to be. It was originally and anti-poverty program, not a government pension program. But 2 things happened:
1) The government used a flawed measure of inflation, overestimating it substantially and therefore increasing the amount of benefits in excess of that required to keep up with the REAL rate of inflation
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Investments! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget medicine that other people pay for, and then send to your country where you get it for free.
PS. Of course, propping up third world economies is in the rich countries' interests. Just ask Marx.
PPS. To the GGGGGP, incorrect use of 'who' is almost unnoticable. In correct use of 'whom' is both stupid, pretentious and glaring.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The 14% he was talking about was SS. Nowhere did he say that he wanted to be exempt from all taxes. If the government is using SS for fixing roads and delivering electricity then the the post that you responded to has his point strengthened. Basically the government has no clue how to handle money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not seriously confusing SS with federal taxes? Because that's exactly what it looks like you're doing.
Sure, blame the income (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason for that is quite evident: pensions are not enough for sufficient living.
Or: expenses are not enough under control for sufficient living. We all spend too much money on frivolous nonsense during spring and summer of life, but we don't have to.
(Not blaming anyone personally, I'm the first to realise I might have a big problem if all the drinking and smoking just doesn't kill me in time.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget credit card interest, aka The Stupid Tax. As a shareholder of a credit card company, I would like to thank all of those who finance their unnecessary consumption with a 30% interest rate.
It's amazing how many people voluntarily accept a permanent decrease in their income because they absolutely had to buy lots of crap years back, but never made more than the minimum payments.
If only... (Score:5, Funny)
If only you got a pension for reading Slashdot. I could retire now.
"Quite evident"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, some people are going to keep working because they need the money, but that's hardly proof of the fundamental reason for the trend. I think it's much more likely that it's related to the fact that people are living longer and healthier, and a lot of people (most?) don't want to just lie around the house.
In the "old days", 65 was one foot in the grave. These days, there are a lot more healthy 65 year olds that aren't content to believe that life is over and you might as well start waiting to die.
Also (Score:3, Insightful)
If people are living longer, well then they are probably going to need to work longer. Basically the simple economic way to look at retirement is that for the first part of your life, you spend less than 100% of what you make. That is saved for later. Then, when you retire, you stop making anything and start spending out that money you've built up.
All well and good, however the amount you save need to be balanced against how long you are going to retire for. If you live to 66, and work to 65, well then you
Most pensions and retirement were based on (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I too blame this problem on the "entitlement attitude."
It's not like people running out of retirement money has anything to do with people living much longer than in the past, or the skyrocketing cost of health care.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure how wages are stagnant, people have many more luxuries than ever. Hell three decades ago, most households could barely afford one shitty car, now they whine if they can only afford three SUVs.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was a child (Score:4, Insightful)
Wife not going to like this (Score:4, Funny)
As this is a timothy post, I only bothered reading the title. We're expecting our second child in January, and my wife is NOT going to like this news!
Laboring longer . . . as we should be (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At 70 or 80 you just don't have the energy anymore, and you'll wish you had mo
Expectations need to be LOWERED (Score:4, Insightful)
pensions are not enough for sufficient living."
Not everyone can have a house. Not everyone can have a car. Not everyone can live close to all the cool stuff in a city. That definition of "sufficient" is clearly debatable.
Certainly sufficient for survival is not what was meant. Sufficient for a comfortable existence relative to history? I don't think that is what is meant either. I think sufficient in this case means "as good or better than everyone else."
This insufferable materialism is killing us by inches. There's not a lot of inertia behind avoiding it either. I've never seen so many people fall so willingly into slavery.
Or maybe things are more complicated (Score:3, Insightful)
Italians have spent pensions funds already (Score:5, Informative)
At retirement time, in Italy, 90% of people live on state pension. Let me tell you what happens.
State pension works by having current workers pay pension of retired people. In the golden years (70,80,90) we had people working and an apparent "extra" money into the pension "funds". Politicians thought to use the extra money to send the retiring workers early to pension.
Not only, but it was "normal" to go to pension with 90% of the last monthly income
The problem is that workforce is now declining, taxes are increasing and we currently pay pension to people that are just lucky to have retired early with a hefty pension (apparently nobody is willing to know how much a worker has PAID into the pension scheme and refund just that, plus interest).
I know I will have to work as long as I can, I am just upset that jurnalists and politicians brush this issue under the carpet leaving for when it will be too late
We do have private pension scheme but they are a money drain (basically another way to give luxury cars to some fund manager) they give no guarantee on the capital (as far as I know) and after the Parmalat scandal [wikipedia.org] there is even less trust on any private fund manager institution (Parmalat is not a fund manager, but if you "invested" on their bonds you have lost the money)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why it is irresponsible to have an unfunded system. If workers were paying for their own retirement instead of other people's, then the system would be able to handle population changes a lot better.
We started out with an unfunded system because we had a generation that already needed care. Fine. But instead of using the last 60 years to crawl our way back to a funded system -- say, by making one year of progress for each year we ran the program -- we just decided to run it that way forever. So savin
saving? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the government, stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
"The reason for that is quite evident: pensions are not enough for sufficient living."
People are also working 40% or more of their lives to support the political class.
Retirement is an artificial concept (Score:3, Interesting)
It was born in the depression, as the government's way to push older workers out of the job market, to make room for younger (and more taxable) ones. Prior to Social Security, you worked until you died, pretty much.
For many, it's still that way - when you stop working, you start dying. I have no plans of letting that happen to me!
What's a "Pension"? (Score:4, Informative)
You insensitive clod!
I don't know about your field, but nobody *I* know gets offered a pension. I think that perk is mostly long gone, except for government workers.
401k/457/etc... start early, be serious, be consistent...
Better keep working-it's gonna get bad! (Score:3, Insightful)
The USA has 10 Trillion dollars in off-balance-sheet liabilities. Because of the way Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are funded, when people in my age group (I'm 60) really start retiring, it's going to be expensive. There is no money there. If a private company ran it's finances the way the government does, somebody would go to prison.
Ok, ask anyone if they expect to collect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; everyone says yes, they paid, they're entitled. However, 80% of the people drawing these benefits will be capable of paying their own expenses. They are not poor. I am all for helping the economically disadvantaged, but why should the government steal money from productive workers and re-distribute it to people who are not needy?
I suspect that sometime in the next eight years, the money will be purposely inflated (making the benefits debt less expensive to pay out), taxes will rise dramatically, the retirement age will be pushed close to age 70, and finally, after all fails, the government will establish a means test, so that only the most desparate will be able to go to the front of the line for benefits.
Privatization of benefits actually worked for Chile. It could work for us, but it is almost too late.