Grandma Needs a Job

If older workers want to retire later, or are forced to do so, will they be able to find jobs?:

Older Staffers Get Uneasy Embrace, by David Wessel, WSJ: Americans are going to have to retire later, we're often told. They live longer than their ancestors. Neither their retirement savings nor the taxes of younger generations can support ever-longer retirements. ... But will employers want more older workers?

"There's a lot of happy talk around that we're going to have slowing in the rate of growth in young workers and, therefore, employers are going to want to hire older workers just at the time that older workers are going to want to work," says Boston College economist Alicia Munnell... "We think it's much less clear than that." ...

A significant minority of employers see this demographic reality, broadcast affection for "mature workers" and win plaudits from AARP, an advocacy group for older people. ...

Bookstore chain Borders Group says it finds "mature workers" appealing because half its customers are over 45 and turnover among older workers is one-sixth that of under-30 workers. About 18% of Borders' 30,000 workers are over 50, double the fraction six years ago, and the company anticipates by 2010 one in four will be.

At the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association in Chicago, 40% of 1,000 mainly professional employees are 50 or older and 25% are 55 or older. ...

For all the heart-warming pictures such efforts produce, they appear to be exceptions. ...

Surveys by Boston College's Center for Retirement Research found that employers expect about a quarter of employees currently in their 50s will want to work two to four years longer than past workers. Then employers were asked if they would accommodate half those who wanted to work later. "On a scale of 1 (unlikely) to 10 (likely), the median response was a lukewarm 6," the researchers say.

While employers are "reasonably comfortable" with the older workers they currently employ, "they are not keen on retaining even half who want to stay on to age 67 or 69," the Boston researchers concluded. They predict "a messy and uncomfortable mismatch with large numbers of older workers wanting to stay on while employers prefer that they do not."

Why? Employers fear older workers "cost too much, lack current skills and don't stick around long," Ms. Munnell and co-author Steven Sass write. Wages tend to rise with seniority. Health costs for older workers are higher. Older workers are viewed, rightly or not, as less supple in dealing with new technologies. And old workers tend to be in older industries and occupations in which employment is growing slowly if at all.

The image of companies loyally retaining scarce, seasoned workers is at odds with reality. Among male workers between 58 and 62, only 44% still work for the outfit that employed them at 50, down from 70% two decades ago. And even if labor shortages emerge, they argue, many employers will hire younger immigrants, shift work overseas or deploy labor-saving technology (like the cashier-less grocery-store checkout) instead of hiring older workers. ... [Video]

Comments

[anne]

"Americans are going to have to retire later, we're often told. They live longer than their ancestors. Neither their retirement savings nor the taxes of younger generations can support ever-longer retirements."

Rubbish; fair pay and benefits and proper job security, and there is no problem.

[Farrar]

Big problem in France. The Sarko govt wants to extend the number of working years to 41, and perhaps longer, but a high percentage of workers over 55 are already unemployed. Completely illogical

[Gil]

Wouldn't that be a strange kind of joke - workers are expected to work for longer yet may not be considered 'employable' by employers therefore they end up on unemployment benefits?

[anne]

Farrar:

"Big problem in France. The Sarko govt wants to extend the number of working years to 41, and perhaps longer, but a high percentage of workers over 55 are already unemployed."

How high?

[Banker]

I think that society retires later now partly because of the economical factor, but also because ot the psychological reason. People are in better shape and are capable and willing to work longer. Also people may "complain" about working longer, but secretly I think some enjoy it as it gives them a sense of worth. Just an opinion.

[save_the_rustbelt]

"Welcome to Wal-Mart, do you need a cart today?"

I've been practicing for my old age.

Two problems here:

We are trading away our jobs base for cheap merchandise.

Americans do not save enough.

Combine all of it, and we have some serious issues.

[Francois]

Older workers have been around the block, and are more able to question management decisions than young workers do.

Which corporate exec is willing to tolerate that?

[bakho]

How does expectation of retirement at 65 affect training and keeping workers up to date?

If expectations were for employees to work longer, would they get more training at a later age?

Training costs are not insignificant.

[jult52]

Speaking as a 40-something executive, I'd like to point out that older workers retaining their jobs is not an unmixed blessing, since it affects younger workers of all ages (both in terms of workload and advancement). As Francois says, some older 55+ workers are still working hard and contributing effectively. That's great - they certainly deserve to retain their positions. But I have encountered numerous examples of older workers who have lost their energy and dynamism and are sloughing off work to others in their company. That is not acceptable.

So I believe this issue shouldn't be approached as an "intergenerational equity" issue - it should be approached individual by individual. And that's because there is real harm inflicted on those older workers' co-workers when they are holding a job but performing badly.

[Real Person from the Real World]

Older people are such a problem. We need more health care, we aren't "supple" to new technology, we may drop dead on the job, our skills are outdated.... maybe we all ought to dig a hole somewhere and crawl in.... Ah! but then who would the sales people who sell catastrophic health care insurance, life alert services, investment services, luxury vacations, grocery services, etc., sell to? Companies in this country have had things their way tooo long. They outsource our best paying jobs, suck as much credit and home equity out of us as possible, and now, expect us to disappear off the face of the earth.... Logasn's Run .... Carousel anyone?

[Callahan]

Retirement is for wussies.

[anne]

"But I have encountered numerous examples of older workers who have lost their energy and dynamism and are sloughing off work to others in their company."

"But I have encountered numerous examples of younger workers who have lost their energy and dynamism and are sloughing off work to others in their company."

Huh???

[Just One Person from One World]

In a society that places value on productivity, the elderly will naturally be discounted as jult52 reminds us. That is why our social safety-net programs are so critical as we enter this period of aging population. Corporation are sure to value much of their aging labor at zero. We as a society must determine how much they are worth to us beyond their mere productivity. I am with Anne and many others here. Our elderly are beyond value and must not be abandoned. We must strengthen social security, enact universal health care, and provide a living wage where none can be earned, for while many can work past seventy, more cannot.

On a more positive note, our service-based economy ought to be more inviting to elderly workers than an industrial economy.

I personally know a former oil executive in his late seventies who took early retirement in his mid-fifties with what he thought was plenty of money. Today, in spite of a decent pension and social security, he bags groceries four days a week to help ends meet. The work not only makes up for money lost in bad investments (Wall Street fraudsters), in his opinion it also keeps him active, healthy and happy. And, to hear him talk about his twenty-year-old co-workers pitiful work ethic is illuminating to say the least.

The point being that if this fellow finds himself working of necessity at his age, many, many other Americans are in serious trouble.

[ken melvin]

The comments are better, more in touch with reality, than Wessel's; piece. Too often, as STR is good at pointing out, these pieces are written by those with absolutely no idea of what is going on. Usually, they are seeing what they want to see, and if they do get it right, it is long after the fact.

[ddt]

I have a tough time feeling sorry for boomers who aren't ready to retire. As a group boomers have:

a) enjoyed one of the greatest economic expansions of all time and unprecedented global political power
b) enjoyed cheap education and social services created by the greatest generation (how much was tuition at Berkeley in 1965?)

then
c) didn't save
d) decided that they didn't feel like paying their fair share of taxes
e) pilfered and privatized every public resource they could get their hands on
f) saddled the next generation with a massive debt
g) brought Reagan, George Bush 1 & 2 and Clinton to power
h) failed in their stewardship of a system that they are soon going to have to depend on

Sorry the world can't take another 20 years of the boomers. please retire. maybe then some younger people will clean up the mess that has been made of the system on the boomer's watch. They couldn't do much worse of a job, now could they?

[save_the_rustbelt]

ddt:

Like all stereotypes, some truth and much exaggeration.

[save_the_rustbelt]

one of my comments disappeared - my bad technology day - try again

Ken: thanks

jult52 - in about 10 years will some snot nosed 35-ish MBA put your job on the chopping block? - get back to us

[spencer]

After age 65 people shift to Medicare so they cost their employer nothing in terms of health care. Should make an older worker less expensive, right?

But in the survey expensive health care was listed as a major reason not to hire older workers.

does this seem inconsistent to you?

[Just One Person from One World]

I’m not a boomer (GenX) and while I don’t disagree with most your list of negatives ddt, maybe we should point out that you’re really talking about a subset of the boomer generation. And for every negative contribution, I’m sure there are positive ones. Just to list a few:

Helped end the Cold War peacefully
Helped promote Civil Rights around the world
Helped globalized world economy lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty
Helped end the senseless war in Vietnam
Helped create the personal computer you are using
Helped create the Internet you are using
Helped create the cell phone
Created tens of thousands of innovative, successful companies
And most importantly: Made great art

I’m sure I’ve forgotten a few small contributions in science, medicine, government, education, religion etc... but I think you get my point. To demonize an entire generation is a bit silly, not to mention a sad way of going through life. Cheer up and realize the boomers made lots of mistakes, but tried their best and even occasionally scored some amazing successes.

Like Rusty says, some truth and much exaggeration.

I once saw a wry bit of wisdom on a bathroom wall at the University… “All generalizations are false, including this one.”

says...

"The image of companies loyally retaining scarce, seasoned workers is at odds with reality. Among male workers between 58 and 62, only 44% still work for the outfit that employed them at 50, down from 70% two decades ago. And even if labor shortages emerge, they argue, many employers will hire younger immigrants, shift work overseas or deploy labor-saving technology (like the cashier-less grocery-store checkout) instead of hiring older workers"

This bears repeating since I have been saying it forever and ever with no one listening.

Oh and jult52, kiss my ass. I have yet to see young workers keep up with older workers. they are surfing the net, on the phone talking with mom or spouses, shopping on the net, and looking for their next promotion.

Ask an older worker a question at THE OLD Home Depot about weed killer, "Does this work?" Not really, most people use this and I use this.

Ask a young worker at the NEW Home Depot the same question and he says that what is says on the label.

You try sitting around while company takes away your pensions, heath care, and let's see if you are still a gun ho punky manager.

IBM is sending the jobs of older workers to Brazil. They are twenty somethings and the quit by the boatloads, a problem IBM never had in the US. And they get paid overtime and won't work the "free" hours expected of US employees.

While I am not saying there are a few who think they have earned something by longevity, most do not. Did you ever think they work smarter because they know more? Institutional memory is gone in this country.

[me]

Sorry that rant was posted my "me".

[Jay]

"After age 65 people shift to Medicare so they cost their employer nothing in terms of health care. Should make an older worker less expensive, right?

But in the survey expensive health care was listed as a major reason not to hire older workers.

does this seem inconsistent to you?"

That's because if you are 65 and working you don't qualify for Medicare based on age. You have to go get insurance in the private market. You have to make a hell of a lot of money at your job to justify working at 65. Otherwise the perverse incentive is to stop working and become a welfare king.

[anne]

"That's because if you are 65 and working you don't qualify for Medicare based on age. You have to go get insurance in the private market. You have to make a hell of a lot of money at your job to justify working at 65. Otherwise the perverse incentive is to stop working and become a welfare king."

Lie, lie, lie.

[cas127]

Check the Bureau of Labor Stats - the shift in elder employment has already been going on for a *long* time.

Over the last ten years, the employment-to-population ratio of older cohorts (55+) has soared while the E2P for younger cohorts has stagnanted or fallen.

Older people are simply staying in their jobs *longer* - they may have damaged their net worth substantially through the tech or housing bubble and need to continue working.

This trend accordingly leads to the "blocking" of opportunities for younger cohorts - as upper level employment slots stay occupied longer.

[anne]

"This trend accordingly leads to the 'blocking' of opportunities for younger cohorts - as upper level employment slots stay occupied longer."

Rubbish; we are not running out of work, but do let's discriminate.

[Farrar]

Anne asked -
"Big problem in France. The Sarko govt wants to extend the number of working years to 41, and perhaps longer, but a high percentage of workers over 55 are already unemployed."

How high?"

Sorry, I have a bad memory for statistics, and don't have much surf time right now'

[Jay]

"Lie, lie, lie"

Typical emotional crap from Anne. Take a look here...

http://www.nber.org/programs/ag/rrc/NB07-11%20Goda,%20Shoven,%20Slavov%20FINAL.pdf

[anne]

"That's because if you are 65 and working you don't qualify for Medicare based on age. You have to go get insurance in the private market. You have to make a hell of a lot of money at your job to justify working at 65. Otherwise the perverse incentive is to stop working and become a welfare king."

Lie, lie, lie. Who is "a welfare king?"

[anne]

"Otherwise the perverse incentive is to stop working and become a welfare king."

Men have no emotion, no emotion men, never, ever; only women. Interesting.

[Noni Mausa]

Speaking as a semi-retired older worker who would like to be working, let me take your hand and lead you to the Wayback machine for a short hop of 20 years.

It hasn't been that long since employers developed the savage habit of dumping staff by the bushel in many different ways -- outsourcing, rightsizing, merging or selling the business so the new management could get out the axe, or in the case of my more compassionate company, letting people retire but never replacing them.

Older people are more cynical and less energetic for a reason besides being older -- they lived through a time of daily demonstrations that their important contributions to the company meant no more than a smear of doggie doo on the shoe-soles of the movers and shakers. That the employees, whose efforts made the existence of the companies possible, were viewed as burdens, or as dim-bulb suckers to be sweet-talked until they weren't needed anymore. (See: "Who Moved My Cheese?")

I have training, experience and skills in three fields, a long work history, high intelligence and comfort with new technologies, and no success whatsoever in finding employment in any of my fields, or even in retail. I'm picking up pin money lately by babysitting and house-sitting.

Any b%$*^%$ who tries to convince me that I am just being lazy because I'm not working, or that I just need to hustle myself to find something, may end up with non-life-threatening, painful injuries.

Ninja Noni

.

[me]

"Over the last ten years, the employment-to-population ratio of older cohorts (55+) has soared while the E2P for younger cohorts has stagnanted or fallen."

Did you not read Wessel's article?

"Among male workers between 58 and 62, only 44% still work for the outfit that employed them at 50, down from 70% two decades ago."

That is NOT staying on the job. That is wroking at Walmart. IBM sent my job to India when I was 53.

[nihil obstet]

Maybe only tangentially related, but there's also an issue of civic infrastructure. During the family wage era, married women provided the volunteer labor to support health, education, and welfare. More recently, the retired have stepped in to assist in everything from schools to hospital candy-stripers to low-cost or free financial advising (assisting the poor with tax filing or the entrepreneur with business plans) to political activism. Now we appear absolutely committed to making sure that all physically and mentally competent persons are subject to employment discipline. This is a political drive as much or more than an economic one.

[Gerard MacDonell]

Firms hire workers when doing so raises profits. Firms fire workers when doing so raises profits. All the while, they want to pay as little as possible so as to maximize profits. ShockER!

You lefties need to get some focus. The purpose of companies is to make money. One of the purposes of government, if you are liberal, is to assure some decency in ex post (as well as ex ante) income distribution. So get on with urging for a steeper tax schedule and socialized medicine, things that really matter. Whining that companies want to make money just makes you -- and us -- look stupid.

[save_the_rustbelt]

That's because if you are 65 and working you don't qualify for Medicare based on age.

You might want to rephrase that sentence.

[kthomas]

Gosh darn boomers. Hurry up and croak. (just kidding)

Well, people should work. Where is it written you should stop working at 50? or 60?

and BTW, 80 is the new 70.

[Jay]

"You might want to rephrase that sentence."

STR: I was being a little loose with my wording. My point was to Spencer that a 65 year old employee does incur health insurance costs on their employer if said employer offer group health insurance. Which is a major reason why certain employers (those that offer health insurance) are better off getting rid of older employees and hiring college grads to keep the group premiums down.

[Econoclast]

spencer says...

After age 65 people shift to Medicare so they cost their employer nothing in terms of health care. Should make an older worker less expensive, right?

Don't think so. Any employer denying a benefit (a company health plan better than Medicare) to one employee based on his age might have a problem, no? Also, see the link from Farrar regarding Medicare as Secondary Payer as to what the gubmint might prefer.

Jay says:
That's because if you are 65 and working you don't qualify for Medicare based on age.

40 quarters of work credit and age 65, you're eligible for Medicare; current employment status is irrelevant. MSP doesn't force you to accept the company plan, if you don't want to; people choose the employer plan if it's better for them.

Because employer-sponsored health plans tend to be more comprehensive than Medicare, these workers are effectively foregoing their Medicare benefits by working.

Huh? Forgoing the [not free] less comprehensive option? Is this how economists think? The study paper referenced by Farrar is a real assume-a-can-opener, IMHO. MPP vs MSP assumes retirees will be paid more (or suffer less premium cost), but ignores why the retiree really chose to work, and why they might choose the company health plan regardless. My employer pays you to opt out, but I'm not sure many would, if Medicare was the alternative. Two coworkers in that category haven't.

[Savings Rate]

Now decades of punishing domestic savers is coming home to roost. Most citizens don't have enough saved to retire on, many are too feeble to work, and even many able bodied are virtually unemployable because of fantastic medical insurance premiums on this cohort. Reliance on foreign savings to finance capital goods seems fine, until substantial future production is owed to foreign savers instead of domestic retirees.

Domestic retirees need a percentage of current production, and foreign savers are unlikely to trade their production for overpriced domestic domiciles (that most foreigners aren't allowed live in). Domestic retirees should have been encouraged to save by owning the capital stock used to produce items, so they could get a share of production.

[donna]

And so where are the kids supposed to work?

I've got a 22 and 18 year old here - no jobs. And hardly anything available. I get PO'ed every time I see an older person working what should be a kid's job, knowing they're dong it pretty much for some extra income or healthcare benefits.

We need national healthcare just to open up jobs for younger people, just as social security was originally designed to get older people to retire so young workers could get work.

Don't remember our history much, do we?

[donna]

OTOH, as a woman turning 50 this year who has certainly seen my own opportunities in my field decline, who gets hit with AMT when I DO work because of my husband's income, and who sees less and less opportunity for skilled older workers to even get into companies, I'm ticked about the prejudice against older workers, especially women, as well, the tax issues, etc. The entire economic structure of the country right now towards workers is perverse and wrong. All our policies reward capital and executives, not workers. And savings rate's point hits home, too. What is the point of saving as our dollars become more worthless and we can't even get a decent interest rate?

[dilbert dogbert]

Glad you all are kicking around the boomers, my wife's generation, instead of mine, the birth dearth generation. I bet if you dug hard enough you could find a lot of bad things we did to the economy.
The wife works part time a the hospital as the clean up lady. Cleaning up all the mistakes of the younger workers who don't have time in the day after chatting, phoning friends and coworkers, on line shopping and taking care of their home business to get the damn job done right. It makes her mad because these mistakes cost the hospital 1000s or even 10s of 1000s and could lead to serious medical errors. This is at a major teaching hospital where they won't hire permanent only temps who are refugees from the real estate bust. Also please don't get her started on the consultants.
Enjoy your stay.

[jult52]

Wow. My comment that having older workers who aren't contributing their share (in terms of their compensation) doesn't mean that ALL older workers aren't doing their share. Many are; good for them.

save the rustbelt writes: "jult52 - in about 10 years will some snot nosed 35-ish MBA put your job on the chopping block? - get back to us"

So you feel that other workers should pick up the slack for older workers not doing their bit? Equity and fairness anyone?

[Robinia]

"During the family wage era, married women provided the volunteer labor to support health, education, and welfare. More recently, the retired have stepped in to assist in everything from schools to hospital candy-stripers to low-cost or free financial advising (assisting the poor with tax filing or the entrepreneur with business plans) to political activism. Now we appear absolutely committed to making sure that all physically and mentally competent persons are subject to employment discipline. This is a political drive as much or more than an economic one."

Very interesting. One could also say that the decline in small business self-employment (as opposed to "freelancer" or "consultant" self-employment, which is more like a job without security) adds to this. We don't have as much in the way of non-corporate-influenced recreational or service institutions anymore, either, and retired folks play a big role in what we have.

Also, there is a class-based differential regarding retirement age, and working into older age. Some jobs-- those that require physical exertion, commonly referred to as blue collar, but also including a number of service occupations such as nurse's aide and hotel housekeeper-- are too strenuous for most people in their late sixties. White collar jobs, however, may be easier to manage. So, an across-the-board push to retire later may disadvantage the lower middle classes particularly. Those are precisely the people, of course, who are more likely to have poorer health, with more occupational exposure to health risks...

[paine]

what a tempest in granny's tea pot

the gray ghosts will work regular work careful
and work cheap

gary becker might have been wrong on race
but he'd be right on age

prejudice agin the old
can't beat
the profit motive

[paine]

btw
i sugggest the above with these assumptions in mind

the socialization of benefits
and
busticating of seniority wage premiums

granting that

any profiteer
gazing at potential jobblers
will exclaim:
"old be beautiful baby "

[paine]

rusty

"Americans do not save enough"

we no need no
stinking personal savings man

we got an operational
tax and transfer system

and it ain't crumbling
like our inter state road system

[pgl]

"My comment that having older workers who aren't contributing their share (in terms of their compensation) doesn't mean that ALL older workers aren't doing their share. Many are; good for them."

For a lot of jobs, the skill levels of the average 35 year old might be as good as the skill levels of the elder workers so the job prospects of the latter do depend on things like compensation expectations and "energy" of the worker. But for some of the higher paying jobs where strong analytical et al. skills are why compensation is high, the sort of good news (at least from the prospect of us old ones) is that colleges are not churning out the same levels of quality education across the board as was seen in the past. At least, that's what some employers tell me. I think this is good news for the elder "elite" who will still be in high demand. Not so good news for those elders who really need a good job to pay the rent as they are the ones who will be harshly competing with the kids.

[paine]

jult52

you are full of navy beans bub

show us a study that demonstrates your observation
ie shows
a co relationship between
aging on the job
and "sloughing off "

[paine]

ddt

as an early boomer
i can confirm your points

st hill shows how we can be wrong aweful
and still grab
whatever unholy tire iron
we can beat u xers with
and remember
we'll never die !!!!!!

so we need to be euthanized
not just retired

[paine]

"That is NOT staying on the job. That is wroking at Walmart. IBM sent my job to India when I was 53."

don't change the frame here

this is about retiring
not job tenure
or high pay tenure
yes u will be recycled
you'll get offed as a crystal goblet
and can come back
a beer bottle
but hey
your still in use

[paine]

You lefties need to get some focus

are there lefties here ???

hmmmmm

[Lord]

don't stick around long

That must be a misspeak. The fear is they will never leave.

[paine]

"And so where are the kids supposed to work?"

donna look up
lump of labor fallacy

[CasualObserver]

Realize that once begin collecting Social Security, you lose 50 cents of every 1 dollar of benefit if you make over about $11,000.

Once most "retirees" figure this out, they head to the golf course.

[CasualObserver]

Realize that once you begin collecting Social Security, you lose 50 cents of every 1 dollar of benefit if you make over about $11,000.

Once most "retirees" figure this out, they head to the golf course.

[save_the_rustbelt]

"So you feel that other workers should pick up the slack for older workers not doing their bit? "

I didn't say anything about you not doing your bit. You imagined that.

News flash - you can be subject to age discrimination even if you are doing a fine job.

I like to hire older workers, especially for temperament, maturity and work ethic. Not everyone agrees.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Coincidentally, I am doing a seminar next week on HR techniques and employment trends, I'll ask and I bet the assembled executives prefer older workers, with the exception of very physical jobs.

I try to educate people who are already savvy.

[kthomas]

"donna look up
lump of labor fallacy"

LOL

sage wisdom from the master

[anne]

"So you feel that other workers should pick up the slack for older workers not doing their bit? Equity and fairness anyone?"

"So you feel that other workers should pick up the slack for younger workers not doing their bit? Equity and fairness anyone?"

"So you feel that other workers should pick up the slack for male workers not doing their bit? Equity and fairness anyone?"

"So you feel that other workers should pick up the slack for female workers not doing their bit? Equity and fairness anyone?"

[anne]

"But for some of the higher paying jobs where strong analytical et al. skills are why compensation is high, the sort of good news (at least from the prospect of us old ones) is that colleges are not churning out the same levels of quality education across the board as was seen in the past."

Rotten unthinking kiddies, but I thought the problem was slacking oldies.

[anne]

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/whileworking.htm

If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit.

For 2008, that limit is $13,560.

In the year you reach full retirement age, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above a different limit, but we only count earnings before the month you reach your full retirement age.

If you will reach full retirement age in 2008, the limit on your earnings for the months before full retirement age is $36,120.
(If you were born in 1943, your full retirement age is 66 years.)

Starting with the month you reach full retirement age, you can get your benefits with no limit on your earnings.

[anne]

"Realize that once you begin collecting Social Security, you lose 50 cents of every 1 dollar of benefit if you make over about $11,000."

Rubbish.

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/whileworking.htm

Starting with the month you reach full retirement age, you can get your benefits with no limit on your earnings.

[paine]

poor jay

all logic no facts

[anne]

"Now decades of punishing domestic savers is coming home to roost."

Average Annual Total Returns as of 04/30/2008

500 Index Fund 11.69% 08/31/1976

Long-Term Invest-Grade Bond Fund 8.58% 07/09/1973

[kthomas]

anne, What was your point?

[robertdfeinman]

I retired early (57) and have enjoyed not working for the past few years. I think work is highly overrated.

Unfortunately most people have to work longer than they might wish because of economic necessity. Some people have devoted so much of their lives to their careers that they are lost when they stop working.

One of my constant themes is that we, as a society, need to get away from the concept of the pursuit of "stuff" and find other things to do in life. I tell people I'm in my post-materialist phase. I buy fewer things and try to spend less money.

I have a couple of essays on my web site about my mixed results meeting this goal.

If people developed non-materialistic interests earlier in life they would enjoy themselves more and we could scale back on consumerism. I'm always reminded of the old people in small European towns who can spend time sitting around at a café. As the rise of online social networking seems to show there is a hunger for human interaction. Maybe we can get this developed into a larger activity that exists beyond the keyboard.

[anne]

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/05/19/bil10519.htm

May 19, 2008

Companies with 10-199 employees offering health coverage:

2001 69%
2002 66%
2003 66%
2004 64%
2005 62%
2006 63%
2007 61%

Private-sector establishments offering health insurance:

2001 58.3%

2005 56.3%

-- Doug Trapp

[anne]

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/05/19/bil10519.htm

Coverage at private-sector establishments:

Average family premium

2001
$8,281

2005
$10,728

Change
29.6%

Premiums are in 2005 dollars per enrolled employee.

[anne]

KThomas:

"What was your point?"

There has been reason to save:

Annual Returns as of 4/30/2008

500 Index Fund 11.69% from 08/31/1976

Long-Term Invest-Grade Bond Fund 8.58% from 07/09/1973

[Joe]

So much heat. So little light.

Some facts: if you have health insurance from your employer, Medicare must be the second payer. So, the proposal to make Medicare the 1st payer would make employees 65+ more attractive at the margin.

If you have claimed your Social Security retirement benefit before full retirement age (now 66) and continue to earn over the threshold ($13,560 in '08), you do not lose your benefits. Your benefits are withheld (at a $1 for $2 rate) and then returned to you at your full retirement age in the form of a higher benefit than you would have other wise received. Is that clear? If you believe you are losing your benefits permanently, you are making a big mistake.

The remaining years of life expectancy of someone age 62 in 2000 was 19 for men and 22 for women. That's median survival, so 50% will survive even longer. Say a person starts their working/earning life at age 20 and stops working altogether/retires completely at 62. That means they'll spend about a third of their adult life retired. Do people really believe that is sustainable either for an individual or for a society?

[kthomas]

"Do people really believe that is sustainable either for an individual or for a society?"

We the people do not, put what are we to infer from this question?

[ken melvin]

In the eighties, the yuppies (they who went to tuition free colleges) didn't want to pay taxes for someone else's education. Now, int seems their counterparts of today, don't want ot pay for the retirement of the now boomers (nee yuppies). Folks, we have ourselves a progression.

[cm]

Francois:

"Older workers have been around the block, and are more able to question management decisions than young workers do.

Which corporate exec is willing to tolerate that?"

You don't even have to go there. It starts with line managers, and perhaps lower than that.

As you are hinting at, it's not a matter of age, but of the experience in matters of life and work that comes with it.

[Lafayette]

Article: Older workers are viewed, rightly or not, as less supple in dealing with new technologies.

This is a prejudicial distortion of the present labor market. And it cannot be legislated away.

I maintain that if retraining was available to all, in terms of career lifetime enhancement of skills, the prejudice would wither and die.

Lifetime skills enhancement is an investment the individual must make in their own career abilities. We are no longer in the 20th century where a job with one company throughout one's lifetime was the norm. And, businesses have taken the habit of willy-nilly dislocating/firing to maintain profitability -- exacted, let's not forget, by the equity markets (of which we are all stockholder-owners).

You can't have your cake AND eat it. Not any longer.

[Lafayette]

Capitalist Tool

That the employees, whose efforts made the existence of the companies possible, were viewed as burdens, or as dim-bulb suckers to be sweet-talked until they weren't needed anymore.

The current worker vs.: owner paradigm has existed since the beginning of the Industrial Age, when large numbers of farm workers were brought into cities employed on a manufacturing line. Unions evolved that, more or less (and often less than more), protected their interests vis-à-vis Management (read, the owners).

The phenomenon of equity stock ownership over the past few decades has shown how the wealth generated by industry can be funnelled to those who hold large equity positions in a company – for any number of reasons (venture capital, inheritance, or Corporate Board finagling of compensation).

The issue of ownership, I suggest, thus devolves to the question, “Why does Top Management get all the benefits and the workers all the risk?” In case of corporate failure, who risks most; those who have built a comfortable cushion afforded by exercised stock-options or those whose day-to-day existence depends uniquely on their salaries?

Why then not legislate (ah, yes, that ugly word to libertarians) that stock-ownership be an incentivizing tool for BOTH management and staff (whether blue or white collar). Certainly not in equal proportions, but also most certainly better than those rare companies that allow those who are not afforded stock-options to buy corporate equity at a discount.

Incentivizing by means of stock-options works up and down the hierarchy. Why should it be reserved to Top Management?!? Here’s the reason: Because they thought of it, and they keep control on the levers of power that manage the distribution of corporate earned income by means stock-options. Is that reason enough? Hardly.

The disparity in fairness, as regards stock-options, is glaring. So much so, that legislation is clearly needed. It will do wonders to address the awfulness of Income Inequity in America today.

[Lafayette]

The Quick Fix

Farrar: Big problem in France. The Sarko govt wants to extend the number of working years to 41, and perhaps longer, but a high percentage of workers over 55 are already unemployed. Completely illogical

You are making an amalgam of facts that are of an entirely different nature.

The extension of the number of working years (in order to be eligible to full and not partial Retirement Benefits) is a natural extension of the logic that those working must support those who are retiring. This is due to one reason alone: Given the elongation of life-span, the retirement benefits will VERY LARGELY outweigh contributions into Retirement Funds. This fact has hit home in France, which is trying, like Germany before France, to rectify the problem.

For the numbers of unemployed by age group in France, go here. (Click on the fourth line in the list.) You will find that those over fifty have an unemployment rate of around 6%, lower in fact than the national rate of around 7%. (NB: Careful, these are ILO figures, which calculates them a bit differently from the INSEE in France.)

In fact, due to very sickly job creation numbers over the past decades, the French workforce has aged seriously -- since it was so difficult to fire those who were "tenured". So, jobs were not created, but dislocated. Mostly in un- and semi-skilled manufacturing, whilst Marketing/Sales/Customer Service and other non-dislocatable functions where maintained.)

I might add that if you are over 55, France relaxes the onerous surcharges typically applied to younger employees. This has had, so far, no noticeable effect in older new hires – but France remains still in the early stages of a recovery from a misguided economic policy that did absolutely nothing to change the situation for decades. France, like many countries, was cocooning after decades of a fairly automatic post-war expansion, which came to a sudden end in the early 1990s – just when GATT lowered the barriers promoting the advent of low-cost Chinese produced goods.

At the very least, another 5 to 10 years of economic expansion will be necessary to remedy the damage done.

My point: Regardless of the economic circumstance in any given country, don’t believe politicians who promise a Quick Fix. There ain’t no such thing when economic policy misguidance has attained phenomenal proportions. Let's face the paradigm change and deal with it – rather than sweeping it under the carpet.

[anne]

Joe:

"If you have claimed your Social Security retirement benefit before full retirement age (now 66) and continue to earn over the threshold ($13,560 in '08), you do not lose your benefits. Your benefits are withheld (at a $1 for $2 rate) and then returned to you at your full retirement age in the form of a higher benefit than you would have other wise received. Is that clear? If you believe you are losing your benefits permanently, you are making a big mistake."

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/whileworking.htm

February, 2008

You can work while you receive Social Security retirement (or survivors) benefits. When you do, it could mean a higher benefit for you in the future. Higher benefits can be important to you later in life and increase the future benefit amounts your family and your survivors could receive.

While you are working, your earnings will reduce your benefit amount only until you reach your full retirement age. After you reach full retirement age we recalculate your benefit amount to leave out the months when we reduced or withheld benefits due to your excess earnings.

We use a formula to determine how much your benefit must be reduced:

If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit.

For 2008, that limit is $13,560.

In the year you reach full retirement age, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above a different limit, but we only count earnings before the month you reach your full retirement age.

If you will reach full retirement age in 2008, the limit on your earnings for the months before full retirement age is $36,120.

(If you were born in 1943, your full retirement age is 66 years.)

Starting with the month you reach full retirement age, you can get your benefits with no limit on your earnings.

[anne]

Joe:

"Some facts: if you have health insurance from your employer, Medicare must be the second payer. So, the proposal to make Medicare the 1st payer would make employees 65+ more attractive at the margin."

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/05/19/bil10519.htm

May 19, 2008

Private-sector establishments offering health insurance:

2001 58.3%

2005 56.3%

[Medicare as 1st or 2nd payer is critical.]

http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareEligibility/Home.asp?dest=NAV|Home|GeneralEnrollment#TabTop

Who is Eligible for Medicare?

Generally, you are eligible for Medicare if you or your spouse worked for at least 10 years in Medicare-covered employment and you are 65 years or older and a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.

[Real Person from the Real World]

If you have kids without jobs, that is strange. You can't find enough kids in some locations to take the low end jobs at McD's or elsewhere, so they do hire oldsters. When it comes to other starter jobs, like sales, the jobs abound, and plenty of 20 somethings are in them, fast talking and dressed hip. On the other hand, there are TOOO many sales and marketing jobs. A vast sea of them, and with a declining economy, only those willing to take shortcuts to make commissions, survive long. Not everyone is cut out for sales, but that seems to be all the jobs that are left, after we have outsourced or imported the higher paying ones. And the "self-employed" model of 1099 road warrior is also a tough one. We need to have real jobs that pay real salaries, and we need universal healthcare and subsidized higher education.

[Patricia Shannon]

The comment that baby boomers have had it great is not curious. Our earnings were depressed because of the competition from so many workers. As has been noted, the reason household incomes have kept pace with inflation is that a much larger proportion of women started working for pay. With depressed earnings, and age discrimination once we reached middle, and savings account paying 1/2 % interest, how could we save, even if we hadn't had children who demanded $100 sneakers and expensive electronic toys, whose lives would have been ruined w/o them?

[ken melvin]

A curve about real earnings, 'tis well worth seeing:

http://picasaweb.google.com/asamwick/CGG/photo#5200404157632314674

[Patricia Shannon]

Ken,
That graph really shows a lot.
Eg., the proportion of part-time employment has greatly increased.

[Patricia Shannon]

Ken,
I meant to thank you for posting the link to that graph

[Lafayette]

PS: Eg., the proportion of part-time employment has greatly increased.

As well it should, perhaps.

Employing the elderly (but not aged ... there IS a difference) probably involves more part-time than full-time employment.

Ala Macdonalds, which also suits students.

PS: And the twain shall never meet? Never say never.

[cm]

Lafayette: One big problem complex with part-time work is that most importantly benefits, but also certain workplace perks and privileges, are usually tied to full-time employment or minimum hours (half, 2/3, etc. of full time). When benefits are separated from the employer that helps, but then you still have exclusion from perks, at least those that are in the "fixed cost" department, which many probably are.

As part-time work is probably more prevalent in the lower part of the pay scale, there is also the not unimportant aspect of making a living paycheck. Having to scuttle between two or more jobs comes with its own set of frictions and additional expenses.

If I could have part-time without penalty, I would not think twice.