patrick.net

Philistine says

Work 'til you die: The New Amerikan Dream

There is a simple misunderstanding here. The intent of the 70-year propoosal is not that you get a job until you are 70. The intent is that you won't get a pension until you are 70. In the meanwhile, you are on your own.

justme says

There is a simple misunderstanding here. The intent of the 70-year propoosal
is not that you get a job until you are 70. The intent is that you won't get a
pension until you are 70. In the meanwhile, you are on your own.

If they raise the regular age, would they also raise the age that someone can take early social security from 62? Currently, someone has the option of retiring at 59.5 if they can make it for 2.5 years via IRA and 401K before early social security kicks in.

LMFAO!!!

70

Bullshit.

zzyzzx says

BULLSHIT!

I thought the liberal "ELITE" were TOP CEO's as well?

Your argument at any end of the scale is baseless. You make a stupid comparison, easily broken down.

rdm says

Hell we cant even find decent jobs for young people now, pushing retirement age to 70 sure doesn't help.

That why people shouldn't be working more than 20 hours per week.

Regarding the stupid Sean Penn poster. Actors are sometimes greedy too.

But, here's a difference. When an actor is paid say 10 million, the producer has decided it's worth it, based on a very straight forward calculation that the that actor will be a big and direct factor in making the movie gross X (say over 100 million).

When a CEO is paid 10 million, or maybe 50 million when bonuses and stock and everything is considered, it's because these guys all sit on each others boards to determine compensation. It's like a club. And it's very unclear that the CEO will actually contribute well to the bottom line, although sure, some of them make huge contributions.

As for the threads title and article. As someone else said, shocking !

I guess they have figured out that they can afford to wait unitil age 70 to get their SS and medicare.

As many have pointed out elsewhere:

1) In lower socio economic groups where stress is sometimes higher, and diet is sometimes worse, life expectancy is lower.

2) In many jobs, expecially manual labor or various kinds, working to 70 is not much of an option.

SS retirement is already been phased up to 67 right ? At least to recieve the highest benefits. You can start younger with a lower benefit for life.

If I were more radical, I might like this idea(raising it to 70), because this kind of legislation would take us much closer to revolution. At some point even the captainshutups of this world are going to wake up.

Raise the income level that pays FICA, and means test.

Means testing is fair because the people who would not be receiving the benefits that they paid in would be the same people that should have been paying higher taxes, back when the SS surplus was used (accounting tricks) to make the deficit seem smaller than it was, for the purpose of not more progressively taxing these same people.

Not to mention the Bush tax cuts that got us in to our current debt problem.

justme says

The intent of the 70-year propoosal is not that you get a job until you are 70

Yet that is how it will work out. Come on, let's not be cute.

marcus says

When a CEO is paid 10 million, or maybe 50 million when bonuses and stock and
everything is considered, it's because these guys all sit on each others boards
to determine compensation. It's like a club. And it's very unclear that the CEO
will actually contribute well to the bottom line, although sure, some of them
make huge contributions.

That and the greedy cretins have bribed congress to prevent owners/shareholders from setting compensation in their own companies.

Obama finally allowed shareholders to pass a non binding resolution expressing oppostion to the compensation-nonbinding!! While laughable, it is better than before, when they couldn't even do that.

There is a simple way to make Social Security and Medicare solvent. First you put all elected employees on it and then all government employees.

Once everyone is in the same boat, solutions will be found. As long as those making the decisions are not subject to them, there is no hope.

marcus says

Means testing is fair because the people who would not be receiving the benefits that they paid in would be the same people that should have been paying higher taxes, back when the SS surplus was used (accounting tricks) to make the deficit seem smaller than it was, for the purpose of not more progressively taxing these same people.

Means testing for receiving SS benefits?

I don't think that would work because folks would cheat the system, just like 50-60% of small business owners cheat on their taxes.

marcus says

1) In lower socio economic groups where stress is sometimes higher, and diet is sometimes worse, life expectancy is lower.

It's lower than among wealthy people, but it's still 10-15 years higher than it was in 1938 when the retirement age was set at 65.

It was assumed that the vast majority of people would not actually live in retirement. Life expectancy was 61 for males and 65 for females.

Today, life expectancy is 77 / 82.

So we've seen an increase in life expectancy of 25%, but haven't increased retirement age at all. Raising retirement age by 5 years (7.5%!) seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Yes, even poor fry cooks at mcdonald's live much longer than they did 75 years ago.

fedwatcher says

There is a simple way to make Social Security and Medicare solvent. First you put all elected employees on it and then all government employees.

You know this was done in 1984 right? I know you guys are opposed to paying attention to the present, but you could have at least advanced to the 90s.

We need to raise the retirement age gradually. I suggest increasing it by one year every year until it hits 150.

Soylent Green doesn't collect Social Security. Just show them what happened to the last guy that tried.

Kevin says

It's lower than among wealthy people, but it's still 10-15 years higher than it was in 1938 when the retirement age was set at 65.

I think you will find this is worse than misleading. Life expectancy includes infant mortality, and deaths of young children from diseases that were totally conquered in the 20th century.

E.g. look at the table here. IT shows that in midieval Britain, life expectancy was 30, and yet at age 21 a peson was expected to live to 64.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

We'll see if I have time and the ability to find data for 1930, but you are starting with a premise that's totally wrong.

Here, I found one.

In 1930, a 50 year old MAN was expected to live to 71. Now they are expected to live to
79.

For women it was 73 + in 1930 and 80 or so in 2004.

This sounds imperfect, but much more accurate that what you suggested.

Less than 10% increase in life span (for someone who had been paying in to social security).

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

marcus says

We'll see if I have time and the ability to find data for 1930, but you are starting with a premise that's totally wrong.

The ballooning number of old people suggests otherwise.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-10-23-aging-centenarians_x.htm
Centenarians increase in age and numbers

the estimated 71,000 Americans who are 100 years old or older. And their ranks will grow. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that 114,000 Americans will be centenarians in 2010, a number expected to swell to 241,000 by 2020.

Medical advances of the past century, such as antibiotics and statin drugs for heart disease, already have allowed the average person to live decades longer than someone born in 1900. If those advances continue, will scientists push the envelope of human life far past 100? Can people routinely live to 150 or even 200?

We can't afford to keep people on Social Security that long!

ducsingle5313 says

Means testing for receiving SS benefits?

In a zero interest rate environment, isn't just about everyone going to still end up getting benefits anyway?

zzyzzx says

Medical advances of the past century, such as antibiotics and statin drugs for heart disease, already have allowed the average person to live decades longer than someone born in 1900.

If you're going to say "decades longer," you are averaging in changes in the number of infants and children dying. Period.

Telling, that you couldn't even look at the table I provided and think about it for a second. We're talking basic facts here. Kevin will have no problem with this.

marcus says

When a CEO is paid 10 million, or maybe 50 million when bonuses and stock and everything is considered, it's because these guys all sit on each others boards to determine compensation. It's like a club. And it's very unclear that the CEO will actually contribute well to the bottom line, although sure, some of them make huge contributions.

It's because enough shareholders didn't vote against executive pay in the most recent shareholder's meeting / proxy vote. This really needs to be redone in that way votes that aren't cast count in most companies.

Kevin says

So we've seen an increase in life expectancy of 25%, but haven't increased retirement age at all. Raising retirement age by 5 years (7.5%!) seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Okay so its more like 10%, and the age has been increased to 67.

Compounding the problem of the 10% increase in life expectancy for a 50 year old is the huge bubble of the baby boom. This is a temporary problem though, so we don't have to penalize retirees forever for it.

I think means testing is going to have to happen, at least temporarily to get through the baby boom cohort. I also think the level of income that pays FICA has to go up again (even if just for 20 years to get us through the baby boom).

IF you raise the age to 70, it's going to hurt a lot of people. IT is their fault, but many boomer have not been saving enough. And now, the time when they maybe thought they would really be socking it away, their home values and job prospects dropped, while health care and college for their kids went up.

MAny boomers don't have nearly enough savings. The fact is many will need to be collecting SS at 65 or 67 and still working (some lower paying job in many cases) til 70 or well beyond. This is just a fact.

And this is money that will be spent in to our consumer driven economy by this huge cohort.

zzyzzx says

We can't afford to keep people on Social Security that long!

Well, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to also require that people contribute a certain amount to IRA, but you know that certain folks on the right will start yelling ish like "freedom", "communists", "out of control government" etc..

The bottom line is that fudging with retirement age won't really solve the underlying issue. Social security is supposed to be one of the buckets that funds your retirement. No one should bank on that source being your only avenue for retirement income. A critical part of retirement source mix is availability of pension whether public or private sector. That makes a huge difference. In fact you can calculate the market value of your pension if you multiply your yearly pension amount by 25!!! Additionally, it is very helpful to at least contribute to your 401K to max out the match and then max out Roth IRA. With SS/pension/401k/Roth, we are now talking about potential to match or exceed your income while you were working. That's what people need to be striving to. Simply counting on social security is a pathway to misery - at best you will live like a broke college students, but sex and drinking in your 70s may not be the same as when you were 18-22 lol.

Call it Crazy says

19. Millions of elderly Americans these days are finding it very difficult to survive on just a Social Security check. The truth is that most Social Security checks simply are not that large. The following comes directly from the Social Security Administration website...

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.

Could you live on about 300 dollars a week?

Social Security was never intended to be a retirement fund. It was intended to be a supplement.

dublin hillz says

A critical part of retirement source mix is availability of pension whether public or private sector.

Unfortunately, the private sector pension has gone the way of the dinosaur, and Republicans are trying their best to make sure the same happens to public sector pensions.

turtledove says

Call it Crazy says

19. Millions of elderly Americans these days are finding it very difficult to survive on just a Social Security check. The truth is that most Social Security checks simply are not that large. The following comes directly from the Social Security Administration website...

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.

Could you live on about 300 dollars a week?

Social Security was never intended to be a retirement fund. It was intended to be a supplement.

I agree Social Security wasn't intended to be lavish; it was intended to make sure people wouldn't have to worry about going hungry in their old age, in an era when housing and medical costs were comparatively cheap. Unfortunately now government policy is deliberately increasing the cost of housing ("helping homeowners" with QE, ZIRP, Operation Twist, Fannie & Freddie, Federal Home Loan Banks) and medical costs (Rx mandate, insurance requirements, etc.). Social Security recipients are required to pay for Medicare, even if they think it's a bad idea and don't want it, like a bully taking kids' lunch money. Many retirees choose to emigrate to countries where housing and medical costs aren't deliberately inflated like they are here (e.g. Mexico).

curious2 says

Unfortunately now government policy is deliberately increasing the cost of
housing ("helping homeowners" with QE, ZIRP, Operation Twist, Fannie &
Freddie, Federal Home Loan Banks) and medical care (Rx mandate, insurance
requirements, etc.).

Zirp definitely hurt retirees trying to live off fixed income via interest rates in CDs, savings accounts, but at the same time it allowed their 401K/IRA balances to recover which may be even more important.

dublin hillz says

Zirp definitely hurt retirees trying to live off fixed income via interest rates in CDs, savings accounts, but at the same time in allowed their 401K/IRA balances to recover which may be even more important.

I agree about the short-term effects but there is an issue of long-term risk and principle. Government should not be insuring the stock market. Investors approaching retirement have been advised for decades to reduce exposure to the stock market and shift into fixed income, for the simple reason that stock market prices have always fluctuated. Now we have the opposite situation, where the federal government is sacrificing the stability of the currency in order to stabilize the stock market. It's the tail wagging the dog, and replacing market risk with systemic risk.

dublin hillz says

The bottom line is that fudging with retirement age won't really solve the underlying issue

Correct. A better economy could. IMO, this won't happen until we see the return of import duties in a significant way.

zzyzzx says

this won't happen until we see the return of import duties in a significant way.

Nor will it happen until the criminals who control the banking system are jailed.

finehoe says

Nor will it happen until the criminals who control the banking system are jailed.

Exactly how does that increase employment levels???

zzyzzx says

Exactly how does that increase employment levels???

To quote Jesse, "the Banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, with balance restored to the economy, before there can be any sustainable recovery."

Kevin says

The maximum Social Security payout would have to be increased substantially to make things fair, even under the current system where lower income workers extract more money than they contribute and higher income workers tend to extract less money than they contribute.

But back to the original post, it's laughable that a bunch of 0.001% earners who by general consensus are vastly overpaid would suggest extending the retirement age to 70.

To me, Progress means we steadily lower the hours worked while lowering the retirement age.

If computers and tech is so wonderful, how come the efficiency benefits aren't trickling down?

The reason the rich are getting so very rich is because the middle and working classes are getting less or the same, despite efficiency increasing - the wealthy are keeping most of the efficiency improvements for themselves - even though most of the efficiency comes from a better trained (mostly at their own college loan expense) workforce.

Wages haven't moved much in Purchasing Power since the 80s, but more is expected to be paid by the employee (higher medical contribs, no more defined benefit retirement, training themselves instead of getting paid to train on company time at company expense,etc.) Yet the income for the top 1% has exploded.

And now we're expected to work longer? Fiddlesticks.

thunderlips11 says

To me, Progress means we steadily lower the hours worked while lowering the retirement age.

Why would we lower the retirement age? People should be engaged in something productive for as long as physically possible. Ceasing to work is to cease to live.

thunderlips11 says

If computers and tech is so wonderful, how come the efficiency benefits aren't trickling down?

They certainly are. 50 years ago, most americans worked in jobs requiring physical labor. Today hardly anybody does.

thunderlips11 says

The reason the rich are getting so very rich is because the middle and working classes are getting less or the same, despite efficiency increasing - the wealthy are keeping most of the efficiency improvements for themselves - even though most of the efficiency comes from a better trained (mostly at their own college loan expense) workforce.

The reason the rich are staying rich ("getting" is a different issue entirely) is because as a society we refuse to tax wealth other than modest land taxes.

One should find his passion and devote his life to it. Retirements sounds good only if someone has been whoring his life away.

Kevin says

The reason the rich are staying rich ("getting" is a different issue entirely) is because as a society we refuse to tax wealth other than modest land taxes.

IMO, the reason the rich are getting richer is because the middle and lower classes income aren't keeping up with inflation so in relative terms, it looks like the rich are getting richer. IMO, this is because there are a lot fo stupid people who who routinely buy stuff made in China and made in USA prices. The factories were moved to China and for the most part, prices remained the same. For example, Craftsman tools aren't any cheaper now that they are made in China. When the lower and middle class lost their jobs due to outsourcing and rampant imports, their wages went down in relative terms.

Kevin says

The reason the rich are staying rich ("getting" is a different issue entirely) is because as a society we refuse to tax wealth other than modest land taxes.

You mean like Al Gore, right?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/al-gore-nets-another-fortune-164510966.html

According to a filing with the Securities and Exchanges Commission, Gore -- a director on Apple's board -- exercised an option to purchase nearly 60,000 shares of the tech giant at the bargain basement price of $7.48, costing him a total of about $445,000.

But with Apple's current market price at about $500 a share, Gore's holdings are worth $29.75 million, giving him a huge windfall-on paper at least.

The Professor says

population growth is reaching the limits of the world's finite resources.

Population growth is flattening and will peak soon. It may even become negative for a bit. Ignorance on this is epidemic.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html

Hadn't seen that one. Very interesting.

Population is flattening because in an industrial society children are more of a burden than a benefit.

If you own a farm, more kids means more free labor. If you live in a city, more kids means a bigger, more expensive home, more food, more education expenses, more medical care, more clothing etc.

Machines and electronics are the reason

This is why it won't be a big deal when we all live forever.

Kids are net liabilities.