Forum Thread

When the baby boomers retire...

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 16 1 2 Next
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    As a part of the monthly jobs report, politicians keep pointing to the unemployment number and how many people "had dropped out of the labor force" or were "underemployed". Many of them miss the point that people are dropping out of the labor force or working part time by choice. And a whole bunch of them are like me, people born in 1946 or later. The year 1946 saw an increase in births from 2.8 million in 1945 to 3.47 million in 1946 and 3.9 million in 1947. Even higher numbers in the 1950s.

    Most all of us 18 million born in the first five years (1946-1950) of the so called baby boomer generation are now mostly retired or perhaps working part time. When I reached age 65 in 2011, I was eligible to enroll in Medicare. A year later in 2012 I reached the magic retirement age of 66. So theoretically if all of us baby boomers retired at age 66, then the labor work force will have dropped by 18 million from 2011 to 2016. I accept that many could not afford to retire fully for financial reasons and may have extended their retirement dates, while others are just working part time to supplement their retirement income.

    The only point I am making is that when politicians focus on the under employment or people dropping out of the work force, a big chunk of those numbers are now baby boomers retiring or partially retiring in large numbers. And yes some of the older generation that wants to work, just cannot find work for whatever reason. I do not want to make light of their numbers. I have empathy for them.

    Of course, those baby boomer retirements are now being offset by some 3.9 million young people entering the work force each year. The two demographics largely offset each other.

    As an aside, in the way we think about social security, the ratio of workers to retirees will get smaller and smaller as more and more boomers retire. Social security benefits will continue to be the political football for the next couple of decades and beyond.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    As a part of the monthly jobs report, politicians keep pointing to the unemployment number and how many people "had dropped out of the labor force" or were "underemployed". Many of them miss the point that people are dropping out of the labor force or working part time by choice. And a whole bunch of them are like me, people born in 1946 or later. The year 1946 saw an increase in births from 2.8 million in 1945 to 3.47 million in 1946 and 3.9 million in 1947. Even higher numbers in the 1950s.

    Most all of us 18 million born in the first five years (1946-1950) of the so called baby boomer generation are now mostly retired or perhaps working part time. When I reached age 65 in 2011, I was eligible to enroll in Medicare. A year later in 2012 I reached the magic retirement age of 66. So theoretically if all of us baby boomers retired at age 66, then the labor work force will have dropped by 18 million from 2011 to 2016. I accept that many could not afford to retire fully for financial reasons and may have extended their retirement dates, while others are just working part time to supplement their retirement income.

    The only point I am making is that when politicians focus on the under employment or people dropping out of the work force, a big chunk of those numbers are now baby boomers retiring or partially retiring in large numbers. And yes some of the older generation that wants to work, just cannot find work for whatever reason. I do not want to make light of their numbers. I have empathy for them.

    Of course, those baby boomer retirements are now being offset by some 3.9 million young people entering the work force each year. The two demographics largely offset each other.

    As an aside, in the way we think about social security, the ratio of workers to retirees will get smaller and smaller as more and more boomers retire. Social security benefits will continue to be the political football for the next couple of decades and beyond.

    Sure Schmidt, yes you are correct; however as Jared keeps saying, what is your solution?; a GOP President? Better find a job at Wallmart, they've got 90 year olds packing my groceries.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: As an aside, in the way we think about social security, the ratio of workers to retirees will get smaller and smaller as more and more boomers retire. Social security benefits will continue to be the political football for the next couple of decades and beyond.

    Great post.

    This last paragraph is something I've been spending a lot of time thinking about ever since I considered studying gerontology in college. Politicians are going to have to make some major decisions in the coming years if we want to keep this program viable in the long term.

    I'm more of the Elizabeth Warren mindset and want to drastically increase the cap of $118,000. That number is artificially low and is unsustainable. I also believe that the retirement age should gradually be pushed back considering how long the average American lives in this day and age. Those are just a couple of things that I think could help keep the system afloat.

    I'm by no means naive enough to think either of these things would be an easy task, but both of them are better than continuing to dig our heads into the sand and act like everything is peaches and cream.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Like I said in the Wallmart they employ plenty of 8o years old plus. But Jared finds that normal; however you won't find that in the Netherlands, because of a much better social security, like Bernie is proposing. Also all companies are mandated to have a retirement savings/investment account for their employee's. Medical coverage until death etc. But yeah we still don't want to "copy" that let alone; Like high speed rail, better infrastructure etc. I just saw an Dems idiot senator from PA; he wants Hillary, because "that keeps us safe" I ask; from what? Our own "guns"? Our own stupidity? Our own created enemy's? Our own "drug" prescriptions? Our own wrong bathroom use? Our own corrupt Governors? Our own ridiculous money run elections? Our collapsing infrastructure? Most of us don't make it to retirement because they joined the army or are on drugs or get run over by a texting idiot., ask Prince etc. etc. ( So I keep on bitching for the fun of it, enjoy)
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Like I said in the Wallmart they employ plenty of 8o years old plus. But Jared finds that normal; however you won't find that in the Netherlands, because of a much better social security, like Bernie is proposing. Also all companies are mandated to have a retirement savings/investment account for their employee's. Medical coverage until death etc. But yeah we still don't want to "copy" that let alone; Like high speed rail, better infrastructure etc. I just saw an Dems idiot senator from PA; he wants Hillary, because "that keeps us safe" I ask; from what? Our own "guns"? Our own stupidity? Our own created enemy's? Our own "drug" prescriptions? Our own wrong bathroom use? Our own corrupt Governors? Our own ridiculous money run elections? Our collapsing infrastructure? Most of us don't make it to retirement because they joined the army or are on drugs or get run over by a texting idiot., ask Prince etc. etc. ( So I keep on bitching for the fun of it, enjoy)

    It's easy for the Netherlands to do that when their debt to income ratio is one of the worst in the world. They are living on borrowed time and things will come crashing down on them if they don't change how they do tings.

    There's millions upon millions of people on the list to move to the United States, but not so much in the Netherlands. Maybe those people waiting in line to get to America realize that the Netherlands over leveraged themselves to an point that is unsustainable.

    Bash this country all you want. That is your right to do. But at least we aren't on the verge of an economic catastrophe like much of Europe after promising too much to the public without figuring out how to pay for it.

    Or will you blame America when that happens? I won't be surprised if you do considering that's what you do whenever anything negative happens. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if you blamed America if we found out this planet was about to be wiped out by a comet that will destroy all of humanity.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Jared, you have no clue; the overall statistic is not at all like that; you are forgetting compared to here that there are more export than import there as well the tax structure is totally different than here. You should know by now that the whole northern part of Europe has to bail out the rest of the Euro zone. Thus you can't just with one selected statistic judge a situation. As a matter of fact with all your answers on any "thread" you are "cherry picking" I noticed.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There are enough resources in this world to provide a good living for every single person. But amassing wealth without production prohibits equal rights. The soldiers of status quo support their generals for many reasons but all the reasons discriminate against the poor.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote: As an aside, in the way we think about social security, the ratio of workers to retirees will get smaller and smaller as more and more boomers retire. Social security benefits will continue to be the political football for the next couple of decades and beyond.

    Great post.

    This last paragraph is something I've been spending a lot of time thinking about ever since I considered studying gerontology in college. Politicians are going to have to make some major decisions in the coming years if we want to keep this program viable in the long term.

    I'm more of the Elizabeth Warren mindset and want to drastically increase the cap of $118,000. That number is artificially low and is unsustainable. I also believe that the retirement age should gradually be pushed back considering how long the average American lives in this day and age. Those are just a couple of things that I think could help keep the system afloat.

    I'm by no means naive enough to think either of these things would be an easy task, but both of them are better than continuing to dig our heads into the sand and act like everything is peaches and cream.

    Jared,

    So long as goods and services are available for purchase by people with their Social Security dollars, there is no problem with Social Security in real terms.

    The financial constraints (e.g. payroll taxes, Social Security budget independence) are self imposed rules set by Congress, and they inhibit our productive capacities to produce the goods and services that seniors seek to purchase.

    Here's Greenspan telling Paul Ryan that there is no limit to the amount of dollars that the US government can create and distribute to seniors. The real issue is what they can buy with those dollars. youtube.com/watch?v=Ccb_BNdRN80

    My point is that we don't need to raise taxes to raise funds to distribute funds to seniors.

    However, should the economy be maxed out, and new funds distributed to seniors chase goods and services that are short, taxes may need to be higher to reduce the purchasing power of other actors in the economy, e.g. current workers, or other government expenditure needs to be lower, so that there is "space" for seniors to purchase stuff.

    Again, that has nothing to do with "funding" Social Security, and everything to do with "balancing" the economy.

    Here's Stephanie Kelton, now senior Economic Adviser to the Bernie Sanders campaign, on the Trust Funds:

    youtube.com/watch?v=nIYpdoKKsKc

    and here's a written short piece by Kelton explaining the same thing: neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/04/4-t...

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    As a part of the monthly jobs report, politicians keep pointing to the unemployment number and how many people "had dropped out of the labor force" or were "underemployed". Many of them miss the point that people are dropping out of the labor force or working part time by choice. And a whole bunch of them are like me, people born in 1946 or later. The year 1946 saw an increase in births from 2.8 million in 1945 to 3.47 million in 1946 and 3.9 million in 1947. Even higher numbers in the 1950s.

    Most all of us 18 million born in the first five years (1946-1950) of the so called baby boomer generation are now mostly retired or perhaps working part time. When I reached age 65 in 2011, I was eligible to enroll in Medicare. A year later in 2012 I reached the magic retirement age of 66. So theoretically if all of us baby boomers retired at age 66, then the labor work force will have dropped by 18 million from 2011 to 2016. I accept that many could not afford to retire fully for financial reasons and may have extended their retirement dates, while others are just working part time to supplement their retirement income.

    The only point I am making is that when politicians focus on the under employment or people dropping out of the work force, a big chunk of those numbers are now baby boomers retiring or partially retiring in large numbers. And yes some of the older generation that wants to work, just cannot find work for whatever reason. I do not want to make light of their numbers. I have empathy for them.

    Of course, those baby boomer retirements are now being offset by some 3.9 million young people entering the work force each year. The two demographics largely offset each other.

    As an aside, in the way we think about social security, the ratio of workers to retirees will get smaller and smaller as more and more boomers retire. Social security benefits will continue to be the political football for the next couple of decades and beyond.

    This thread, conversation, and dialogue illustrates how the liberal/progressive defenders of Social Security's "near enemy" is the neoliberal Democrats, IMO. People with a "D" in front of their name are "the problem."

  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Once again Carlitos hits the nail on the head! You are a breath of fresh air on this site, for sure!
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: There are enough resources in this world to provide a good living for every single person. But amassing wealth without production prohibits equal rights. The soldiers of status quo support their generals for many reasons but all the reasons discriminate against the poor.

    Watch this Bernie Sanders video on Youtube: youtube.com/watch?v=rzVDfznycqk

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote: Once again Carlitos hits the nail on the head! You are a breath of fresh air on this site, for sure!

    Thank you!!!!!!!!!

    youtube.com/watch?v=XSRUmRYrRLY

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Oh, some more emotional Bernie stump speeches have found their way again into this thread. It's nice to see that Bernie is somewhat acknowledging the impact of technology on jobs instead of just blasting trade deals. His social revolution is very heavy into emotions, and he even has a few economists that support his tax and spending plans. However, let's have a reality check. I read all the stuff and watch all the videos that Carlitos and others post. I have written my perspective in a few blog articles on jobs and trade that are largely dismissed by many on this website.

    So Carlitos, this is an article I have referenced in one of my blog articles and a few threads. Read it and tell me how on a global scale Bernie Sanders tax and economic plan fits in with these trends.

    McKinsey Global Institute, April 2015: The four global forces breaking all the trends

    If these four trends are indeed true, I have a hard time understanding how any kind of protectionist or punitive measures in the Sanders political revolution will work in harmony with these trends...all four of them: Urbanization, technological change, the aging world (related to the topic of this thread), and finally the global connections of flow of capital, finance, people and data.

    The authors summarize:

    "These four disruptions gathered pace, grew in scale, and started collectively to have a material impact on the world economy around the turn of the 21st century. Today, they are disrupting long-established patterns in virtually every market and every sector of the world economy—indeed, in every aspect of our lives. Everywhere we look, they are causing trends to break down, to break up, or simply to break. The fact that all four are happening at the same time means that our world is changing radically from the one in which many of us grew up, prospered, and formed the intuitions that are so vital to our decision making.

    "This can play havoc with forecasts and pro forma plans that were made simply by extrapolating recent experience into the near and distant future. Many of the assumptions, tendencies, and habits that had long proved so reliable have suddenly lost much of their resonance."

    I admit to be kind of a nuanced person. I think about all kinds of things that have zero relevance to the worker who has lost his job. I can think ideologically in Bernie's world for a while, but then my thinking gets all clouded as I focus more on the reality of not only today but future trends...globally.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: There are enough resources in this world to provide a good living for every single person. But amassing wealth without production prohibits equal rights. The soldiers of status quo support their generals for many reasons but all the reasons discriminate against the poor.

    Watch this Bernie Sanders video on Youtube: youtube.com/watch?v=rzVDfznycqk

    The economy and capitalism do not apply to the US any more. Stopping trading and stopping production like what is going on in the US and then talking to the people in terms of an economy and capitalism is fraud to let Wall Street bleed all the money out of the system.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos, Use taxes to reward and penalize jobs and stagnation respectively.