There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!

[Billy000]

You people automatically jump to this retarded conclusion that I hate the wealthy or I hate capitalism. Everything is so black and white with you people. I am against privatizing SS therefore I must be against the free market. It's such childlike thinking. In reality I am perfectly okay with the free market and CEO's being well paid. What I do have a problem with is the average CEO making 350x more than the average worker. I just want to close the gap. I want people to be paid a wage they can live off of and one that keeps up with inflation. The last time a person making $10 an hour and could easily live of of it was in the 60's. That is how behind wages are. Does that seem fair to you considering how wealthy these job creators are in this day and age?

Well what other conclusion when you want 'The wealthy could afford it too I promise. See the wealthy these days are investing less and less. Some investments that essentially becomes their personal wealth. They are keeping much of this money. 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth." That's pure and simple communism. Share the wealth as the wealthy have too much!
My goodness why do YOU think it is right to take from someone and give it someone else? That's theft!

Tax the wealthy...
Do you know that MOST wealthy people that have stocks are double taxed? Is that a new concept to you??
Is that fair? They get taxed on the Ordinary dividends as ordinary income which means they are taxed twice BECAUSE
when the corporation pays out in dividends it is AFTER the corporation has paid taxes.
So any shareholder in a corporation gets less of a dividend BECAUSE of corporate taxes and then when they get the dividend
they have to pay taxes as ordinary income....
But this goes way over your head I'm sure.

YOU are so uninformed about Americans income.
The AVERAGE hourly wage American makes $24.06 per hour !
FACT:
View attachment 32984

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf

See the below to see fewer and fewer people working at or below minimum wage..
In 1979 6,912,000 or 13.4% of all hourly workers or total hourly workers of 51,582,090
In 1989 3,162,000 or 50% LESS working at minimum wage of the 62,000,000 people working at hourly wage
In 2009 there were 3,572,000 people working at minimum wage of 72,897,959 at hourly wage or 4.9%
Finally in 2013 there were 3,300,000 working at minimum or 4.3% of 76,744,186 that work at hourly or 4.3%

I know these FACTS really send your little brain in a tizzy but this crap about poor Americans!
GEEZ look around you at you and your neighbors!
You are living the life KINGS 100s of years ago could NEVER imagine... reading right now words generated by someone else instantly!

When will you people quit bitching about issues of CHOICE for example:
I would have loved at age 25 to have the choice of putting the nearly $300,000 I've paid in to SS/Medicare into the market when I was 25 up to age 45... moved it to more secure and then at 65 at retirement... ...
Here is what would have happened IF I HAD HAD the choices which YOU want to deny people the right to choose!
Obviously I can't do it now BUT why are people like you thwarting my granddaughter from have a choice?
From her accumulating by forced savings over her future career millions of dollars for HER to have... and not have it going
to the Federal government that spends it on
My point is people should have the CHOICE and forcing them to pump money back into the Federal government for some cubicle dweller amidst the Ebola crisis, the government’s premier health agencies are burning their taxpayer funded budgets on wasteful programs faster than drunken monkeys. Based on a recent $3.2 million NIH study focused exclusively on getting monkeys drunk, that’s an analogy researchers should readily understand. -

View attachment 32987

How do you not see the stupidity in saying raising taxes is communism? Revenue is what pays the nation's bills. Revenue as a percentage of GDP is at 16%. In 2000 it was at 20%. That means we are BORROWING MONEY when it comes to government expenses. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't do shit to stimulate substantial economic growth. If they did, Bush's ridiculous cuts would have helped the recession in his early presidency and prevented the Great Recession. Instead, we lost 8 million jobs while the revenue as percentage of GDP was at an historic low (15%). Tell me. Why was job growth under Bush so pathetic?

God I already fucking explained to you before about your stupidity on the stats on the minimum wage. Yes assclown a small percentage of the population make the federal wage. However MILLIONS of Americans make less than 10 an hour. According to the CBO, raising the minimum wage would lift 16 million people out of poverty. Read this slowly will you? If you raised the minimum wage to $10 an hour, all of the wages below that would go up. Good god. Your scope is as small as your brain power dude. Pay attention.

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income Congressional Budget Office

Can you live on less than 10 an hour if you supported yourself entirely or you had kids? NO YOU CANT.

YOU IDIOT!
I'm going to make this in BIG BOLD LETTERS!!!
This is from the Federal Government!
Total that make Minimum WAGE... 3,550,000
DO YOU comprehend that?? less then 3,550,000 and of that 854,000 are teen agers 16 to 19!
HOW MANY of them have families???
View attachment 33012

NOW AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE in the USA!!!
Do you see ANYONE on the below list of hourly jobs making $10/hour???
View attachment 33013
Finally.. MORE FACTS versus YOUR MYTHS!!!
Myth #1: “Tons of families are affected by raising the minimum wage.”
How can you be against raising the minimum wage when poor workers are trying to satisfy their children’s needs? The imagery in the argument is enough to paint opponents as heartless people who hate poor children; however, the argument is light on facts and heavy on inaccurate imagery.
Fact: Only 1 percent of hourly-wage workers in America are married people making minimum wage.
Myth #2: “Most minimum wage workers are working two jobs, tons of hours and can’t make ends meet.”
This is another constant image. Progressives like to paint minimum wage workers as having multiple jobs and working a combined 70 hours per week just to feed their hungry children.
However, upon analyzing the actual data, it’s easy to realize that this is just another false image, portrayed by minimum wage proponents who are trying to skew the argument in their own favor by painting their opponents as cruel, rich politicians who don’t care about hard-working, poor people.
Fact: Only 2.6 percent of minimum wage workers are working more than 40 hours per week.

Myth #3: “Young workers make up a tiny part of total minimum wage workers.”
Once again, if you look at the data, it is clear that this is a nice sound bite for debates, but it’s not true at all.
Fact: People younger than 24 make up more than 50 percent of all minimum wage workers
AGAIN IDIOT look at the table Federal government provides: 1,797,000 are under age 24 or 50.6% of the 3,550,000 that make minimum wage!
5 Common Misconceptions About The Federal Minimum Wage In The US

Oh my god dude you are so thick. I don't know how else to explain this shit to you. Your facts in the second article are only people making 7.25 an hour. I am talking about any wages below 10 an hour. Your BLS graph does not say how many people make less than 10 an hour. It refers to WAGE AMOUNT AVERAGES. The averages are going to be high if the top wages in this country are so large. That SKEWS THE MATH. It says nothing about the number of people making these wages. That doesn't account for poor people in general. Your point is fucking moot if the issue is about raising the federal wage to 10 an hour. THAT MEANS ANYONE WHO MAKES WAGES BELOW 10 AN HOUR WOULD SEE THEIR WAGES GO UP. THAT IS FAR MORE THAN 3 MILLION PEOE. God how are you this thick? Think like a grown up will you?

What are "PEOE"????

Also WHERE ARE YOUR statistics other then "how many make less then $10 per hour"... YOU TELL ME how many that is because I've not found that data. I'd be very very interested to see your source because MY sources are the Bureau of Labor and their research states:
THE BARE MINIMUM AVERAGE wage per hour is $13.98 in the leisure and hospitality!
So WHERE do you get your $10/hour figure when the LOWEST AVERAGE is $13.98??
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector seasonally adjusted
View attachment 33019

I already gave you the goddamn link before. Look. 16.5 million people make under 10.10 an hour.

"Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase."

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income Congressional Budget Office

How do you not understand averages? This is basic math. Because wages get so high for the top earners, that will skew the average. That doesn't mean a lot of people make 13 an hour.

 

[Flopper]

All you idiots that believe those 30 second sound bites "privatizing SS in the risky stock market"...
Bull SHIT!!!
Self directed privatized SS would allow the individual to put the money in the SAFEST place that even the SS supposedly does, i.e. buying
US TREASURIES!!!
We just cut out the middle man!

Until the accumulated amount allows the treasure bill purchases, the individual privatized account can direct into FDIC (govt. insured!!!) savings account.

SO WHERE IN THE HELL is the risk in that???
The worker can't touch or borrow the accumulations until retirement.
The choice though is up to the individual and I always thought that was what this country was built on ... freedom of CHOICE...
I mean we hear the liberals decry conservatives don't want women to have freedom of choice...
HELL we want EVERYONE to have the freedom to choice WHERE their SS payments are invested!

Of course there is risk. The risk is that a person will make the wrong investment decisions.

How can there be a risk if the decision is US treasuries?
And more importantly WHY do YOU have to decide for me or millions of others like me that WOULD LIKE the freedom to choose?
Are you my brother's keeper???
Look where Obama who piously and loudly proclaims we are our brother's keeper own brother lives??
So how in the hell do you expect ME to believe Obama cares more for me then he does his own brother??
Pious words from "compassionate" people like you put people into poor houses.
View attachment 33005

Who said they will select treasuries? Maybe they'll invest in gold because Uncle Charlie says the government is going to collapse

 

[Judicial review]

The idiot who created this thread is healthmyths, a callous conservative, self appointed know-it-all whose knowledge of history is piss-poor. Sadly, he's not alone, other callous conservative with myopia agree with him/her, as well as the greedy and willfully ignorant.

See:

1915-1934 State Old Age Assistance Programs ElderWeb

I'm all for privatizing SS if you can deposit enough funds in it. However, no risk in investing? I call that financial suicide.

So you determine that putting money in US treasuries is a risk?
Because that's where a privatized SS direct account COULD go given the choice.
As it is now the SS/Medicare payments GO directly into the General fund and is used by the government.
Proof?

In 2011 the Federal government received MONEY (revenue) from these sources:
(in Billions)

• $1,091.5 47.4% Individual taxes That is the taxes that people pay... OK??? Understanding? withholding then after deductions what is PAID! Make SENSE IDIOT?
• $ 818.8 35.6% Social insurance (payroll taxes) NOW this is what YOU and YOUR employer matching what you paid (I AM SURE idiots don't know that employers pay also a matching amount!)
• $ 181.1 7.9% Corporate taxes This taxes that corporations PAY before they declare a dividend (Which by the way is taxed again in the above "Individual taxes" but dummies like you don't know that!)
• $ 72.4 3.1% Excise taxes (paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline.)
• $ 7.4 .3% estate and gift taxes. Taxes paid after some dies their estate is taxed!

==========================
$2,300,000,000 in total revenue.

Reduce the Tax Burden Government Revenue and Tax Trends Charts

I prefer the chilean model for SS. SS just needs to get out of the general fund and it will be fine.

 

[Listening]

[...]

If your insurance company said that you had to pay higher premiums this year, not because your benefits went up, but rather because you earned more..... how long would you keep that policy? Answer? Doesn't matter because with Social Security, you have no choice in the matter.

[...]

But what if that insurance company said you had to pay higher premiums because you earned more -- but you will get back every penny, and probably a lot more, whether you need it or not, provided you don't die early?

But you don't from Social Security.

Social Security Benefits Less Than What Workers Put In TIME.com

Social Security is a lousy investment for the average worker. People retiring today will be among the first generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they receive in benefits over the course of their lives, according to a new analysis by the Associated Press.
Looking at numbers from an Urban Institute study, the AP found that a married couple retiring in 2011 after both spouses earned average income during their lives paid total Social Security taxes of $598,000. They can expect to collect $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85. This is another landmark turning point sure to enliven the debate over how to fix Social Security, which without changes will be insolvent by 2033.

Note, that without change, Social Security will be insolvent by 2033. Which implies.... it's going to change. Now if people don't get back what they put in TODAY under a system that is going insolvent..... which way do you think it's going to go after they change it? Higher taxes, and lower payouts. Meaning even fewer are going to get out what they put in.

Another look at Urban Institute numbers suggests that the average working family still enjoys a positive return when factoring in Medicare benefits.

And that's true. Medicare is a fairly large benefit as it stands. Of course as it stands, it's fiscally far worse than Social Security. Which means even larger cuts, or higher taxes will be required to shore that up.

So, while your question is a nifty hypothetical, it's not even close to the reality.

And EVEN THEN.... there is a 'return on investment' with Social Security. It's terrible. The ROI is horrid. You'd almost be better putting your money in CDs.

At least with CDs, if you die, your spouse gets 100% of the money, instead of the 55% or whatever it is SS pays out. And if you retire early, you don't forfeit a chunk of your money, and if you decide later to get a retirement job, you are not penalized for working.

That's the most hideous to me. Only with the brutal tyranny of leftist government, does one forfeit the money he is supposedly due, because he decides to work beyond retirement. And only with that level of tyranny, does a man then have to pay taxes, into the very system whose benefits he is disqualified from receiving, by working and paying that tax.

Think about that. Because you are working, and producing wealth for the country... you are forced to pay taxes into a system whose benefits you are disqualified from getting..... because you work. That's the ugly truth about the system you support. It's not just bad, it's immoral and evil.

And the average Social Security payment use to be $23/m. It's now $1262.

Link please.

 

[healthmyths]

Well what other conclusion when you want 'The wealthy could afford it too I promise. See the wealthy these days are investing less and less. Some investments that essentially becomes their personal wealth. They are keeping much of this money. 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth." That's pure and simple communism. Share the wealth as the wealthy have too much!
My goodness why do YOU think it is right to take from someone and give it someone else? That's theft!

Tax the wealthy...
Do you know that MOST wealthy people that have stocks are double taxed? Is that a new concept to you??
Is that fair? They get taxed on the Ordinary dividends as ordinary income which means they are taxed twice BECAUSE
when the corporation pays out in dividends it is AFTER the corporation has paid taxes.
So any shareholder in a corporation gets less of a dividend BECAUSE of corporate taxes and then when they get the dividend
they have to pay taxes as ordinary income....
But this goes way over your head I'm sure.

YOU are so uninformed about Americans income.
The AVERAGE hourly wage American makes $24.06 per hour !
FACT:
View attachment 32984

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf

See the below to see fewer and fewer people working at or below minimum wage..
In 1979 6,912,000 or 13.4% of all hourly workers or total hourly workers of 51,582,090
In 1989 3,162,000 or 50% LESS working at minimum wage of the 62,000,000 people working at hourly wage
In 2009 there were 3,572,000 people working at minimum wage of 72,897,959 at hourly wage or 4.9%
Finally in 2013 there were 3,300,000 working at minimum or 4.3% of 76,744,186 that work at hourly or 4.3%

I know these FACTS really send your little brain in a tizzy but this crap about poor Americans!
GEEZ look around you at you and your neighbors!
You are living the life KINGS 100s of years ago could NEVER imagine... reading right now words generated by someone else instantly!

When will you people quit bitching about issues of CHOICE for example:
I would have loved at age 25 to have the choice of putting the nearly $300,000 I've paid in to SS/Medicare into the market when I was 25 up to age 45... moved it to more secure and then at 65 at retirement... ...
Here is what would have happened IF I HAD HAD the choices which YOU want to deny people the right to choose!
Obviously I can't do it now BUT why are people like you thwarting my granddaughter from have a choice?
From her accumulating by forced savings over her future career millions of dollars for HER to have... and not have it going
to the Federal government that spends it on
My point is people should have the CHOICE and forcing them to pump money back into the Federal government for some cubicle dweller amidst the Ebola crisis, the government’s premier health agencies are burning their taxpayer funded budgets on wasteful programs faster than drunken monkeys. Based on a recent $3.2 million NIH study focused exclusively on getting monkeys drunk, that’s an analogy researchers should readily understand. -

View attachment 32987

How do you not see the stupidity in saying raising taxes is communism? Revenue is what pays the nation's bills. Revenue as a percentage of GDP is at 16%. In 2000 it was at 20%. That means we are BORROWING MONEY when it comes to government expenses. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't do shit to stimulate substantial economic growth. If they did, Bush's ridiculous cuts would have helped the recession in his early presidency and prevented the Great Recession. Instead, we lost 8 million jobs while the revenue as percentage of GDP was at an historic low (15%). Tell me. Why was job growth under Bush so pathetic?

God I already fucking explained to you before about your stupidity on the stats on the minimum wage. Yes assclown a small percentage of the population make the federal wage. However MILLIONS of Americans make less than 10 an hour. According to the CBO, raising the minimum wage would lift 16 million people out of poverty. Read this slowly will you? If you raised the minimum wage to $10 an hour, all of the wages below that would go up. Good god. Your scope is as small as your brain power dude. Pay attention.

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income Congressional Budget Office

Can you live on less than 10 an hour if you supported yourself entirely or you had kids? NO YOU CANT.

YOU IDIOT!
I'm going to make this in BIG BOLD LETTERS!!!
This is from the Federal Government!
Total that make Minimum WAGE... 3,550,000
DO YOU comprehend that?? less then 3,550,000 and of that 854,000 are teen agers 16 to 19!
HOW MANY of them have families???
View attachment 33012

NOW AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE in the USA!!!
Do you see ANYONE on the below list of hourly jobs making $10/hour???
View attachment 33013
Finally.. MORE FACTS versus YOUR MYTHS!!!
Myth #1: “Tons of families are affected by raising the minimum wage.”
How can you be against raising the minimum wage when poor workers are trying to satisfy their children’s needs? The imagery in the argument is enough to paint opponents as heartless people who hate poor children; however, the argument is light on facts and heavy on inaccurate imagery.
Fact: Only 1 percent of hourly-wage workers in America are married people making minimum wage.
Myth #2: “Most minimum wage workers are working two jobs, tons of hours and can’t make ends meet.”
This is another constant image. Progressives like to paint minimum wage workers as having multiple jobs and working a combined 70 hours per week just to feed their hungry children.
However, upon analyzing the actual data, it’s easy to realize that this is just another false image, portrayed by minimum wage proponents who are trying to skew the argument in their own favor by painting their opponents as cruel, rich politicians who don’t care about hard-working, poor people.
Fact: Only 2.6 percent of minimum wage workers are working more than 40 hours per week.

Myth #3: “Young workers make up a tiny part of total minimum wage workers.”
Once again, if you look at the data, it is clear that this is a nice sound bite for debates, but it’s not true at all.
Fact: People younger than 24 make up more than 50 percent of all minimum wage workers
AGAIN IDIOT look at the table Federal government provides: 1,797,000 are under age 24 or 50.6% of the 3,550,000 that make minimum wage!
5 Common Misconceptions About The Federal Minimum Wage In The US

Oh my god dude you are so thick. I don't know how else to explain this shit to you. Your facts in the second article are only people making 7.25 an hour. I am talking about any wages below 10 an hour. Your BLS graph does not say how many people make less than 10 an hour. It refers to WAGE AMOUNT AVERAGES. The averages are going to be high if the top wages in this country are so large. That SKEWS THE MATH. It says nothing about the number of people making these wages. That doesn't account for poor people in general. Your point is fucking moot if the issue is about raising the federal wage to 10 an hour. THAT MEANS ANYONE WHO MAKES WAGES BELOW 10 AN HOUR WOULD SEE THEIR WAGES GO UP. THAT IS FAR MORE THAN 3 MILLION PEOE. God how are you this thick? Think like a grown up will you?

What are "PEOE"????

Also WHERE ARE YOUR statistics other then "how many make less then $10 per hour"... YOU TELL ME how many that is because I've not found that data. I'd be very very interested to see your source because MY sources are the Bureau of Labor and their research states:
THE BARE MINIMUM AVERAGE wage per hour is $13.98 in the leisure and hospitality!
So WHERE do you get your $10/hour figure when the LOWEST AVERAGE is $13.98??
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector seasonally adjusted
View attachment 33019

I already gave you the goddamn link before. Look. 16.5 million people make under 10.10 an hour.

"Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase."

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income Congressional Budget Office

How do you not understand averages? This is basic math. Because wages get so high for the top earners, that will skew the average. That doesn't mean a lot of people make 13 an hour.

I do understand "averages" For example your IQ is obviously 95 and mine is 125 which means the average for the two of us is 110.
So because YOU are confused with "averages" Let's use MEDIAN... meaning.. the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that "median" weekly earnings of the nation's 104.8 million full-time wage and salary workers were $786 in the fourth quarter of 2013. This would equate to $19.65 an hour for a 40-hour work week. "Median" means 50% earned more and 50% earned less. And below is what the BLS reports for the number of people and the hours they're working:

104,552,000 (35 hours or more)
6,206,000 (1 to 34 hours) for economic reasons, want full-time work
20,164,000 (1 to 34 hours) for non-economic reasons, only want part-time work
130,922,000 Total
Confusion over Median Hourly Wages The Economic Populist

Also the SAME LINK YOU GAVE me also SAID...

Of course YOU don't care one whit about those 16 to 25 year olds, unskilled, entry level, hamburger flipping jobs that will be lost do you!

 

[Billy000]

How do you not see the stupidity in saying raising taxes is communism? Revenue is what pays the nation's bills. Revenue as a percentage of GDP is at 16%. In 2000 it was at 20%. That means we are BORROWING MONEY when it comes to government expenses. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't do shit to stimulate substantial economic growth. If they did, Bush's ridiculous cuts would have helped the recession in his early presidency and prevented the Great Recession. Instead, we lost 8 million jobs while the revenue as percentage of GDP was at an historic low (15%). Tell me. Why was job growth under Bush so pathetic?

God I already fucking explained to you before about your stupidity on the stats on the minimum wage. Yes assclown a small percentage of the population make the federal wage. However MILLIONS of Americans make less than 10 an hour. According to the CBO, raising the minimum wage would lift 16 million people out of poverty. Read this slowly will you? If you raised the minimum wage to $10 an hour, all of the wages below that would go up. Good god. Your scope is as small as your brain power dude. Pay attention.

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income Congressional Budget Office

Can you live on less than 10 an hour if you supported yourself entirely or you had kids? NO YOU CANT.

YOU IDIOT!
I'm going to make this in BIG BOLD LETTERS!!!
This is from the Federal Government!
Total that make Minimum WAGE... 3,550,000
DO YOU comprehend that?? less then 3,550,000 and of that 854,000 are teen agers 16 to 19!
HOW MANY of them have families???
View attachment 33012

NOW AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE in the USA!!!
Do you see ANYONE on the below list of hourly jobs making $10/hour???
View attachment 33013
Finally.. MORE FACTS versus YOUR MYTHS!!!
Myth #1: “Tons of families are affected by raising the minimum wage.”
How can you be against raising the minimum wage when poor workers are trying to satisfy their children’s needs? The imagery in the argument is enough to paint opponents as heartless people who hate poor children; however, the argument is light on facts and heavy on inaccurate imagery.
Fact: Only 1 percent of hourly-wage workers in America are married people making minimum wage.
Myth #2: “Most minimum wage workers are working two jobs, tons of hours and can’t make ends meet.”
This is another constant image. Progressives like to paint minimum wage workers as having multiple jobs and working a combined 70 hours per week just to feed their hungry children.
However, upon analyzing the actual data, it’s easy to realize that this is just another false image, portrayed by minimum wage proponents who are trying to skew the argument in their own favor by painting their opponents as cruel, rich politicians who don’t care about hard-working, poor people.
Fact: Only 2.6 percent of minimum wage workers are working more than 40 hours per week.

Myth #3: “Young workers make up a tiny part of total minimum wage workers.”
Once again, if you look at the data, it is clear that this is a nice sound bite for debates, but it’s not true at all.
Fact: People younger than 24 make up more than 50 percent of all minimum wage workers
AGAIN IDIOT look at the table Federal government provides: 1,797,000 are under age 24 or 50.6% of the 3,550,000 that make minimum wage!
5 Common Misconceptions About The Federal Minimum Wage In The US

Oh my god dude you are so thick. I don't know how else to explain this shit to you. Your facts in the second article are only people making 7.25 an hour. I am talking about any wages below 10 an hour. Your BLS graph does not say how many people make less than 10 an hour. It refers to WAGE AMOUNT AVERAGES. The averages are going to be high if the top wages in this country are so large. That SKEWS THE MATH. It says nothing about the number of people making these wages. That doesn't account for poor people in general. Your point is fucking moot if the issue is about raising the federal wage to 10 an hour. THAT MEANS ANYONE WHO MAKES WAGES BELOW 10 AN HOUR WOULD SEE THEIR WAGES GO UP. THAT IS FAR MORE THAN 3 MILLION PEOE. God how are you this thick? Think like a grown up will you?

What are "PEOE"????

Also WHERE ARE YOUR statistics other then "how many make less then $10 per hour"... YOU TELL ME how many that is because I've not found that data. I'd be very very interested to see your source because MY sources are the Bureau of Labor and their research states:
THE BARE MINIMUM AVERAGE wage per hour is $13.98 in the leisure and hospitality!
So WHERE do you get your $10/hour figure when the LOWEST AVERAGE is $13.98??
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector seasonally adjusted
View attachment 33019

I already gave you the goddamn link before. Look. 16.5 million people make under 10.10 an hour.

"Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase."

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income Congressional Budget Office

How do you not understand averages? This is basic math. Because wages get so high for the top earners, that will skew the average. That doesn't mean a lot of people make 13 an hour.

I do understand "averages" For example your IQ is obviously 95 and mine is 125 which means the average for the two of us is 110.
So because YOU are confused with "averages" Let's use MEDIAN... meaning.. the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that "median" weekly earnings of the nation's 104.8 million full-time wage and salary workers were $786 in the fourth quarter of 2013. This would equate to $19.65 an hour for a 40-hour work week. "Median" means 50% earned more and 50% earned less. And below is what the BLS reports for the number of people and the hours they're working:

104,552,000 (35 hours or more)
6,206,000 (1 to 34 hours) for economic reasons, want full-time work
20,164,000 (1 to 34 hours) for non-economic reasons, only want part-time work
130,922,000 Total
Confusion over Median Hourly Wages The Economic Populist

Also the SAME LINK YOU GAVE me also SAID...
View attachment 33032
Of course YOU don't care one whit about those 16 to 25 year olds, unskilled, entry level, hamburger flipping jobs that will be lost do you!

Lol good god dude. Using median as your argument is worse than using mean. The extreme amount of high income, again, is going to skew the numbers.

And no shit we have full time jobs. Do you really think anyone making less than 10 an hour can live off of that even at 40 hours a week? Again, pay attention, that number is 16.5 million.

Yep, 500,000 jobs could be lost. So be it. It will lift 16 million people out of poverty and the economy will inevitably create more jobs because of the increase in economic demand.

 

[Andylusion]

[...]

You don't get every penny back form Social Security. So that is irrelevant.

You would be right if I had died two years ago. But I didn't. And if my progenitors life spans are any indication I will be around for at least another seven years. And I live in a large retirement community where there are a lot of mid-80s and a fair amount of 90s are present.

It is a regressive tax, according to my calculator. If you can't figure that out, then you are just a product of public schools.

Catholic school. And it's not a tax. Again, you don't get your money back from a tax.

Again... I grasp that *YOU* specifically, are getting your money back, and to hell with everyone else. I get that.

The facts are, most of us will not get our money back. Just a fact. The math shows this very clearly. Further... the system is going broke, so either taxes will be raised, or benefits will go down, or both. Regardless of exactly what the outcome is, the net result will be that the math will get worse.

Again, you don't care because you got your money, so why would you give a crap about the rest of us who are screwed? I know I understand.

Doesn't change the fact the rest of us don't want Social Security.

 

[Andylusion]

[...]

If your insurance company said that you had to pay higher premiums this year, not because your benefits went up, but rather because you earned more..... how long would you keep that policy? Answer? Doesn't matter because with Social Security, you have no choice in the matter.

[...]

But what if that insurance company said you had to pay higher premiums because you earned more -- but you will get back every penny, and probably a lot more, whether you need it or not, provided you don't die early?

But you don't from Social Security.

Social Security Benefits Less Than What Workers Put In TIME.com

Social Security is a lousy investment for the average worker. People retiring today will be among the first generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they receive in benefits over the course of their lives, according to a new analysis by the Associated Press.
Looking at numbers from an Urban Institute study, the AP found that a married couple retiring in 2011 after both spouses earned average income during their lives paid total Social Security taxes of $598,000. They can expect to collect $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85. This is another landmark turning point sure to enliven the debate over how to fix Social Security, which without changes will be insolvent by 2033.

Note, that without change, Social Security will be insolvent by 2033. Which implies.... it's going to change. Now if people don't get back what they put in TODAY under a system that is going insolvent..... which way do you think it's going to go after they change it? Higher taxes, and lower payouts. Meaning even fewer are going to get out what they put in.

Another look at Urban Institute numbers suggests that the average working family still enjoys a positive return when factoring in Medicare benefits.

And that's true. Medicare is a fairly large benefit as it stands. Of course as it stands, it's fiscally far worse than Social Security. Which means even larger cuts, or higher taxes will be required to shore that up.

So, while your question is a nifty hypothetical, it's not even close to the reality.

And EVEN THEN.... there is a 'return on investment' with Social Security. It's terrible. The ROI is horrid. You'd almost be better putting your money in CDs.

At least with CDs, if you die, your spouse gets 100% of the money, instead of the 55% or whatever it is SS pays out. And if you retire early, you don't forfeit a chunk of your money, and if you decide later to get a retirement job, you are not penalized for working.

That's the most hideous to me. Only with the brutal tyranny of leftist government, does one forfeit the money he is supposedly due, because he decides to work beyond retirement. And only with that level of tyranny, does a man then have to pay taxes, into the very system whose benefits he is disqualified from receiving, by working and paying that tax.

Think about that. Because you are working, and producing wealth for the country... you are forced to pay taxes into a system whose benefits you are disqualified from getting..... because you work. That's the ugly truth about the system you support. It's not just bad, it's immoral and evil.

And the average Social Security payment use to be $23/m. It's now $1262.

Yeah, and it's going broke.

 

[Andylusion]

YOU IDIOT!
I'm going to make this in BIG BOLD LETTERS!!!
This is from the Federal Government!
Total that make Minimum WAGE... 3,550,000
DO YOU comprehend that?? less then 3,550,000 and of that 854,000 are teen agers 16 to 19!
HOW MANY of them have families???
View attachment 33012

NOW AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE in the USA!!!
Do you see ANYONE on the below list of hourly jobs making $10/hour???
View attachment 33013
Finally.. MORE FACTS versus YOUR MYTHS!!!
Myth #1: “Tons of families are affected by raising the minimum wage.”
How can you be against raising the minimum wage when poor workers are trying to satisfy their children’s needs? The imagery in the argument is enough to paint opponents as heartless people who hate poor children; however, the argument is light on facts and heavy on inaccurate imagery.
Fact: Only 1 percent of hourly-wage workers in America are married people making minimum wage.
Myth #2: “Most minimum wage workers are working two jobs, tons of hours and can’t make ends meet.”
This is another constant image. Progressives like to paint minimum wage workers as having multiple jobs and working a combined 70 hours per week just to feed their hungry children.
However, upon analyzing the actual data, it’s easy to realize that this is just another false image, portrayed by minimum wage proponents who are trying to skew the argument in their own favor by painting their opponents as cruel, rich politicians who don’t care about hard-working, poor people.
Fact: Only 2.6 percent of minimum wage workers are working more than 40 hours per week.

Myth #3: “Young workers make up a tiny part of total minimum wage workers.”
Once again, if you look at the data, it is clear that this is a nice sound bite for debates, but it’s not true at all.
Fact: People younger than 24 make up more than 50 percent of all minimum wage workers
AGAIN IDIOT look at the table Federal government provides: 1,797,000 are under age 24 or 50.6% of the 3,550,000 that make minimum wage!
5 Common Misconceptions About The Federal Minimum Wage In The US

Oh my god dude you are so thick. I don't know how else to explain this shit to you. Your facts in the second article are only people making 7.25 an hour. I am talking about any wages below 10 an hour. Your BLS graph does not say how many people make less than 10 an hour. It refers to WAGE AMOUNT AVERAGES. The averages are going to be high if the top wages in this country are so large. That SKEWS THE MATH. It says nothing about the number of people making these wages. That doesn't account for poor people in general. Your point is fucking moot if the issue is about raising the federal wage to 10 an hour. THAT MEANS ANYONE WHO MAKES WAGES BELOW 10 AN HOUR WOULD SEE THEIR WAGES GO UP. THAT IS FAR MORE THAN 3 MILLION PEOE. God how are you this thick? Think like a grown up will you?

What are "PEOE"????

Also WHERE ARE YOUR statistics other then "how many make less then $10 per hour"... YOU TELL ME how many that is because I've not found that data. I'd be very very interested to see your source because MY sources are the Bureau of Labor and their research states:
THE BARE MINIMUM AVERAGE wage per hour is $13.98 in the leisure and hospitality!
So WHERE do you get your $10/hour figure when the LOWEST AVERAGE is $13.98??
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector seasonally adjusted
View attachment 33019

I already gave you the goddamn link before. Look. 16.5 million people make under 10.10 an hour.

"Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase."

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income Congressional Budget Office

How do you not understand averages? This is basic math. Because wages get so high for the top earners, that will skew the average. That doesn't mean a lot of people make 13 an hour.

I do understand "averages" For example your IQ is obviously 95 and mine is 125 which means the average for the two of us is 110.
So because YOU are confused with "averages" Let's use MEDIAN... meaning.. the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that "median" weekly earnings of the nation's 104.8 million full-time wage and salary workers were $786 in the fourth quarter of 2013. This would equate to $19.65 an hour for a 40-hour work week. "Median" means 50% earned more and 50% earned less. And below is what the BLS reports for the number of people and the hours they're working:

104,552,000 (35 hours or more)
6,206,000 (1 to 34 hours) for economic reasons, want full-time work
20,164,000 (1 to 34 hours) for non-economic reasons, only want part-time work
130,922,000 Total
Confusion over Median Hourly Wages The Economic Populist

Also the SAME LINK YOU GAVE me also SAID...
View attachment 33032
Of course YOU don't care one whit about those 16 to 25 year olds, unskilled, entry level, hamburger flipping jobs that will be lost do you!

Lol good god dude. Using median as your argument is worse than using mean. The extreme amount of high income, again, is going to skew the numbers.

And no shit we have full time jobs. Do you really think anyone making less than 10 an hour can live off of that even at 40 hours a week? Again, pay attention, that number is 16.5 million.

Yep, 500,000 jobs could be lost. So be it. It will lift 16 million people out of poverty and the economy will inevitably create more jobs because of the increase in economic demand.

I personally have made less than $10 an hour, and lived off that at 40 hours a week. And I have seen people with families, a wife that didn't work, and two kids to feed, live off less than $10 an hour.

You can live on very little. It's a matter of choice, not situational fact.

 

[MikeK]

Again... I grasp that *YOU* specifically, are getting your money back, and to hell with everyone else. I get that.

I didn't say that. You did. All I said is my own situation, which is in no way unique or unusual, is living proof that your thesis is demonstrably wrong.

The facts are, most of us will not get our money back. Just a fact. The math shows this very clearly.

What facts and whose math? Rush Limbaugh's?

Further... the system is going broke, so either taxes will be raised, or benefits will go down, or both. Regardless of exactly what the outcome is, the net result will be that the math will get worse.

With zero adjustments the System will continue functioning status-quo until 2037. But a few minor adjustments, such as increasing eligibility age in proportion with actuarial life expectancy projections, eliminating the existing contribution cut-off period, and applying a means test to disqualify from payment those whose earnings exceed a certain level (multi-millions)*, will ensure the System will function indefinitely.

(* This is not my idea. It has been proposed by Warren Buffet.)

Again, you don't care because you got your money, so why would you give a crap about the rest of us who are screwed? I know I understand.

Again, I didn't say that. You did -- because you have nothing more substantive to say. And please be advised I have children and grandchildren whose futures I am concerned with, and my concerns with the System are every bit as critical as yours, if not moreso.

Doesn't change the fact the rest of us don't want Social Security.

Speak for yourself.

 

[healthmyths]

Oh my god dude you are so thick. I don't know how else to explain this shit to you. Your facts in the second article are only people making 7.25 an hour. I am talking about any wages below 10 an hour. Your BLS graph does not say how many people make less than 10 an hour. It refers to WAGE AMOUNT AVERAGES. The averages are going to be high if the top wages in this country are so large. That SKEWS THE MATH. It says nothing about the number of people making these wages. That doesn't account for poor people in general. Your point is fucking moot if the issue is about raising the federal wage to 10 an hour. THAT MEANS ANYONE WHO MAKES WAGES BELOW 10 AN HOUR WOULD SEE THEIR WAGES GO UP. THAT IS FAR MORE THAN 3 MILLION PEOE. God how are you this thick? Think like a grown up will you?

What are "PEOE"????

Also WHERE ARE YOUR statistics other then "how many make less then $10 per hour"... YOU TELL ME how many that is because I've not found that data. I'd be very very interested to see your source because MY sources are the Bureau of Labor and their research states:
THE BARE MINIMUM AVERAGE wage per hour is $13.98 in the leisure and hospitality!
So WHERE do you get your $10/hour figure when the LOWEST AVERAGE is $13.98??
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector seasonally adjusted
View attachment 33019

I already gave you the goddamn link before. Look. 16.5 million people make under 10.10 an hour.

"Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase."

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income Congressional Budget Office

How do you not understand averages? This is basic math. Because wages get so high for the top earners, that will skew the average. That doesn't mean a lot of people make 13 an hour.

I do understand "averages" For example your IQ is obviously 95 and mine is 125 which means the average for the two of us is 110.
So because YOU are confused with "averages" Let's use MEDIAN... meaning.. the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that "median" weekly earnings of the nation's 104.8 million full-time wage and salary workers were $786 in the fourth quarter of 2013. This would equate to $19.65 an hour for a 40-hour work week. "Median" means 50% earned more and 50% earned less. And below is what the BLS reports for the number of people and the hours they're working:

104,552,000 (35 hours or more)
6,206,000 (1 to 34 hours) for economic reasons, want full-time work
20,164,000 (1 to 34 hours) for non-economic reasons, only want part-time work
130,922,000 Total
Confusion over Median Hourly Wages The Economic Populist

Also the SAME LINK YOU GAVE me also SAID...
View attachment 33032
Of course YOU don't care one whit about those 16 to 25 year olds, unskilled, entry level, hamburger flipping jobs that will be lost do you!

Lol good god dude. Using median as your argument is worse than using mean. The extreme amount of high income, again, is going to skew the numbers.

And no shit we have full time jobs. Do you really think anyone making less than 10 an hour can live off of that even at 40 hours a week? Again, pay attention, that number is 16.5 million.

Yep, 500,000 jobs could be lost. So be it. It will lift 16 million people out of poverty and the economy will inevitably create more jobs because of the increase in economic demand.

I personally have made less than $10 an hour, and lived off that at 40 hours a week. And I have seen people with families, a wife that didn't work, and two kids to feed, live off less than $10 an hour.

You can live on very little. It's a matter of choice, not situational fact.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE!
What is so wrong about using coupons? Checking for sales? Buying USED clothes, furniture? Is that unAmerican?
These idiots that plea that old cliched song about families not able to live on less then $10/hour have obviously NEVER worked in a garden as
I did when I was younger and we co-oped with 4 other families gardens sharing FRESH fruit,vegetables,etc.!
I have to laugh when I see these football players pull sleds with weights to build muscles.
HELL , i was pulling a sled with rocks over our gardens to break up clods to ready for planting doing one better then these young studs... not only was I building muscles BUT DOING SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE!
This poor crap about living in poverty... my brother and 2 sisters evidently lived in poverty ... we didn't know it! My Mom didn't work my Dad worked
40 hours PLUS we gardened, gleaned corn (those don't know what "gleaning is..Look it up!).. and never missed a meal!
So I get really tired of hearing how these poor people are doing with their:

=== $ 5,666 in Earned Income Credit i.e. a check from Uncle Sam instead of paying they get a check!!!
=== $12,000 free housing , Section 8 will pay up to $1,000/month
=== $ 2,400 free food,
=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone plus
=== $ 5,000 a year in free health care from Medicaid.
So this is about $26,000 a year in FREE MONEY, free goods and free services... on top of the less then $10/hour!!!

 

[Flopper]

The idiot who created this thread is healthmyths, a callous conservative, self appointed know-it-all whose knowledge of history is piss-poor. Sadly, he's not alone, other callous conservative with myopia agree with him/her, as well as the greedy and willfully ignorant.

See:

1915-1934 State Old Age Assistance Programs ElderWeb

I'm all for privatizing SS if you can deposit enough funds in it. However, no risk in investing? I call that financial suicide.

So you determine that putting money in US treasuries is a risk?
Because that's where a privatized SS direct account COULD go given the choice.
As it is now the SS/Medicare payments GO directly into the General fund and is used by the government.
Proof?

In 2011 the Federal government received MONEY (revenue) from these sources:
(in Billions)

• $1,091.5 47.4% Individual taxes That is the taxes that people pay... OK??? Understanding? withholding then after deductions what is PAID! Make SENSE IDIOT?
• $ 818.8 35.6% Social insurance (payroll taxes) NOW this is what YOU and YOUR employer matching what you paid (I AM SURE idiots don't know that employers pay also a matching amount!)
• $ 181.1 7.9% Corporate taxes This taxes that corporations PAY before they declare a dividend (Which by the way is taxed again in the above "Individual taxes" but dummies like you don't know that!)
• $ 72.4 3.1% Excise taxes (paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline.)
• $ 7.4 .3% estate and gift taxes. Taxes paid after some dies their estate is taxed!

==========================
$2,300,000,000 in total revenue.

Reduce the Tax Burden Government Revenue and Tax Trends Charts

I prefer the chilean model for SS. SS just needs to get out of the general fund and it will be fine.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security in Chile bears little resemble to the US system. It is a privatized system in which workers pay up to 20% of their contributions to middlemen. At retirement, workers pay 3% to 5% of their accumulated savings to financial advisers to mange their funds. By contrast, the U.S. system pays no commissions, and administrative costs are less than 2 percent of workers' contributions. In Chile, workers Social Security benefits are tied to market performance. In the US, Workers Social Security benefits are guaranteed to by the US government.

Workers in Chili can choose not to contribute to the system and about half do not.

 

[bripat9643]

The idiot who created this thread is healthmyths, a callous conservative, self appointed know-it-all whose knowledge of history is piss-poor. Sadly, he's not alone, other callous conservative with myopia agree with him/her, as well as the greedy and willfully ignorant.

See:

1915-1934 State Old Age Assistance Programs ElderWeb

I'm all for privatizing SS if you can deposit enough funds in it. However, no risk in investing? I call that financial suicide.

So you determine that putting money in US treasuries is a risk?
Because that's where a privatized SS direct account COULD go given the choice.
As it is now the SS/Medicare payments GO directly into the General fund and is used by the government.
Proof?

In 2011 the Federal government received MONEY (revenue) from these sources:
(in Billions)

• $1,091.5 47.4% Individual taxes That is the taxes that people pay... OK??? Understanding? withholding then after deductions what is PAID! Make SENSE IDIOT?
• $ 818.8 35.6% Social insurance (payroll taxes) NOW this is what YOU and YOUR employer matching what you paid (I AM SURE idiots don't know that employers pay also a matching amount!)
• $ 181.1 7.9% Corporate taxes This taxes that corporations PAY before they declare a dividend (Which by the way is taxed again in the above "Individual taxes" but dummies like you don't know that!)
• $ 72.4 3.1% Excise taxes (paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline.)
• $ 7.4 .3% estate and gift taxes. Taxes paid after some dies their estate is taxed!

==========================
$2,300,000,000 in total revenue.

Reduce the Tax Burden Government Revenue and Tax Trends Charts

I prefer the chilean model for SS. SS just needs to get out of the general fund and it will be fine.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security in Chile bears little resemble to the US system. It is a privatized system in which workers pay up to 20% of their contributions to middlemen. At retirement, workers pay 3% to 5% of their accumulated savings to financial advisers to mange their funds. By contrast, the U.S. system pays no commissions, and administrative costs are less than 2 percent of workers' contributions. In Chile, workers Social Security benefits are tied to market performance. In the US, Workers Social Security benefits are guaranteed to by the US government.

Workers in Chili can choose not to contribute to the system and about half do not.

Horseshit. You're obviously reading Marxist propaganda.

18 Years of Private Pensions in Chile Cato Institute

"Critics of the Chilean system often point to high administrative costs, lack of portfolio choice and the high number of transfers from one fund to another as evidence that the system is inherently flawed and inappropriate for other countries, including the United States and those in continental Europe. Some of those criticisms are misinformed. For example, administrative costs are about 1 percent of assets under management, a figure similar to management costs in the U.S. mutual fund industry. To the extent the criticisms are valid, they result from the same problem: excessive government regulation."

"Pensions: In Chile, a major study shows the nation's private retirement accounts provide workers pensions worth 87% of their salaries, 73% of that from profits on savings. So much for the canard about the perils of markets.
The story was front-page news in Chile's largest newspapers, El Mercurio and La Tercera, on Sept. 3, a powerful affirmation of what former Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain called "The Chilean Model" of private retirement accounts.

The study of 28,000 households by Dictuc, a consultancy affiliated with the Catholic University of Chile, showed that male workers who contributed just 10% of their salaries to their retirements for 40 years or more on average earned retirement checks worth about 87% of their top salaries. No 401(k) account needed.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Yes Chile s Private Pension Model Works Big Time - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook"​

You have to be absolutely daft to believe our pension system is superior to Chile's

 

[Flopper]

What are "PEOE"????

Also WHERE ARE YOUR statistics other then "how many make less then $10 per hour"... YOU TELL ME how many that is because I've not found that data. I'd be very very interested to see your source because MY sources are the Bureau of Labor and their research states:
THE BARE MINIMUM AVERAGE wage per hour is $13.98 in the leisure and hospitality!
So WHERE do you get your $10/hour figure when the LOWEST AVERAGE is $13.98??
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector seasonally adjusted
View attachment 33019

I already gave you the goddamn link before. Look. 16.5 million people make under 10.10 an hour.

"Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase."

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income Congressional Budget Office

How do you not understand averages? This is basic math. Because wages get so high for the top earners, that will skew the average. That doesn't mean a lot of people make 13 an hour.

I do understand "averages" For example your IQ is obviously 95 and mine is 125 which means the average for the two of us is 110.
So because YOU are confused with "averages" Let's use MEDIAN... meaning.. the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that "median" weekly earnings of the nation's 104.8 million full-time wage and salary workers were $786 in the fourth quarter of 2013. This would equate to $19.65 an hour for a 40-hour work week. "Median" means 50% earned more and 50% earned less. And below is what the BLS reports for the number of people and the hours they're working:

104,552,000 (35 hours or more)
6,206,000 (1 to 34 hours) for economic reasons, want full-time work
20,164,000 (1 to 34 hours) for non-economic reasons, only want part-time work
130,922,000 Total
Confusion over Median Hourly Wages The Economic Populist

Also the SAME LINK YOU GAVE me also SAID...
View attachment 33032
Of course YOU don't care one whit about those 16 to 25 year olds, unskilled, entry level, hamburger flipping jobs that will be lost do you!

Lol good god dude. Using median as your argument is worse than using mean. The extreme amount of high income, again, is going to skew the numbers.

And no shit we have full time jobs. Do you really think anyone making less than 10 an hour can live off of that even at 40 hours a week? Again, pay attention, that number is 16.5 million.

Yep, 500,000 jobs could be lost. So be it. It will lift 16 million people out of poverty and the economy will inevitably create more jobs because of the increase in economic demand.

I personally have made less than $10 an hour, and lived off that at 40 hours a week. And I have seen people with families, a wife that didn't work, and two kids to feed, live off less than $10 an hour.

You can live on very little. It's a matter of choice, not situational fact.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE!
What is so wrong about using coupons? Checking for sales? Buying USED clothes, furniture? Is that unAmerican?
These idiots that plea that old cliched song about families not able to live on less then $10/hour have obviously NEVER worked in a garden as
I did when I was younger and we co-oped with 4 other families gardens sharing FRESH fruit,vegetables,etc.!
I have to laugh when I see these football players pull sleds with weights to build muscles.
HELL , i was pulling a sled with rocks over our gardens to break up clods to ready for planting doing one better then these young studs... not only was I building muscles BUT DOING SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE!
This poor crap about living in poverty... my brother and 2 sisters evidently lived in poverty ... we didn't know it! My Mom didn't work my Dad worked
40 hours PLUS we gardened, gleaned corn (those don't know what "gleaning is..Look it up!).. and never missed a meal!
So I get really tired of hearing how these poor people are doing with their:

=== $ 5,666 in Earned Income Credit i.e. a check from Uncle Sam instead of paying they get a check!!!
=== $12,000 free housing , Section 8 will pay up to $1,000/month
=== $ 2,400 free food,
=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone plus
=== $ 5,000 a year in free health care from Medicaid.
So this is about $26,000 a year in FREE MONEY, free goods and free services... on top of the less then $10/hour!!!

The world has change a lot since you and I were kids.

Most poor families don't have gardens because they don't have yards. They live in subsided housing which is usually a small apartment in a complex with sidewalks and a parking lot for a yard. Poor people glean today but not in a corn field. You don't find those in Chicago, Detroit, or LA. Their gleaning is usually restricted to stealing from a supermarket or shopping in nearby garbage bins.

To expect poor people to survive as you did as a child many years ago is not realistic. When I grew up in the 1950's, you could raise a family on $2/hour. A $3 burger cost about 30 cents, a $3 box of Wheates which was twice the size cost about 35 cents, and gasoline was 25 cents a gallon.

So many things that would have been considered luxuries years ago, are necessities today. Cell phones are replacing land lines and are often cheaper, most schools require kids to do their homework on computers, TV's have become the cheapest form of entertainment, and with the rising cost of public transportation, a car has become a necessity. Years ago, there was always a neighbor or family member to take care of the kids but not today. If you have kids and work, then you're probably going to need childcare which is a big expensive. My son lives in Seattle where the average cost of childcare is $13 an hour. At a wage of $10/hr, his wife would loose money even neglecting the cost of, transportation, and other expenses.

 

[healthmyths]

I already gave you the goddamn link before. Look. 16.5 million people make under 10.10 an hour.

"Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase."

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income Congressional Budget Office

How do you not understand averages? This is basic math. Because wages get so high for the top earners, that will skew the average. That doesn't mean a lot of people make 13 an hour.

I do understand "averages" For example your IQ is obviously 95 and mine is 125 which means the average for the two of us is 110.
So because YOU are confused with "averages" Let's use MEDIAN... meaning.. the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that "median" weekly earnings of the nation's 104.8 million full-time wage and salary workers were $786 in the fourth quarter of 2013. This would equate to $19.65 an hour for a 40-hour work week. "Median" means 50% earned more and 50% earned less. And below is what the BLS reports for the number of people and the hours they're working:

104,552,000 (35 hours or more)
6,206,000 (1 to 34 hours) for economic reasons, want full-time work
20,164,000 (1 to 34 hours) for non-economic reasons, only want part-time work
130,922,000 Total
Confusion over Median Hourly Wages The Economic Populist

Also the SAME LINK YOU GAVE me also SAID...
View attachment 33032
Of course YOU don't care one whit about those 16 to 25 year olds, unskilled, entry level, hamburger flipping jobs that will be lost do you!

Lol good god dude. Using median as your argument is worse than using mean. The extreme amount of high income, again, is going to skew the numbers.

And no shit we have full time jobs. Do you really think anyone making less than 10 an hour can live off of that even at 40 hours a week? Again, pay attention, that number is 16.5 million.

Yep, 500,000 jobs could be lost. So be it. It will lift 16 million people out of poverty and the economy will inevitably create more jobs because of the increase in economic demand.

I personally have made less than $10 an hour, and lived off that at 40 hours a week. And I have seen people with families, a wife that didn't work, and two kids to feed, live off less than $10 an hour.

You can live on very little. It's a matter of choice, not situational fact.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE!
What is so wrong about using coupons? Checking for sales? Buying USED clothes, furniture? Is that unAmerican?
These idiots that plea that old cliched song about families not able to live on less then $10/hour have obviously NEVER worked in a garden as
I did when I was younger and we co-oped with 4 other families gardens sharing FRESH fruit,vegetables,etc.!
I have to laugh when I see these football players pull sleds with weights to build muscles.
HELL , i was pulling a sled with rocks over our gardens to break up clods to ready for planting doing one better then these young studs... not only was I building muscles BUT DOING SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE!
This poor crap about living in poverty... my brother and 2 sisters evidently lived in poverty ... we didn't know it! My Mom didn't work my Dad worked
40 hours PLUS we gardened, gleaned corn (those don't know what "gleaning is..Look it up!).. and never missed a meal!
So I get really tired of hearing how these poor people are doing with their:

=== $ 5,666 in Earned Income Credit i.e. a check from Uncle Sam instead of paying they get a check!!!
=== $12,000 free housing , Section 8 will pay up to $1,000/month
=== $ 2,400 free food,
=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone plus
=== $ 5,000 a year in free health care from Medicaid.
So this is about $26,000 a year in FREE MONEY, free goods and free services... on top of the less then $10/hour!!!

The world has change a lot since you and I were kids.

Most poor families don't have gardens because they don't have yards. They live in subsided housing which is usually a small apartment in a complex with sidewalks and a parking lot for a yard. Poor people glean today but not in a corn field. You don't find those in Chicago, Detroit, or LA. Their gleaning is usually restricted to stealing from a supermarket or shopping in nearby garbage bins.

To expect poor people to survive as you did as a child many years ago is not realistic. When I grew up in the 1950's, you could raise a family on $2/hour. A $3 burger cost about 30 cents, a $3 box of Wheates which was twice the size cost about 35 cents, and gasoline was 25 cents a gallon.

So many things that would have been considered luxuries years ago, are necessities today. Cell phones are replacing land lines and are often cheaper, most schools require kids to do their homework on computers, TV's have become the cheapest form of entertainment, and with the rising cost of public transportation, a car has become a necessity. Years ago, there was always a neighbor or family member to take care of the kids but not today. If you have kids and work, then you're probably going to need childcare which is a big expensive. My son lives in Seattle where the average cost of childcare is $13 an hour. At a wage of $10/hr, his wife would loose money even neglecting the cost of, transportation, and other expenses.

Then get a second job or improve your life! I'm sorry moaning and groaning about minimum is a waste! Work.. Imagine rather then complain!
This constant effort to remove stress. To make it easier. It is making us weaker!
Libraries have free internet access.
I am just sick of this older generation wanting to make things better for their children when if LIKE STING said..

What do Sting, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have in common?
All three have huge fortunes, and none of them are giving it to their kids.
Sting just revealed that most of his $300 million won’t end up with his six adult children. “I certainly don’t want to leave them trust funds that are albatrosses round their necks,” the musician told the Daily Mail in June.
“They have to work. All my kids know that and they rarely ask me for anything, which I really respect and appreciate.”
But with this attitude.."we need to help by giving a fish just feeds them for a day... If you taught your son self-sufficiency you wouldn't be giving
these excuses and it is YOUR fault for not providing the experience as Sting, Gates, etc. are doing!
Don't give a hand out... give a hand UP!

 

[Billy000]

I do understand "averages" For example your IQ is obviously 95 and mine is 125 which means the average for the two of us is 110.
So because YOU are confused with "averages" Let's use MEDIAN... meaning.. the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that "median" weekly earnings of the nation's 104.8 million full-time wage and salary workers were $786 in the fourth quarter of 2013. This would equate to $19.65 an hour for a 40-hour work week. "Median" means 50% earned more and 50% earned less. And below is what the BLS reports for the number of people and the hours they're working:

104,552,000 (35 hours or more)
6,206,000 (1 to 34 hours) for economic reasons, want full-time work
20,164,000 (1 to 34 hours) for non-economic reasons, only want part-time work
130,922,000 Total
Confusion over Median Hourly Wages The Economic Populist

Also the SAME LINK YOU GAVE me also SAID...
View attachment 33032
Of course YOU don't care one whit about those 16 to 25 year olds, unskilled, entry level, hamburger flipping jobs that will be lost do you!

Lol good god dude. Using median as your argument is worse than using mean. The extreme amount of high income, again, is going to skew the numbers.

And no shit we have full time jobs. Do you really think anyone making less than 10 an hour can live off of that even at 40 hours a week? Again, pay attention, that number is 16.5 million.

Yep, 500,000 jobs could be lost. So be it. It will lift 16 million people out of poverty and the economy will inevitably create more jobs because of the increase in economic demand.

I personally have made less than $10 an hour, and lived off that at 40 hours a week. And I have seen people with families, a wife that didn't work, and two kids to feed, live off less than $10 an hour.

You can live on very little. It's a matter of choice, not situational fact.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE!
What is so wrong about using coupons? Checking for sales? Buying USED clothes, furniture? Is that unAmerican?
These idiots that plea that old cliched song about families not able to live on less then $10/hour have obviously NEVER worked in a garden as
I did when I was younger and we co-oped with 4 other families gardens sharing FRESH fruit,vegetables,etc.!
I have to laugh when I see these football players pull sleds with weights to build muscles.
HELL , i was pulling a sled with rocks over our gardens to break up clods to ready for planting doing one better then these young studs... not only was I building muscles BUT DOING SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE!
This poor crap about living in poverty... my brother and 2 sisters evidently lived in poverty ... we didn't know it! My Mom didn't work my Dad worked
40 hours PLUS we gardened, gleaned corn (those don't know what "gleaning is..Look it up!).. and never missed a meal!
So I get really tired of hearing how these poor people are doing with their:

=== $ 5,666 in Earned Income Credit i.e. a check from Uncle Sam instead of paying they get a check!!!
=== $12,000 free housing , Section 8 will pay up to $1,000/month
=== $ 2,400 free food,
=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone plus
=== $ 5,000 a year in free health care from Medicaid.
So this is about $26,000 a year in FREE MONEY, free goods and free services... on top of the less then $10/hour!!!

The world has change a lot since you and I were kids.

Most poor families don't have gardens because they don't have yards. They live in subsided housing which is usually a small apartment in a complex with sidewalks and a parking lot for a yard. Poor people glean today but not in a corn field. You don't find those in Chicago, Detroit, or LA. Their gleaning is usually restricted to stealing from a supermarket or shopping in nearby garbage bins.

To expect poor people to survive as you did as a child many years ago is not realistic. When I grew up in the 1950's, you could raise a family on $2/hour. A $3 burger cost about 30 cents, a $3 box of Wheates which was twice the size cost about 35 cents, and gasoline was 25 cents a gallon.

So many things that would have been considered luxuries years ago, are necessities today. Cell phones are replacing land lines and are often cheaper, most schools require kids to do their homework on computers, TV's have become the cheapest form of entertainment, and with the rising cost of public transportation, a car has become a necessity. Years ago, there was always a neighbor or family member to take care of the kids but not today. If you have kids and work, then you're probably going to need childcare which is a big expensive. My son lives in Seattle where the average cost of childcare is $13 an hour. At a wage of $10/hr, his wife would loose money even neglecting the cost of, transportation, and other expenses.

Then get a second job or improve your life! I'm sorry moaning and groaning about minimum is a waste! Work.. Imagine rather then complain!
This constant effort to remove stress. To make it easier. It is making us weaker!
Libraries have free internet access.
I am just sick of this older generation wanting to make things better for their children when if LIKE STING said..

What do Sting, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have in common?
All three have huge fortunes, and none of them are giving it to their kids.
Sting just revealed that most of his $300 million won’t end up with his six adult children. “I certainly don’t want to leave them trust funds that are albatrosses round their necks,” the musician told the Daily Mail in June.
“They have to work. All my kids know that and they rarely ask me for anything, which I really respect and appreciate.”
But with this attitude.."we need to help by giving a fish just feeds them for a day... If you taught your son self-sufficiency you wouldn't be giving
these excuses and it is YOUR fault for not providing the experience as Sting, Gates, etc. are doing!
Don't give a hand out... give a hand UP!

Christ why make people get a second job when you can just pay them a wage they can live off of? Why isn't that fair? Why isn't 40 hours enough? With the current inflation, people can't live off of that wage. It doesn't get more complicated than that.

 

[Flopper]

The idiot who created this thread is healthmyths, a callous conservative, self appointed know-it-all whose knowledge of history is piss-poor. Sadly, he's not alone, other callous conservative with myopia agree with him/her, as well as the greedy and willfully ignorant.

See:

1915-1934 State Old Age Assistance Programs ElderWeb

I'm all for privatizing SS if you can deposit enough funds in it. However, no risk in investing? I call that financial suicide.

So you determine that putting money in US treasuries is a risk?
Because that's where a privatized SS direct account COULD go given the choice.
As it is now the SS/Medicare payments GO directly into the General fund and is used by the government.
Proof?

In 2011 the Federal government received MONEY (revenue) from these sources:
(in Billions)

• $1,091.5 47.4% Individual taxes That is the taxes that people pay... OK??? Understanding? withholding then after deductions what is PAID! Make SENSE IDIOT?
• $ 818.8 35.6% Social insurance (payroll taxes) NOW this is what YOU and YOUR employer matching what you paid (I AM SURE idiots don't know that employers pay also a matching amount!)
• $ 181.1 7.9% Corporate taxes This taxes that corporations PAY before they declare a dividend (Which by the way is taxed again in the above "Individual taxes" but dummies like you don't know that!)
• $ 72.4 3.1% Excise taxes (paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline.)
• $ 7.4 .3% estate and gift taxes. Taxes paid after some dies their estate is taxed!

==========================
$2,300,000,000 in total revenue.

Reduce the Tax Burden Government Revenue and Tax Trends Charts

I prefer the chilean model for SS. SS just needs to get out of the general fund and it will be fine.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security in Chile bears little resemble to the US system. It is a privatized system in which workers pay up to 20% of their contributions to middlemen. At retirement, workers pay 3% to 5% of their accumulated savings to financial advisers to mange their funds. By contrast, the U.S. system pays no commissions, and administrative costs are less than 2 percent of workers' contributions. In Chile, workers Social Security benefits are tied to market performance. In the US, Workers Social Security benefits are guaranteed to by the US government.

Workers in Chili can choose not to contribute to the system and about half do not.

Horseshit. You're obviously reading Marxist propaganda.

18 Years of Private Pensions in Chile Cato Institute

"Critics of the Chilean system often point to high administrative costs, lack of portfolio choice and the high number of transfers from one fund to another as evidence that the system is inherently flawed and inappropriate for other countries, including the United States and those in continental Europe. Some of those criticisms are misinformed. For example, administrative costs are about 1 percent of assets under management, a figure similar to management costs in the U.S. mutual fund industry. To the extent the criticisms are valid, they result from the same problem: excessive government regulation."

"Pensions: In Chile, a major study shows the nation's private retirement accounts provide workers pensions worth 87% of their salaries, 73% of that from profits on savings. So much for the canard about the perils of markets.
The story was front-page news in Chile's largest newspapers, El Mercurio and La Tercera, on Sept. 3, a powerful affirmation of what former Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain called "The Chilean Model" of private retirement accounts.

The study of 28,000 households by Dictuc, a consultancy affiliated with the Catholic University of Chile, showed that male workers who contributed just 10% of their salaries to their retirements for 40 years or more on average earned retirement checks worth about 87% of their top salaries. No 401(k) account needed.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Yes Chile s Private Pension Model Works Big Time - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook"​

You have to be absolutely daft to believe our pension system is superior to Chile's

And what happens when the economy nose dives as it has in Chili a number of times? There is no doubt that private management investments can do better than money invested in treasury bills except when markets crash or the country falls into an extended depression. Granted this is not likely but it is certainly possible. Our Social Security benefits are immune to market fluctuations. Before you retire, you know exactly how much money you can count on for the rest of your life. In 2009, when my retirement plans were falling like a rock, it was sure a comfort to know I count on the SS check every month.

The problem with privatized Social Security which allows a person a choice of investments is that many people make terrible financial decisions and when they do, it effects not only their lives but that of their family. For example, the average adult has less than $1,000 in retirement savings although tax sheltered retirement plans should provide a huge incentive to save.for retirement. When the recessions hit and there were really good opportunities in the market, people who were loosing their jobs were cashing in their retirement plans. A survey among new college graduates showed their highest priorities when they get a job would be buying a car, paying off their college loan, taking a trip, getting a good place to live. The lowest priority was saving for retirement which is near the top of the list of most financial advisers.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Who was the idiot who created this thread?

And YOU are an idiot to believe the stupid 30 second sound bite..."privatizing SS in the risky stock market" crap!
The FREEDOM of choice to self direct would include investing in the supposedly safest and same place SS supposedly invest..US treasuries!
The minimum amount that you can purchase of any given Treasury bill, note, bond, FRNs, or TIPS is $100. Additional amounts must be in multiples of $100.
Institutional - The Basics of Treasury Securities

So stop the stupid statements about privatizing SS risky! If so then the entire basis of SS today is at risk!

As olde Wil would say, "The lady doth protest to much, methinks"

Putting money into Treasury Bills is fine and dandy and as safe as putting money into SS. But, the employer won't contribute and the pay out is finite; SS is forever; at least it has been and no one has outlived it!

What healthmyths omits, is people do lose money in the stock market and in real estate; and many people rely on that paper money as their sole retirement plan. Those who do likely listen to charlatan's who sell them products which the charlatan doesn't buy for himself; and because insider trading is as common as the sun rising, amateurs have as much success investing as a steer living to a ripe old age.

Investing in Mutual Funds is the amateurs best bet, but most put in their money and forget about it. Fund managers do not council this type of investor, who is on their own and usually panics when the market corrects and is lucky if they do not lose some of their own money.

 

[Judicial review]

The idiot who created this thread is healthmyths, a callous conservative, self appointed know-it-all whose knowledge of history is piss-poor. Sadly, he's not alone, other callous conservative with myopia agree with him/her, as well as the greedy and willfully ignorant.

See:

1915-1934 State Old Age Assistance Programs ElderWeb

I'm all for privatizing SS if you can deposit enough funds in it. However, no risk in investing? I call that financial suicide.

So you determine that putting money in US treasuries is a risk?
Because that's where a privatized SS direct account COULD go given the choice.
As it is now the SS/Medicare payments GO directly into the General fund and is used by the government.
Proof?

In 2011 the Federal government received MONEY (revenue) from these sources:
(in Billions)

• $1,091.5 47.4% Individual taxes That is the taxes that people pay... OK??? Understanding? withholding then after deductions what is PAID! Make SENSE IDIOT?
• $ 818.8 35.6% Social insurance (payroll taxes) NOW this is what YOU and YOUR employer matching what you paid (I AM SURE idiots don't know that employers pay also a matching amount!)
• $ 181.1 7.9% Corporate taxes This taxes that corporations PAY before they declare a dividend (Which by the way is taxed again in the above "Individual taxes" but dummies like you don't know that!)
• $ 72.4 3.1% Excise taxes (paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline.)
• $ 7.4 .3% estate and gift taxes. Taxes paid after some dies their estate is taxed!

==========================
$2,300,000,000 in total revenue.

Reduce the Tax Burden Government Revenue and Tax Trends Charts

I prefer the chilean model for SS. SS just needs to get out of the general fund and it will be fine.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security in Chile bears little resemble to the US system. It is a privatized system in which workers pay up to 20% of their contributions to middlemen. At retirement, workers pay 3% to 5% of their accumulated savings to financial advisers to mange their funds. By contrast, the U.S. system pays no commissions, and administrative costs are less than 2 percent of workers' contributions. In Chile, workers Social Security benefits are tied to market performance. In the US, Workers Social Security benefits are guaranteed to by the US government.

Workers in Chili can choose not to contribute to the system and about half do not.

Horseshit. You're obviously reading Marxist propaganda.

18 Years of Private Pensions in Chile Cato Institute

"Critics of the Chilean system often point to high administrative costs, lack of portfolio choice and the high number of transfers from one fund to another as evidence that the system is inherently flawed and inappropriate for other countries, including the United States and those in continental Europe. Some of those criticisms are misinformed. For example, administrative costs are about 1 percent of assets under management, a figure similar to management costs in the U.S. mutual fund industry. To the extent the criticisms are valid, they result from the same problem: excessive government regulation."

"Pensions: In Chile, a major study shows the nation's private retirement accounts provide workers pensions worth 87% of their salaries, 73% of that from profits on savings. So much for the canard about the perils of markets.
The story was front-page news in Chile's largest newspapers, El Mercurio and La Tercera, on Sept. 3, a powerful affirmation of what former Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain called "The Chilean Model" of private retirement accounts.

The study of 28,000 households by Dictuc, a consultancy affiliated with the Catholic University of Chile, showed that male workers who contributed just 10% of their salaries to their retirements for 40 years or more on average earned retirement checks worth about 87% of their top salaries. No 401(k) account needed.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Yes Chile s Private Pension Model Works Big Time - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook"​

You have to be absolutely daft to believe our pension system is superior to Chile's

Exactly old wise one.

 

[Flopper]

I do understand "averages" For example your IQ is obviously 95 and mine is 125 which means the average for the two of us is 110.
So because YOU are confused with "averages" Let's use MEDIAN... meaning.. the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that "median" weekly earnings of the nation's 104.8 million full-time wage and salary workers were $786 in the fourth quarter of 2013. This would equate to $19.65 an hour for a 40-hour work week. "Median" means 50% earned more and 50% earned less. And below is what the BLS reports for the number of people and the hours they're working:

104,552,000 (35 hours or more)
6,206,000 (1 to 34 hours) for economic reasons, want full-time work
20,164,000 (1 to 34 hours) for non-economic reasons, only want part-time work
130,922,000 Total
Confusion over Median Hourly Wages The Economic Populist

Also the SAME LINK YOU GAVE me also SAID...
View attachment 33032
Of course YOU don't care one whit about those 16 to 25 year olds, unskilled, entry level, hamburger flipping jobs that will be lost do you!

Lol good god dude. Using median as your argument is worse than using mean. The extreme amount of high income, again, is going to skew the numbers.

And no shit we have full time jobs. Do you really think anyone making less than 10 an hour can live off of that even at 40 hours a week? Again, pay attention, that number is 16.5 million.

Yep, 500,000 jobs could be lost. So be it. It will lift 16 million people out of poverty and the economy will inevitably create more jobs because of the increase in economic demand.

I personally have made less than $10 an hour, and lived off that at 40 hours a week. And I have seen people with families, a wife that didn't work, and two kids to feed, live off less than $10 an hour.

You can live on very little. It's a matter of choice, not situational fact.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE!
What is so wrong about using coupons? Checking for sales? Buying USED clothes, furniture? Is that unAmerican?
These idiots that plea that old cliched song about families not able to live on less then $10/hour have obviously NEVER worked in a garden as
I did when I was younger and we co-oped with 4 other families gardens sharing FRESH fruit,vegetables,etc.!
I have to laugh when I see these football players pull sleds with weights to build muscles.
HELL , i was pulling a sled with rocks over our gardens to break up clods to ready for planting doing one better then these young studs... not only was I building muscles BUT DOING SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE!
This poor crap about living in poverty... my brother and 2 sisters evidently lived in poverty ... we didn't know it! My Mom didn't work my Dad worked
40 hours PLUS we gardened, gleaned corn (those don't know what "gleaning is..Look it up!).. and never missed a meal!
So I get really tired of hearing how these poor people are doing with their:

=== $ 5,666 in Earned Income Credit i.e. a check from Uncle Sam instead of paying they get a check!!!
=== $12,000 free housing , Section 8 will pay up to $1,000/month
=== $ 2,400 free food,
=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone plus
=== $ 5,000 a year in free health care from Medicaid.
So this is about $26,000 a year in FREE MONEY, free goods and free services... on top of the less then $10/hour!!!

The world has change a lot since you and I were kids.

Most poor families don't have gardens because they don't have yards. They live in subsided housing which is usually a small apartment in a complex with sidewalks and a parking lot for a yard. Poor people glean today but not in a corn field. You don't find those in Chicago, Detroit, or LA. Their gleaning is usually restricted to stealing from a supermarket or shopping in nearby garbage bins.

To expect poor people to survive as you did as a child many years ago is not realistic. When I grew up in the 1950's, you could raise a family on $2/hour. A $3 burger cost about 30 cents, a $3 box of Wheates which was twice the size cost about 35 cents, and gasoline was 25 cents a gallon.

So many things that would have been considered luxuries years ago, are necessities today. Cell phones are replacing land lines and are often cheaper, most schools require kids to do their homework on computers, TV's have become the cheapest form of entertainment, and with the rising cost of public transportation, a car has become a necessity. Years ago, there was always a neighbor or family member to take care of the kids but not today. If you have kids and work, then you're probably going to need childcare which is a big expensive. My son lives in Seattle where the average cost of childcare is $13 an hour. At a wage of $10/hr, his wife would loose money even neglecting the cost of, transportation, and other expenses.

Then get a second job or improve your life! I'm sorry moaning and groaning about minimum is a waste! Work.. Imagine rather then complain!
This constant effort to remove stress. To make it easier. It is making us weaker!
Libraries have free internet access.
I am just sick of this older generation wanting to make things better for their children when if LIKE STING said..

What do Sting, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have in common?
All three have huge fortunes, and none of them are giving it to their kids.
Sting just revealed that most of his $300 million won’t end up with his six adult children. “I certainly don’t want to leave them trust funds that are albatrosses round their necks,” the musician told the Daily Mail in June.
“They have to work. All my kids know that and they rarely ask me for anything, which I really respect and appreciate.”
But with this attitude.."we need to help by giving a fish just feeds them for a day... If you taught your son self-sufficiency you wouldn't be giving
these excuses and it is YOUR fault for not providing the experience as Sting, Gates, etc. are doing!
Don't give a hand out... give a hand UP!

Yep, those Gates kid's are really going to have to hustle to become self sufficient with only 10 million a piece.

My daughter in-law want's to work. She just can pay $13/hr for child care.