What will happen to the job market for entry level positions when people work 10 years longer? How many age discrimination cases will hit the court dockets when old aged workers are dumped by their employer.
Here is a better idea, much better...
That is another option. My suggestion is not for anyone to work an extra ten years, although many are choosing to do so these days. In reality, if you are 50 or younger, your full retirement age is now 67. I would only suggest increasing that to 70, leaving those who choose to retire at 67 with a reduced benefit, the same as they do now for those who choose to retire before their full retirement age.
The point is that there are a number of realistic solutions to fix the shortfall. We just need to make a choice and get it done. The reason I tend to lean toward increasing the retirement age is that Medicare faces an even larger problem, and it's going to take a lot more tax dollars to fix it compared to SS. Raising the retirement age for Medicare from the current 65 to 70 would cut cost substantially. The other thing it does is brings more money into the system as people are paying in longer.
As for what happens to those trying to enter the job market if people continue to work longer, I don't see it as a problem. When people are working longer, they will spend more, the economy will grow, and there will be enough jobs for everyone. The biggest reason the economy can't seem to gain any traction is that the baby boomers quit spending money, in part due to the fact so may lost their asses when the market crashed, but also just because they don't have as much reason to spend.
your full retirement age is now 67. I would only suggest increasing that to 70,
so what about the people with physical jobs that break the body down,for some of them even working till your 65 would be unrealistic....unless you want to be a cripple........not all of us sit on our asses all day long....
so you want what the UK and Canada have? Why don't you move to one of those countries and try it for a few years? I think you would change your opinion.
you fools that keep crying for single payer think it will be free for you and someone else will foot the bill for you. WRONG. YOU will be paying more and getting less. It won't be free for you or anyone else----except maybe illegal aliens.
so you want what the UK and Canada have? Why don't you move to one of those countries and try it for a few years? I think you would change your opinion.
you fools that keep crying for single payer think it will be free for you and someone else will foot the bill for you. WRONG. YOU will be paying more and getting less. It won't be free for you or anyone else----except maybe illegal aliens.
You really don't know much about anything, do you? I have friends in Canada. They laugh at us when it comes to our healthcare system. They pay half of what we do and everyone is covered. Is it perfect? No. But it's just a matter of how much they are willing to pay. I wouldn't want their system because they have zero options other than the health system available. Many countries with universal healthcare also have supplemental insurance available that gives those who choose to purchase it some advantages over those who just want to use the government run health option.
George Bush, the man with the third most private sector experience on this list, had abysmal job creation and was in office when both the housing and financial sectors were destroyed, initiating the greatest economic downturn in since the 30s.
To get out of his recession and boost employment and meet his policy goals Reagan added 258,000 workers to the federal workforce. He expanded government like no human on god's green earth.
Clinton reduced the federal workforce by 307,000.
Bushed increased it by 52,000
Obama has only increased it by 2000.
Reagan also kept funding open to the states so they coud maintain cops, firemen, teachers (all of whom, because they had jobs, pumped money into their local economies so more jobs could be saved). Obama, on the other hand, was forced to cut aid to the states.
I like your contributions. And I agree with some of them, but it looks like you are recycling cliches that have been around since Reagan - and not really adding to them, or explaining some of the problems that have happened by letting business run government, which is what we now have. Energy policy is written by big oil. Drug policy is written by big pharma. And ObamaCare was written with and for the large health insurance carriers. Crusty government supported monopolies are now in control of most major sectors. Big government and Big Business have become one. If you don't understand this, than you need to do more research on lobbying and the influence of money on the political process, including election funding. Most congressmen have very cushy lobbying jobs waiting for them when they leave office. Why do you think Fannie/Freddie paid Gingrich so much money for access to the Republican Congress during the Bush years? The private sector pays trillions of dollars a year to gain access to the centralized power of the federal government. Don't kid yourself my man, the free-market was killed along time ago.
FYI: I'd take Eisenhower and Nixon over anyone on your list, not because they had business experience (which I admit is a plus) - but because they believed in the power of big government to grow the middle class. And once you have a large middle class of consumers (with extra spending money to be captured), capital has an incentive to invest, innovate and add jobs. If the government (through enlightened labor policies and entitlements) puts more money in middle class wallets, than business will drive over the bones of the living and the dead to get at that money. This is why the 50s thru 73, during the height of postwar Keynesianism, saw greater economic growth than any period thereafter.
But, lez-be-honest bro-nameth. Reagan - mr. private sector himself - grew the federal government more than anyone in living memory, and then he and his movement lied about it. Also, his private sector job growth was in concert with the greatest expansion of credit in history to that date. Starting in the 80s the American family went on a 30 year spending orgy financed by easy credit. Morning in America was brought to you by MasterCard, Visa and American Express. Do some of your own research on this stuff. Try to isolate the historical period when the American consumer went from wage based consumption to debt-based consumption - and why... Turn off Hannity and Limbaugh. Go to a library.
And don't kind yourself about Reagan. The man grew government more than anyone in my lifetime.
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the data for how much each president grew or reduced the federal workforce is:
If your employer offers healthcare plans, then it will probably be to your advantage to stick with an employer offered plan. If you reject your employers plan in favor of buying on the exchange, then you will lose any contribution your employer makes to the plan and you will not be able to claim the tax credit.
Social Security is much more than a retirement plan. It provides disability benefits and life insurance with benefits for spouse and children. Benefits are guaranteed and adjusted for inflation. Even if the stock market crashes in the year you retire, your benefits will not be effected. However, Social Security is no replacement for a retirement plan. The benefits provide only a safety net which means for most people just enough to survive.
George Bush, the man with the third most private sector experience on this list, had abysmal job creation and was in office when both the housing and financial sectors were destroyed, initiating the greatest economic downturn in since the 30s.
To get out of his recession and boost employment and meet his policy goals Reagan added 258,000 workers to the federal workforce. He expanded government like no human on god's green earth.
Clinton reduced the federal workforce by 307,000.
Bushed increased it by 52,000
Obama has only increased it by 2000.
Reagan also kept funding open to the states so they coud maintain cops, firemen, teachers (all of whom, because they had jobs, pumped money into their local economies so more jobs could be saved). Obama, on the other hand, was forced to cut aid to the states.
I like your contributions. And I agree with some of them, but it looks like you are recycling cliches that have been around since Reagan - and not really adding to them, or explaining some of the problems that have happened by letting business run government, which is what we now have. Energy policy is written by big oil. Drug policy is written by big pharma. And ObamaCare was written with and for the large health insurance carriers. Crusty government supported monopolies are now in control of most major sectors. Big government and Big Business have become one. If you don't understand this, than you need to do more research on lobbying and the influence of money on the political process, including election funding. Most congressmen have very cushy lobbying jobs waiting for them when they leave office. Why do you think Fannie/Freddie paid Gingrich so much money for access to the Republican Congress during the Bush years? The private sector pays trillions of dollars a year to gain access to the centralized power of the federal government. Don't kid yourself my man, the free-market was killed along time ago.
FYI: I'd take Eisenhower and Nixon over anyone on your list, not because they had business experience (which I admit is a plus) - but because they believed in the power of big government to grow the middle class. And once you have a large middle class of consumers (with extra spending money to be captured), capital has an incentive to invest, innovate and add jobs. If the government (through enlightened labor policies and entitlements) puts more money in middle class wallets, than business will drive over the bones of the living and the dead to get at that money. This is why the 50s thru 73, during the height of postwar Keynesianism, saw greater economic growth than any period thereafter.
But, lez-be-honest bro-nameth. Reagan - mr. private sector himself - grew the federal government more than anyone in living memory, and then he and his movement lied about it. Also, his private sector job growth was in concert with the greatest expansion of credit in history to that date. Starting in the 80s the American family went on a 30 year spending orgy financed by easy credit. Morning in America was brought to you by MasterCard, Visa and American Express. Do some of your own research on this stuff. Try to isolate the historical period when the American consumer went from wage based consumption to debt-based consumption - and why... Turn off Hannity and Limbaugh. Go to a library.
And don't kind yourself about Reagan. The man grew government more than anyone in my lifetime.
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the data for how much each president grew or reduced the federal workforce is:
I see you need help with accurate facts....no surprise there....eh what!
"Since the beginning of the last recession (December 2007) the private sector workforce has shrunk by 6.6% while shedding more than 7.5 million jobs. Over that same time period, the federal government workforce (excluding Census and Postal workers) has grown by 11.7% while adding 230,000 jobs."
Federal Workforce Continues to Grow Under Obama Budget | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation
Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.
Read more: Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter
