Let The Unemployable Have Social Security

cbaber said:

What have people been doing since the time of modern civilization? Suddenly we need to give money to people in this situation? If you are able to work, under 62, and just cant find a job that is tough luck. I could make up categories of people we should sympathize with all day long but that doesnt mean they should be added to government assistance. If you are in your 50's you should have a nice size retirement nest egg anyway. In an emergency situation you could always use that money instead of taxpayer money.

Click to expand...

But see, that "nest egg" is what they've been living on while they look for work -- after it's gone, then what?

Can't they just get some ObamaBucks? :shrug:

.

Pinkie said:

But see, that "nest egg" is what they've been living on while they look for work -- after it's gone, then what?

Click to expand...

I find it hard that someone, who is physically able to go to work, can't find a job doing, something, anything, even if it's picking up cans out of the road ditch. Relocate, if they have to, anything.

apdst said:

I find it hard that someone, who is physically able to go to work, can't find a job doing, something, anything, even if it's picking up cans out of the road ditch. Relocate, if they have to, anything.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're not alone in this, apdst. I can understand why you have trouble believing it happens. But it does, and it happens a lot.

These people are almost invisibly poor, and after a lifetime of working, I thought maybe it was worth considering allowing them some limited access to their retirement benefits sooner to alleviate their suffering. Doesn't mean I had a good idea, though.

cbaber said:

What have people been doing since the time of modern civilization? Suddenly we need to give money to people in this situation? If you are able to work, under 62, and just cant find a job that is tough luck. I could make up categories of people we should sympathize with all day long but that doesnt mean they should be added to government assistance. If you are in your 50's you should have a nice size retirement nest egg anyway. In an emergency situation you could always use that money instead of taxpayer money.

Click to expand...

They've suffered. Died. Had others take of them. And many working poor don't have a nest egg. And those who do, well, it only lasts so long. This a problem, and I hope we have a better answet than tough ****.

apdst said:

I find it hard that someone, who is physically able to go to work, can't find a job doing, something, anything, even if it's picking up cans out of the road ditch. Relocate, if they have to, anything.

Click to expand...

You're competitng with younger people today. It really does happen.

Pinkie said:

Over 50? Been unemployed for 1 year or longer?

Many of my friends in that position are just dying on the vine, their only hope to qualify as "disabled" so they can draw SSD.

Wouldn't it be better to admit someone with a less than 5% chance of finding work to the social security rolls without making liars out of them?

What say you? Should there be a permanent benefit to sustain life for an older worker who is chronically unemployable?

Click to expand...

If the state can pay these people to do nothing it can pay them to do a job

Pinkie said:

But see, that "nest egg" is what they've been living on while they look for work -- after it's gone, then what?

Click to expand...

It wasn't much of a "nest egg" then.
Sometimes we have to measure the costs vs. the benefit, in this situation a lot of people will throw their hands up because they can't find a job doing what they used to do, rather than take a lower job.

I've got 60 year old men working with me, some that were trained in higher/other jobs, they did what they had to do, to earn a living.

Red_Dave said:

If the state can pay these people to do nothing it can pay them to do a job

Click to expand...

I'd accept that.

Pinkie said:

Over 50? Been unemployed for 1 year or longer?

Many of my friends in that position are just dying on the vine, their only hope to qualify as "disabled" so they can draw SSD.

Wouldn't it be better to admit someone with a less than 5% chance of finding work to the social security rolls without making liars out of them?

What say you? Should there be a permanent benefit to sustain life for an older worker who is chronically unemployable?

Click to expand...

This is very interesting. I guess I can compare this with the European social security schemes. It appears that the US scheme is MUCH more generous than the European ones, but in the EU a lot more people are covered one way or another, typically the segment you are talking about.

I am speculating here to some degree, but I think that there is a trend that the better technology is, the lower people's unemployability age gets. This is why Bissmarck invented the idea of social security in 1880's Germany, in the 1st place.

Mathematically (my favourite class), the better the technology, the fewer people we need in the workforce to make the same money. So, this pushes the social security age upwards, in the opposite direction.

Thus the problem is that we derive all social security funds/budgets from employment taxation, and squeeze life at both ends, as a result.

I don't know how to work for a living and I don't want to find it out, but it must absolutely suck if you can't even afford a room for yourself, such as in the situations you are describing in the OP. People over 50 have no chance to get any control over their lives. Just like the over-60's of Bissmarck's Germany.

This idea may be unorthodox, but in every country, it seems to be that unusable people were always successfully used in the national armies. Old people are useless at the frontlines, but could probably be of many use in the support roles such as cooks, drivers, clerks, etc., without pay, in return for a room and some clothes and food.

There should also be a honest political premise to allow them to shorten their own life span if they so wish. Currently this is PR'd to be unethical and illegal.

Pinkie said:

Over 50? Been unemployed for 1 year or longer?

Many of my friends in that position are just dying on the vine, their only hope to qualify as "disabled" so they can draw SSD.

Wouldn't it be better to admit someone with a less than 5% chance of finding work to the social security rolls without making liars out of them?

What say you? Should there be a permanent benefit to sustain life for an older worker who is chronically unemployable?

Click to expand...

From where do you think the money would come to support such a benefit? Fewer people working, generating less wealth, paying higher taxes to support a growing number of people not working or creating wealth, is unsustainable.

I recognize the existence of the problem, but no “solution” is ever going to succeed that is based on increasing the burden on those who are still working and productive.

Any solution that is going to succeed will only do so by making it easier for those who currently are having difficulty finding productive employment to do so.

Boo Radley said:

You're competitng with younger people today. It really does happen.

Click to expand...

As I pointed out, I outwork 20-something-year-olds everyday.

Red_Dave said:

If the state can pay these people to do nothing it can pay them to do a job

Click to expand...

And, if they can do a job, they're not, "chronically unemployable".

apdst said:

And, if they can do a job, they're not, "chronically unemployable".

Click to expand...

They are "unemployable" in that they can't find anyone to hire them.

I think the idea of the government paying them to do something useful has legs. I have a high opinion of the 1930's-style "make work" programs, like the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Pinkie said:

They are "unemployable" in that they can't find anyone to hire them.

I think the idea of the government paying them to do something useful has legs. I have a high opinion of the 1930's-style "make work" programs, like the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Click to expand...

It's still taking my money and giving it to someone else, because they don't have the gumption to get a job on their own.

apdst said:

It's still taking my money and giving it to someone else, because they don't have the gumption to get a job on their own.

Click to expand...

Sure, all but the gumption part. But, it really does help all of us to make sure there is no undue suffering. And the better we do it, with the most production possible, and the least pain for any of us, the better.

Boo Radley said:

Sure, all but the gumption part. But, it really does help all of us to make sure there is no undue suffering. And the better we do it, with the most production possible, and the least pain for any of us, the better.

Click to expand...

How do you reduce undue suffering? When I talk to people with operations management background, they all seem to say that the problem with old people is that they can't work except at their own pace. In today's world where businesses have virtually eliminated their operational "frictions", the worker that can turn on a dime for any customer demand is the winner. You can't expect a regular 10-12 hour workday from an old person. Even young people fail with this when competing against cheap outsourcing.

The bottom line: when you turn 36, nature takes away 2 % of your hormones every year, giving you gray hair, wrinkles, loss-of-shape, and death (at the end). It is up to you how you manage your decline. But isn't it a loosing proposition to try to run upwards on this downward escalator? Let's allow old people to reduce their own life expectancy.

ab9924 said:

How do you reduce undue suffering? When I talk to people with operations management background, they all seem to say that the problem with old people is that they can't work except at their own pace. In today's world where businesses have virtually eliminated their operational "frictions", the worker that can turn on a dime for any customer demand is the winner. You can't expect a regular 10-12 hour workday from an old person. Even young people fail with this when competing against cheap outsourcing.

The bottom line: when you turn 36, nature takes away 2 % of your hormones every year, giving you gray hair, wrinkles, loss-of-shape, and death (at the end). It is up to you how you manage your decline. But isn't it a loosing proposition to try to run upwards on this downward escalator? Let's allow old people to reduce their own life expectancy.

Click to expand...

First of all no one should be working 12 hrs a day ...it should be 8 and following your slly synopsis the world should be run by a logans run attitude...you become worthless at 30 and they just kill ya.....I have no idea where this new national attitude has come from....but I seriously dont like it...and im hoping most of america sees exactly whats going on

All of you people that think these mid-50's people can get jobs:
Given a choice between a 25-year-old that used to make $20k/yr and a 55-year-old that used to make $50k/yr which would you hire for your $25k/yr job? How about a somewhat physical $20k/yr job? Or even an easy $16k/yr job?

If any of you answered "I'd hire the old person" I'd suggest you've either never been responsible for hiring people or you haven't thought the matter through.

apdst said:

As I pointed out, I outwork 20-something-year-olds everyday.

Click to expand...

That doesn't matter to would-be employers. They take one look at your work history and unless they're desperate (which none of them are right now because of the 3+:1 unemployed/job ratio) they will not hire you. If it's the same profession or a closely related one they might take you but otherwise all of them figure you will cut and run back to your old profession the minute you get the chance.

lpast said:

First of all no one should be working 12 hrs a day ...it should be 8 and following your slly synopsis the world should be run by a logans run attitude...you become worthless at 30 and they just kill ya.....I have no idea where this new national attitude has come from....but I seriously dont like it...and im hoping most of america sees exactly whats going on

Click to expand...

I think I know where this national attitude comes from. In fact, one of the Founding Fathers (Adams?) explicitely warned about it, when he wrote: "if big banks begin writing our laws then we will all be slaves on our own land". And this is exactly what is happening. In an unlimited free competition, every business just takes the next guy when the current guy goes under. Then, an army is still better because that has at least some additional connotation than only money, such as a nation. The USA has purposefully eliminated all of its labour legislations, so you are only worth what your employer needs to wait until finding your replacement. Samuel Adams was and is right with this one. America has and will never see this.

When Mexicans stop paying coyotes to leave their own country and stop risking their lives sneaking across the desert to come here for work then and only then will I take the supposition that you can't find a job here seriously.

Pinkie said:

Over 50? Been unemployed for 1 year or longer?

Many of my friends in that position are just dying on the vine, their only hope to qualify as "disabled" so they can draw SSD.

Wouldn't it be better to admit someone with a less than 5% chance of finding work to the social security rolls without making liars out of them?

What say you? Should there be a permanent benefit to sustain life for an older worker who is chronically unemployable?

Click to expand...

I finished a doctorate when I was 58. A 50 year old who has sat around waiting to be rescued by his government is not disabled. He is lazy. And possibly stupid.

sawyerloggingon said:

When Mexicans stop paying coyotes to leave their own country and stop risking their lives sneaking across the desert to come here for work then and only then will I take the supposition that you can't find a job here seriously.

Click to expand...

I agree. There are jobs.

apdst said:

I find it hard that someone, who is physically able to go to work, can't find a job doing, something, anything, even if it's picking up cans out of the road ditch. Relocate, if they have to, anything.

Click to expand...

The last time I was in the hospital I noticed a white collar looking guy doing janitorial work. I found that interesting so I asked his story. He lost his job as an accountant. So he called up the hospital and said, 'I need a job. I will do anything. I will mop floors. I will wipe butts. Whatever you can find for me to do I will do it.' Unemployable? I don't think so. No doubt if he had his 'druthers' he'd rather have been an accountant. But he was paying the bills.

cbaber said:

What have people been doing since the time of modern civilization? Suddenly we need to give money to people in this situation? If you are able to work, under 62, and just cant find a job that is tough luck. I could make up categories of people we should sympathize with all day long but that doesnt mean they should be added to government assistance. If you are in your 50's you should have a nice size retirement nest egg anyway. In an emergency situation you could always use that money instead of taxpayer money.

Click to expand...

True. They should be allowed to draw off their 401K without penalty. Many states have had money available for retraining. Anyone who didn't take advantage of it are fools. Also, there are some new peacetime benefits for veterans over 50. They can always look into that if they are veterans.