• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let The Unemployable Have Social Security

Should Older Unemployed Workers Get Social Security?

  • Yes, it's stupid to force people to pretend to be disabled just so they can survive.

    Votes: 7 35.0%

  • No, we can't afford it.

    Votes: 10 50.0%

  • No, I don't believe older people have more trouble finding work.

    Votes: 1 5.0%

  • No, we can't afford this.

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • Total voters
    20
Pinkie

Pinkie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
12,316
Reaction score
3,220
Location
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
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?
 
No, you should still be a member of the workforce. We cannot afford to give SS to those in their 50's that are unemployed. If anything we should increase the age of social security benefits.
 
We cannot afford to keep handing out disability to people like we do, either. I'd clarify that I'd take into account the economics and pay them a portion of what they would have gotten if they succeeded at a disability claim.

In balance, I think this would rationalize things and might even save money. Say, 50% of their full benefit before age 62?
 
Last edited:
What use would that be. Lets take my unemployable ex-wife. She took SS at 62. By now, she's getting about $850. If it wasn't for me, where would she live on $850? No place decent I think.

If she had retired at 55, she would now be getting $425.00. To what avail? Again, if it weren't for Mr. Nice Guy, she'd be in the streets OR collecting welfare to supplement her 1/2 SS.



Pinkie said:
We cannot afford to keep handing our disability to people like we do, either. I'd clarify that I'd take into account the economics and pay them a portion of what they would have gotten if they succeeded at a disability claim.

In balance, I think this would rationalize things and might even save money. Say, 50% of their full benefit before age 62?
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
What use would that be. Lets take my unemployable ex-wife. She took SS at 62. By now, she's getting about $850. If it wasn't for me, where would she live on $850? No place decent I think.

If she had retired at 55, she would now be getting $425.00. To what avail? Again, if it weren't for Mr. Nice Guy, she'd be in the streets OR collecting welfare to supplement her 1/2 SS.
Click to expand...

The thing is, no single, healthy adult without a dependent child is eligible for welfare, specklebang. Plenty of older people are exactly in the dire straits your wife could be in -- I grant you, a $425/month income seems like nothing at all, but that person might not starve.
 
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...

Why are they unemployable?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Why are they unemployable?
Click to expand...

Well, many are professional people and they can't compete successful against younger professionals, nor can they get unskilled work. Not in this economy. Employers at fast food places and the like seem to be 100% convinced they'll leave for greener pastures, not realizing how unlikely it is that greener pastures will ever exist for these people.

I'll add, many actually are disabled -- one of my friends has been battling MS for decades. They did work, despite their physical problems, and they'd give damned near anything to work again.

They just cannot find a job.
 
Last edited:
Pinkie said:
Well, many are professional people and they can't compete successful against younger professionals, nor can they get unskilled work. Not in this economy. Employers at fast food places and the like seem to be 100% convinced they'll leave for greener pastures, not realizing how unlikely it is that greener pastures will ever exist for these people.

I'll add, many actually are disabled -- one of my friends has been battling MS for decades. They did work, despite their physical problems, and they'd give damned near anything to work again.

They just cannot find a job.
Click to expand...

MS I could see getting SS for, not being able to find a job.
Not so much.

Why shouldn't everyone be able to get SS indefinitely for not being able to find a job?
I've got 50+ (some former professionals) working for me, they had to go a different path, but they got a job doing something.
Just my opinion, but maybe they need to look else where.
 
Other than for actual significant mental/physical impairment, I'm not sure I believe anyone is "unemployable". It may not be the kind of work someone wants, but someone desperate for a job can usually find one.
 
Last edited:
Pinkie said:
We cannot afford to keep handing out disability to people like we do, either. I'd clarify that I'd take into account the economics and pay them a portion of what they would have gotten if they succeeded at a disability claim.

In balance, I think this would rationalize things and might even save money. Say, 50% of their full benefit before age 62?
Click to expand...

Disability already comes out of the Social Security fund.

I hate the idea, Pinkie. I'm sorry.
 
Let's just cut to the chase here, if you want to work, then you work, if not then you get a gov't check to cover your desired lifestyle. If you want to do both then you get a gov't position. USA, USA, USA...
 
Um. Second and fourth poll options are redundant. ;)
 
The generations who grow up in this "new normal" will have markedly different ideas about employment than those of us who grew up when the ratio of jobs to seekers was 1:1.
It's hard for us to comprehend the idea of looking for work and not being able to find a job of some sort.
It used to be that the time it took to find a job was less than a couple weeks or a month.
It has increased substantially since then.

bls has the numbers if anyone wants details.


unemployed_jobs_quit_chart1.png


This shows that people are looking longer than in years past before they give up.
 
Last edited:
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...

SS is already going broke, adding the "unemployable" to the mix would make it go broke that much faster. Bad idea Pinkie.
 
specklebang said:
What use would that be. Lets take my unemployable ex-wife. She took SS at 62. By now, she's getting about $850. If it wasn't for me, where would she live on $850? No place decent I think.

If she had retired at 55, she would now be getting $425.00. To what avail? Again, if it weren't for Mr. Nice Guy, she'd be in the streets OR collecting welfare to supplement her 1/2 SS.
Click to expand...

By that age you should have a home paid for and be able to live off $850 pretty damn easy in smaller towns where the cost of living is not through the roof.
 
Pinkie said:
The thing is, no single, healthy adult without a dependent child is eligible for welfare, specklebang. Plenty of older people are exactly in the dire straits your wife could be in -- I grant you, a $425/month income seems like nothing at all, but that person might not starve.
Click to expand...

AT that age you can get meals on wheels and SNAP.
 
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...

It would depend on why they're "unemployable". If, through no fault of their own, they absolutely can land a job, sure. If they've been a lazy ass their entire adult lives, no way.

I'm 43 and I go to work and outwork 20-something-year-olds everyday. I've had ACL reconstruction, four broke ribs, two broken ankles, have a permanent shoulder injury, a screwed up back can only turn my neck a few degrees in either direction, so you'll excuse me if I'm very reluctant to buy into the cry baby bull****.
 
apdst said:
It would depend on why they're "unemployable". If, through no fault of their own, they absolutely can land a job, sure. If they've been a lazy ass their entire adult lives, no way.

I'm 43 and I go to work and outwork 20-something-year-olds everyday. I've had ACL reconstruction, four broke ribs, two broken ankles, have a permanent shoulder injury, a screwed up back can only turn my neck a few degrees in either direction, so you'll excuse me if I'm very reluctant to buy into the cry baby bull****.
Click to expand...

And I thought I was all broke to hell, :lol:
 
I'm not especially sorry nobody agrees with me. I realize it's a far-out suggestion.

But I am disappointed so many of you think "anyone who wants a job can get one". That just ain't so.
 
Kali said:
AT that age you can get meals on wheels and SNAP.
Click to expand...

Well, you need a residence and a severe medical condition to get meals on wheels, Kali, and it's a charitable program, not a government one. And you need an address to get food stamps, too, but you can't pay the mortgage or the electric bill with them.
 
Work that pays is harder to get the older you are, and in a down economy with many younger workers out of work, it is even more difficult. SO, if a person is trying, and still can't get the work they need to pay the bills, what other options are there?
 
Boo Radley said:
Work that pays is harder to get the older you are, and in a down economy with many younger workers out of work, it is even more difficult. SO, if a person is trying, and still can't get the work they need to pay the bills, what other options are there?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...


This is not the same as before...outsourcing to china india and phillipines and whereever have put millions more people out of work that still have to EAT and LIVE and may have kids to feed....there are people that out of dire necessity who would never consider going on the govt dole that have no choices left...no more unemployment lost their homes....and the rich are clammering for another TAX CUT...here it is for me...id much rather have someone who cant find a job because a CEO wanted a bigger bonus to get a hand with MY TAX MONEY alot more than I want mitt romeny to pay even less than 13% on hundreds of millions....this has gotten beyond ridiculous and callous....Ive never seen such greed and uncaring crap in my life.
Just what do you conservatives expect all these GOOD PEOPLE who want to work to do after youve screwed them...man
 
Boo Radley said:
Work that pays is harder to get the older you are, and in a down economy with many younger workers out of work, it is even more difficult. SO, if a person is trying, and still can't get the work they need to pay the bills, what other options are there?
Click to expand...

My question, too, and I was suggesting a solution -- but no one likes it. I'm not sure myself that it's workable, but at least we both see the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom