Work longer hours....

[indyblue]

The life expectancy at age 65 (which id what really matters, not the life expectancy at birth) is about 5 years longer now than in 1940. Raising the retirement age from 65 to 70 for Social Security (which, I believe is already the plan...eventually) would get us back to the number of years, per person that was originally planned.

However, the real issue (besides this being a socialist, generational redistribution of wealth) is the number of active worker for every retiree. Raising the retirement age would improve that ratio as well.

I have been paying into SS since I was 13 years old when I got my first job. I'd be fine with retiring a little later, except for one thing. Who will hire (or retain) all these 65-70 year old's? It's already proving hard enough to get a job at 55. There many industries that WILL NOT hire workers over a certain age even though it is technically illegal to age discriminate.

For the first time in my life I am finding it difficult to find a job with over 25 years of experience in IT and a bunch of great references.

A friend of mine in his 50's has been seeking work for almost two years. He's an excellent sales rep and wanted to get into the medical device sales field. They are not hiring anyone over 40 for those positions and has been told as much to his face.

 

[MisterChester]

Really? Apparently you're limiting the scope to Republicans. Hillary seems more out of touch.

And Hough has a point. Ask not what your government can do for you. Either spend less or make more. It's not your responsibility to see to it that I get a day off.

What a ****ed up world it's becoming.

I am not saying the government has to get involved. I am saying its a bit more complicated than just to simply work more. If I asked to work overtime hours because Jeb told me to my boss would not take me seriously. Jeb's "theory" is that if you somehow work more hours will boost the economy when in fact employee productivity falls off by a lot if they work too much because of diminishing returns. Then it wouldn't be worth it to the employer to overwork the employees. It's clear Jeb has absolutely no grip on reality.

 

[halfmileharry]

I am not saying the government has to get involved. I am saying its a bit more complicated than just to simply work more. If I asked to work overtime hours because Jeb told me to my boss would not take me seriously. Jeb's "theory" is that if you somehow work more hours will boost the economy when in fact employee productivity falls off by a lot if they work too much because of diminishing returns. Then it wouldn't be worth it to the employer to overwork the employees. It's clear Jeb has absolutely no grip on reality.

View attachment 39852

Jeb knows people won't prosper on part time hours. He's most likely pointing to eliminating these ridiculous laws that penalize employers for having full time workers. Obamacare is killing our ability to be a productive society.
The sole idea of Obama's laws was to boost the socialism to another level on the way to total govt dependence.
His wealth redistribution system has the result of bankrupting not only OUR country but anyone making a living within these borders.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I am not saying the government has to get involved. I am saying its a bit more complicated than just to simply work more. If I asked to work overtime hours because Jeb told me to my boss would not take me seriously. Jeb's "theory" is that if you somehow work more hours will boost the economy when in fact employee productivity falls off by a lot if they work too much because of diminishing returns. Then it wouldn't be worth it to the employer to overwork the employees. It's clear Jeb has absolutely no grip on reality.

View attachment 39852

From the article linked in OP:

“For several years now, they have been recklessly degrading the value of work, the incentive to work, and the rewards of work. We have seen them cut the definition of a full-time job from 40 to 30 hours, slashing the ability of paycheck earners to make ends meet," he said. "We have seen them create welfare programs and tax rules that punish people with lost benefits and higher taxes for moving up those first few rungs of the economic ladder.”

The comments were not that you need to go ask your boss for O/T. The comments were that we have a trend for reducing work hours, and as such people are earning less. If workers were getting back to a full time definition of 40hrs/wk it would help improve take home pay for those employees.

I haven't read anything yet stating that he's implying that people need to go from 40 to 50+ but that seems to be the way the media is spinning this.

I think it is also worth mentioning that this would seem to apply mostly to hourly jobs. As I mentioned in another post, most salaried employees make the same for 60 hours as they do for 40, even though they might actually work more than an average of 40hrs a week.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Jeb knows people won't prosper on part time hours. He's most likely pointing to eliminating these ridiculous laws that penalize employers for having full time workers. Obamacare is killing our ability to be a productive society.
The sole idea of Obama's laws was to boost the socialism to another level on the way to total govt dependence.
His wealth redistribution system has the result of bankrupting not only OUR country but anyone making a living within these borders.

This

 

[MisterChester]

From the article linked in OP:




The comments were not that you need to go ask your boss for O/T. The comments were that we have a trend for reducing work hours, and as such people are earning less. If workers were getting back to a full time definition of 40hrs/wk it would help improve take home pay for those employees.

I haven't read anything yet stating that he's implying that people need to go from 40 to 50+ but that seems to be the way the media is spinning this.

I think it is also worth mentioning that this would seem to apply mostly to hourly jobs. As I mentioned in another post, most salaried employees make the same for 60 hours as they do for 40, even though they might actually work more than an average of 40hrs a week.

That isn't necessarily true. Some jobs even with 40+ hours a week will still render people under the poverty level. Then we'll say "well buy an education with the little money you have so you can get a better job". No matter what someone will have to work full time and be in poverty anyway. They could hire illegal immigrants to do the work but that's even worse.

 

[jamil]

I am not saying the government has to get involved. I am saying its a bit more complicated than just to simply work more. If I asked to work overtime hours because Jeb told me to my boss would not take me seriously. Jeb's "theory" is that if you somehow work more hours will boost the economy when in fact employee productivity falls off by a lot if they work too much because of diminishing returns. Then it wouldn't be worth it to the employer to overwork the employees. It's clear Jeb has absolutely no grip on reality.

View attachment 39852

You may be thinking he's saying something I don't think he's saying. I can't believe I'm defending something Jeb Bush said, but I don't think his point is more hours=more productivity, so work more hours. He's saying more about pay vs productivity than hours vs productivity. Traditionally, pay (total compensation) has tracked productivity very closely until early 2000s. It doesn't track as closely now. You may be more productive working your 30 hour job, but you're also not making as much as you would working 40 hours.

 

[jblomenberg16]

That isn't necessarily true. Some jobs even with 40+ hours a week will still render people under the poverty level. Then we'll say "well buy an education with the little money you have so you can get a better job". No matter what someone will have to work full time and be in poverty anyway. They could hire illegal immigrants to do the work but that's even worse.

I agree with you, but that is a different issue. What is being discussed is how employers are generally cutting back from 40 hours due to the current laws and benefits structure.

 

[funeralweb]

As the cost of self-employment, and employment of others as a business grows, continues to increase I just try to work smarter. Being on call 24/7, working harder/longer is not an attractive option.

 

[Libertarian01]

The logistics of a second job can be very difficult to accommodate, especially depending upon where you live and work.

For example, one job may have you working from 1100 - 1900 three (3) days per week, including Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. This job is the "primary" job that got cut back. So now when a person goes looking for a second job the requirements of the second job - even if it is just pizza delivery - might require working 1730 - 2300 hours. A person cannot make it there in time for the position that is available. Or perhaps the second job wants you to work Thursday, Friday, and Saturday from 0600 - 1400. Again, a problem of not being able to take the second job. In this case let us presume that the worker goes to his primary employer and explains his/her need to shift his Friday to Monday. Presuming that the primary employer is accommodating and agrees, this employer may well change their mind if extra work orders come in and the employee is now needed to work Thursday. The employee will be forced into a bind of choosing one low hour job over another.

Even IF a balance is formed and everyone agrees on these compatible hours every Thursday the worker may well be getting less than five (5) hours of sleep. This will put the workers safety at risk on the road to and especially from the second job along with safety risks by not being well rested at the second job. Let's ask the LEO on board how many accidents they have heard about reports being filed on where one drivers impairment was due only to lack of sleep. I'll bet it's more than a few.

All in all I don't think people consciously consider the ramifications of people trying to hold down two (2) part time jobs in place of one (1) full time job. The cost extends to beyond simply a lone person busting their butt to make ends meet. It can cost lives and limbs.

Regards,

Doug

 

[rhino]

The comments were not that you need to go ask your boss for O/T. The comments were that we have a trend for reducing work hours, and as such people are earning less. If workers were getting back to a full time definition of 40hrs/wk it would help improve take home pay for those employees.

I haven't read anything yet stating that he's implying that people need to go from 40 to 50+ but that seems to be the way the media is spinning this.

I think it is also worth mentioning that this would seem to apply mostly to hourly jobs. As I mentioned in another post, most salaried employees make the same for 60 hours as they do for 40, even though they might actually work more than an average of 40hrs a week.

I'm still irritated by what Obamacare cost me (loss of health insurance policy TWICE) and the effect loss of a job when my hours were cut by 2/3 to make me appear to be part time based on the regulations, even though I was already "part time" with no benefits. On the other hand, some good came of this string of events. By necessity I had to leave what was a crappy job that got tremendously crappier to find something better. That stated with low-paying temp work, to a better paying temp position, to my current full-time salaried position with benefits. I might have been too lazy and complacent to start at the bottom indefinitely if I had not been forced into it.

Unintended consequences are sometimes positive.

 

[Leo]

I've always been in favor of that, but it will never happen. Social Security depends on forcing workers to pay for the retired. Retirees act like they paid into something and are getting their own money back, well, they did pay in, but that money was gone a long time ago. Now they want your money and my money.

I disagree with that thought. If reality is how you presented it, you could say the same for your bank. The money I put in my 1st Savings Certificate in 1976 has long been out of the bank, but when I cash it, with the compounding interest, the bank will pay me with funds someone else is bringing in, and the interest the bank made on the installment loan business. That does not mean that I am not due my money, that return is the understood contractual relationship. (not to mention regulated by law)

The Federal government decided to go into the investment and disability insurance business. I was not given any choice in the matter. I was FORCED to participate. infact, there was only ten years of my life that I did not pay both halves of the contribution on at least 1/2 of my income due to having self employment income. I also never voted for the people that set the SS & SSDI program up, nor voted for any of the people who run it. The fact that their business model is at least incompetent and more likely (after bills signed in by Lyndon Baines Johnson) slipped from a poor business model into the realm of a fraudulant Ponsei scheme. As you know in your profession, that does not negate the purchasers right to expect a return as promised.

I can see my own youthful attitudes reflected in a lot opinions. Of course we can point to old Aunt Millie who worked for 3 months during WWII and collected for 40 years. That kind of thing can and did happen. Like any insurance, the business model has to be built so those things are the exception. I have 3 relatives who paid in their whole lives and died with no heirs before drawing a dime. I have serious health issues, as in 6 heart attacks in a 30 month period. I have already outlived the actuarial tables for my condition. I just started drawing SSDI. By the governments own statements, I will need to draw the benefit they pay out for almost 20 more years, before I will approach the contribution figures. Would you wager a guess on my likely hood of coming out ahead?

Add to that any interest that should have been there if they hadn't perverted the system. In addition, most of the dollars I paid in had far more, even to the point of 100% more buying power. Then you can also add the government allowed scam based around the banking industry that turned $270,000 of my personally contributed 401k money into 40 grand in a week.

I know that you had no intention of an attack on me, and hold no offense. There is just a lot more to the story than "the old guys are stealing my money". I did not have anything to do with the fraud the corporation (government) did with that money. If you can figure a way to get a check from the government to just return what they say I paid in as a lump sum, I would gladly tell them to stop sending me that little monthly check.


The more accurate feeling should be "the old democratic legislators stole money I haven't even earned yet"

 

[Leo]

And raise the retirement age, while we're at it.

Seriously. It needs done.

That has been actually in place for a number of years starting with people born in 1954. It is a sliding scale for full benefit retirement benefits that level out at birth dates in 1962. For example my full benefit age is 66 and my spouses benefit age is 66 and 10 months. It is easy to look up. www.ssa.gov

 

[HoughMade]

I disagree with that thought. If reality is how you presented it, you could say the same for your bank. The money I put in my 1st Savings Certificate in 1976 has long been out of the bank, but when I cash it, with the compounding interest, the bank will pay me with funds someone else is bringing in, and the interest the bank made on the installment loan business. That does not mean that I am not due my money, that return is the understood contractual relationship. (not to mention regulated by law)

The Federal government decided to go into the investment and disability insurance business. I was not given any choice in the matter. I was FORCED to participate. infact, there was only ten years of my life that I did not pay both halves of the contribution on at least 1/2 of my income due to having self employment income. I also never voted for the people that set the SS & SSDI program up, nor voted for any of the people who run it. The fact that their business model is at least incompetent and more likely (after bills signed in by Lyndon Baines Johnson) slipped from a poor business model into the realm of a fraudulant Ponsei scheme. As you know in your profession, that does not negate the purchasers right to expect a return as promised.

I can see my own youthful attitudes reflected in a lot opinions. Of course we can point to old Aunt Millie who worked for 3 months during WWII and collected for 40 years. That kind of thing can and did happen. Like any insurance, the business model has to be built so those things are the exception. I have 3 relatives who paid in their whole lives and died with no heirs before drawing a dime. I have serious health issues, as in 6 heart attacks in a 30 month period. I have already outlived the actuarial tables for my condition. I am drawing SSDI. By the governments own statements, I will need to draw the benefit they pay out for almost 20 more years, before I will approach the contribution figures. Add to that any interest that should have been there if they hadn't perverted the system. In addition, most of the dollars I paid in had far more, even to the point of 100% more buying power. Then you can also add the government allowed scam based around the banking industry that turned $270,000 of my personally contributed 401k money into 40 grand in a week.

I know that you had no intention of an attack on me, and hold no offense. There is just a lot more to the story than "the old guys are stealing my money". I did not have anything to do with the fraud the corporation (government) did with that money. If you can figure a way to get a check from the government to just return what they say I paid in as a lump sum, I would gladly tell them to stop sending me that little monthly check.

Pretty much everyone gets back way more than they paid in. If you want to figure in what you could have had based upon theoretical investments, that's fine, but if people who get Social Security realize that and want credit for what they could have made with private investment rather than forced Social Security, why are they such a staunch voting block keeping the system the way it is and preventing us from actually investing the money rather than wistfully imagining what could have been, had the system been different? The answer is simple. They want "theirs" and changing it for a better future for other, including their own family, not so important

Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get | PolitiFact

 

[Leo]

Pretty much everyone gets back way more than they paid in. If you want to figure in what you could have had based upon theoretical investments, that's fine, but if people who get Social Security realize that and want credit for what they could have made with private investment rather than forced Social Security, why are they such a staunch voting block keeping the system the way it is and preventing us from actually investing the money rather than wistfully imagining what could have been, had the system been different. The answer is simple. They want "theirs".

Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get | PolitiFact

Please re read my comments I am NOT relying on "theroetical" numbers. I am simply reading the figures off the government statement that the Social security issued me. No where in my comments did I even mention EXPECTING an INCREASE on my return. I am also very realistic in the fact that the likelihood of me drawing 1/4th of what I put in is almost zero.


If I entered into a contract with a company, and they decided not to deliver the goods or services, would you not represent me? Would you tell me I was wistfull in expecting my building to be built, or my acreage deeded to me in acordance to the amount I paid?

The whole social security program was an iffy proposition at it's institution and was damaged severly by the legislators who decided to use it like am ATM with no consequence since the 1960's. Blaming the forced participants is like throwing eggs at Vietnam era vets because you were against that war.

 

[chipbennett]

I disagree with that thought. If reality is how you presented it, you could say the same for your bank. The money I put in my 1st Savings Certificate in 1976 has long been out of the bank, but when I cash it, with the compounding interest, the bank will pay me with funds someone else is bringing in, and the interest the bank made on the installment loan business. That does not mean that I am not due my money, that return is the understood contractual relationship. (not to mention regulated by law)

The difference is that, with an FDIC-insured bank, if there's a run on the bank, FDIC covers the shortfall, not other (future) account holders. Further, the bank has to maintain accounting that demonstrates that it does, in fact, have your money, and can handle a run on its accounts.

Also: account holders cannot withdraw more than they have deposited, and non-account holders cannot withdraw your money.

 

[chipbennett]

Please re read my comments I am NOT relying on "theroetical" numbers. I am simply reading the figures off the government statement that the Social security issued me. No where in my comments did I even mention EXPECTING an INCREASE on my return. I am also very realistic in the fact that the likelihood of me drawing 1/4th of what I put in is almost zero.


If I entered into a contract with a company, and they decided not to deliver the goods or services, would you not represent me? Would you tell me I was wistfull in expecting my building to be built, or my acreage deeded to me in acordance to the amount I paid?

What you're advocating is that the government take the building of the person on the plot next to you, to provide you restitution for the building not constructed, that you paid for.

The whole social security program was an iffy proposition at it's institution and was damaged severly by the legislators who decided to use it like am ATM with no consequence since the 1960's. Blaming the forced participants is like throwing eggs at Vietnam era vets because you were against that war.

And forcing me to participate in the Ponzi scheme so that you can get yours (by taking mine) is equally immoral and repugnant.

 

[Denny347]

Jeb knows people won't prosper on part time hours. He's most likely pointing to eliminating these ridiculous laws that penalize employers for having full time workers. Obamacare is killing our ability to be a productive society.
The sole idea of Obama's laws was to boost the socialism to another level on the way to total govt dependence.
His wealth redistribution system has the result of bankrupting not only OUR country but anyone making a living within these borders.

I love the fact that we are arguing over what Jeb "meant". He possibly meant what he said and if he didn't, then shame on him for not speaking clearer. If he meant something else, why not just say what he meant? It gets tiring always having to interpret what politicians say when in reality, they are usually saying what they meant...until someone doesn't like what was said, then they MEANT something else.

 

[BugI02]

Pretty much everyone gets back way more than they paid in. If you want to figure in what you could have had based upon theoretical investments, that's fine, but if people who get Social Security realize that and want credit for what they could have made with private investment rather than forced Social Security, why are they such a staunch voting block keeping the system the way it is and preventing us from actually investing the money rather than wistfully imagining what could have been, had the system been different? The answer is simple. They want "theirs" and changing it for a better future for other, including their own family, not so important

Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get | PolitiFact

With just the 401k and IRA monies in the market there is too much money chasing too few gains. Your desire to move even more into the market I'm sure will work out well - for brokers. If you are so dead set against it, when the time comes don't sign up. Is it mere oversight that you are not as critical of medicare? Or are you perhaps envisioning a use for that program. What I think Leo is saying is twofold: 1) if you want the 'staunch voting block' to opt out, offer us a lump sum payment OF JUST WHAT WE PAID IN, no accrued interest or gains. 2) Have a consideration for how long a timeline people have to adjust to the changes you want to make. Its much easier to plan for a change when you have thirty years to cope rather than 3. I would like to hear what you would be saying if .gov instituted perhaps a 30% surtax on tax advantaged accounts a few years before you were ready to retire. I bet it would sound familiar.

Pfft." [STRIKE]They[/STRIKE]I want [STRIKE]"theirs"[/STRIKE]"mine" and changing it for a better future for others, including [STRIKE]their[/STRIKE] anyone not my own family, not so important"

 

[Leo]

And forcing me to participate in the Ponzi scheme so that you can get yours (by taking mine) is equally immoral and repugnant.

You sir are absolutely correct in your fellings. But if all we do is blame the victim in front of you, the manipulators of the law in the legislative branch will continue to be villians and held unaccountable. We all need to pull together and hold the government acccountable. I have letters to Dick Lugar back into the 80's expressing the concern about the constant deficiet budgets, and the continual stripping of funds from the SS program to fund political agendas. If every man who paid in 7% all their life (and people like me who paid in 15%) that is drawing now, would forfeit everything, the government still would not be able to pay you back without taking from the next guy. Isn't socialism controlled by men with no integrity grand?!?. Are you willing to forfeit what you have paid in? Jimmy Carter was in office when I was a young married man starting in life. double digit unemployment coupled with double digit inflation. 17% interest on FHA morgages. Even the boss' kid couldn't get a 40 hour paycheck. That was not easy times either.

Then there is that nasty problem set up by the Rowe vs.Wade decision where we have killed 60 MILLION wage earners before they could leave the womb, where the present generation of taxpayers would have a lesser percent of burden on them to support this runaway socialist government. I didn't vote for that one either. In fact I have fought against it both in political and street level arenas supporting and volunteering in Right to Life centers.

In addition, I PLANNED for the fall of social security, by maxing out my 401k contributions every year. I figured that even if Social security went away, I had accumulated an amount equal to 20 years living expense in my personal savings. Then, as I got older, I put it into the lowest risk investments merrill lynch could offer, most of it was in Mortages and government guaranteed securities. Guess what, they stole it, just like social security money.

I do not want to see the next generation crippled with what I inherited. Fighting is the right response, but like my Vietnam example, people are attacking the wrong target. Get on the phone, go to their offices, write letters. The congress is supposed to be your employee, not your master. The beat up grunt with the rifle, or shovel or programing console is not the enemy.