Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Social Security & retirement

Social Security Retirement 2013

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:33 PM

Retirement is possibly the most overrated idea in Western Civilization.  People who continue to work - whether it's a second career or an intense, full-time hobby, whatever - retain their vitality.  If you have a good work/life balance, then all things being equal I tell people DON'T retire.  

People who do retire (beware - generalization approaching) sit their a$$ down on the couch, never get up, and decay fast.  

My perspective on this may be skewed because my generation was the first to grow up understanding that retirement was a pipe dream.  Social Security would never make ends meet and might not even be there for us by the time we start reaching - well, whatever the retirement age will be by the time we get there.  75?  Probably should be 75.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#2 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 06:51 AM

Quote

I agree. Work until you can't. If you can't at 50, fine. If you can at 90, fine.

Is it fair to the younger generations to have their job opportunities and career ladders blocked by people who should have long since retired?

"Not working" has never been a problem for me personally so it's hard to imagine someone retiring and being unable to figure out what their hobbies are. If given time to do whatever you want to do, you choose to do nothing- that's frankly your own fault. The world is full of stuff to do beyond work. And if you must keep working, do charity work instead.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#3 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:30 AM

But who defines "should have?"

#4 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:59 AM

Sparky, you're talking to someone who would have worked until they carried her out feet first to a funeral home. People in education tend to ignore "should have" in favor of continuing to work. In my case, I carried a wealth of knowledge about parents, staff and administration in my head - you could give me a name and I could tell you off the top of my head about the child, his/her parents, program and teachers - in a program with 500+ kids.. My employers would have also preferred to keep me around, because, as someone once put it, I was the "continuity" of the preschool special ed program. I knew a lot of the "whys" of how it had developed and could save them from trying systems that wouldn't work, because I knew why they didn't work.

There's a downside to replacing older employees with younger ones and that's the learning curve. It takes a long time to train a new employee to the point where they're fully functional in their jobs.

And the bottom line answer is "why should older people retire?" If they are doing a good job and are wanted where they are, there is no imperative to move aside in favor of a younger person, and often many reasons why they shouldn't.

Plus, it's insulting to both the older and younger workers to say that the younger workers need the older ones to get out of their way, as though the older workers somehow owe the younger ones. If the younger ones are good, they'll make it on their own merits and not because some old-timer moved out of the way for them. Did you think the older ones never had to contend with the same situation when they were the younger workers?

Edited by Rhea, 31 January 2013 - 11:03 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#5 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 11:27 AM

Quote

But who defines "should have?"

The government when they define the age at which they expect people to retire, and start paying them a pension on the assumption that they have done so.

Quote

 
Sparky, you're talking to someone who would have worked until they carried her out feet first to a funeral home. People in education tend to ignore "should have" in favor of continuing to work. In my case, I carried a wealth of knowledge about parents, staff and administration in my head - you could give me a name and I could tell you off the top of my head about the child, his/her parents, program and teachers - in a program with 500+ kids.. My employers would have also preferred to keep me around, because, as someone once put it, I was the "continuity" of the preschool special ed program. I knew a lot of the "whys" of how it had developed and could save them from trying systems that wouldn't work, because I knew why they didn't work.

There's a downside to replacing older employees with younger ones and that's the learning curve. It takes a long time to train a new employee to the point where they're fully functional in their jobs.

With respect, I don't think this is relevant to my point.
I don't think this is an argument not to introduce new (and or young) employees to your business (whatever the business is). You cannot possibly expect any employee, no matter how valuable, or how much knowledge they have, to go on forever - it is simply bad management not to plan or take into account the hand-over and training of new employees. If that employee is that critical to the job, that's a huge risk (what happens when they go on holiday, get sick, leave, die, go on parental leave...?) - and to not deal with that risk is bad management.

Quote

And the bottom line answer is "why should older people retire?" If they are doing a good job and are wanted where they are, there is no imperative to move aside in favor of a younger person, and often many reasons why they shouldn't.

No, there is no imperative. But the answer to the question "Why should older people retire?" is precisely the question to which I'm responding. I think there IS a valid reason why - and I've said what it is.


Quote

Plus, it's insulting to both the older and younger workers to say that the younger workers need the older ones to get out of their way, as though the older workers somehow owe the younger ones. If the younger ones are good, they'll make it on their own merits and not because some old-timer moved out of the way for them. Did you think the older ones never had to contend with the same situation when they were the younger workers?

I don't understand this alleged insult. It's not about owing anyone anything - it's about consideration for others. If you are 80 years old and have plenty of money and could easily retire - why not give someone else a chance? Why not start now training someone new? In a time when it's incredibly difficult for young people to get on the first rung of the career ladder, having people who don't need to be working and don't need the money is taking up places. These young people need the money and need the first step on the career ladder. They don't have the chance to work out ANYTHING on their own merits if there are no spaces in the first place.

If the old people now, genuinely had to contend with the same problem then they know exactly what i'm talking about, but I can tell you that in the UK - that isn't the case. In the past, you could become a journalist on a whim and on merit without qualifications. Now the degree in journalism is just the start- you need dozens of internships you've worked for free before anyone will even THINK of hiring you for money. So no, I don't think older people had to contend with teh same situation when they were younger. But that's not really the point, is it?

If someone loves their job heart and soul then sure - keep doing it 'til you die. Or, if you are in a job that is critically short on applicants. Sure. But on the whole people keep working past retirement and keep complaining about it, as though they still have no choice, while people new to the job market can't even get through the door. I'm merely suggesting that it would be a courtesy to retire and open up a much-needed job vacancy.


...And I've just realised how massively off-topic this has become...

Sparky

Edited by SparkyCola, 31 January 2013 - 11:29 AM.

Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#6 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:36 PM

Quote

The government when they define the age at which they expect people to retire, and start paying them a pension on the assumption that they have done so.


Quote

You can't live off Social Security here, not when you factor in medications and such and many of those who invested in 401K's took a major bath on them right at the time they'd be retiring.

Quote

With respect, I don't think this is relevant to my point.
I don't think this is an argument not to introduce new (and or young) employees to your business (whatever the business is). You cannot possibly expect any employee, no matter how valuable, or how much knowledge they have, to go on forever - it is simply bad management not to plan or take into account the hand-over and training of new employees. If that employee is that critical to the job, that's a huge risk (what happens when they go on holiday, get sick, leave, die, go on parental leave...?) - and to not deal with that risk is bad management.

Just look around at the bad management on a global scale from governments to corporation. Here in the US we are gonna hit the wall on skilled Trades. Why? Because companies don't want to train and pay for any apprenticeship programs. They want ready made workers and pay them on the cheap to boot. They are looking at the bottom line NOW, not down the road and in a global economy, you can insource people on the cheap from other countries or outsource it on the cheap to other countries. Me have people with advanced degrees who will be in debt until they die working in grocery stores or Walmart.

Quote

I don't understand this alleged insult. It's not about owing anyone anything - it's about consideration for others. If you are 80 years old and have plenty of money and could easily retire - why not give someone else a chance? Why not start now training someone new? In a time when it's incredibly difficult for young people to get on the first rung of the career ladder, having people who don't need to be working and don't need the money is taking up places. These young people need the money and need the first step on the career ladder. They don't have the chance to work out ANYTHING on their own merits if there are no spaces in the first place.

If the old people now, genuinely had to contend with the same problem then they know exactly what i'm talking about, but I can tell you that in the UK - that isn't the case. In the past, you could become a journalist on a whim and on merit without qualifications. Now the degree in journalism is just the start- you need dozens of internships you've worked for free before anyone will even THINK of hiring you for money. So no, I don't think older people had to contend with teh same situation when they were younger. But that's not really the point, is it?

If someone loves their job heart and soul then sure - keep doing it 'til you die. Or, if you are in a job that is critically short on applicants. Sure. But on the whole people keep working past retirement and keep complaining about it, as though they still have no choice, while people new to the job market can't even get through the door. I'm merely suggesting that it would be a courtesy to retire and open up a much-needed job vacancy..

...And I've just realised how massively off-topic this has become....


LOL...thread drift can take you in odd directions can't it? I think what Rhea is referring to (at least herein the US) is this notion that you should just get the hell out of the way so someone can have your job and (again here) older people are struggling mightily too and with medical bills that most young, healthy 20 somethings don't have to deal with yet and along with helping aging parents in some cases and also trying to help their grown children too...We are not sitting pretty. Sometimes companies stay with older workers because they've had bad experiences with younger ones (where I work, they haven't been reliable) show up late, if at all and generally weren't good workers, so they stuck with older workers. In other situations they will can the older worker under any pretense possible so they can replace them with a younger worker with not much experience but who has a degree and will work dirt cheap. The job market has become adversarial here. Used to be older workers would mentor younger ones who eventually would take over when that person retired. Now longtime employees know that they are more often than not, training their cheap replacement (and not in 5 years but in a month).
Posted Image
Posted Image

#7 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:50 PM

What an interesting thread drift.  Lin, I agree with what you've just said.  I also think that in some cases, it's the decline of unions that has contributed to this.  Unions literally had "pay for experience" categories.  Apprentice to Journeyman weren't just cool names, they meant something, and unions were strong enough to enforce [through contracts] the line of advancement [so to speak].

BTW, I'm not suggesting that the decline of unions has been because of "union busting".  I actually believe that if unions had kept up with the times, actually served their membership, etc, that people would not have wanted to leave unions and go it alone.  But, the truth is, that in many cases, the competition for jobs we now see is because of the decline in the power of organized labor and the rise of Corporate autonomy.  Companies are never going to care about workers.  Their eye is always on the bottom line.  And for the most part, that's fine.  That's exactly what any successful company would do.  

It was and always will be the job of labor to organize itself to be as powerful a force as possible.  IMHO, unions forgot who and what they are and began to think of themselves as Corporations with no accountability to the actual labor force they represent.  They sought to maintain the power of the union itself, not the labor force it was unionized to protect.  That might sound like splitting hairs, but I think that anyone in labor, who is represented by an effective union, NEVER minds paying his or her dues. At least I never did when I was in a union [both Teamsters and Retail Clerks].   If and when a union member begins to resent union dues, it's because the union is failing the members.

Once that breakdown happened, it became easy to put a wedge in-between unions and their members.  Once that was done, labor had no strength.  Once that happened, Corporations could hire and fire at will, pay cheap wages, and make competition for jobs a blood sport.  

Notice, Wall Street isn't suffering during this recession.  Big Corporations aren't suffering on their bottom line.  The only place anyone is hurting is jobs, and quite frankly since labor no longer has any power, Management will keep the competition at an all time high in order to continue to be autonomous.  Broke and hungry people will be thankful for a job and suffer with the poor wages and no benefits.

And that's just the way Management likes it imo.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#8 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 06:13 AM

interesting that with the conversational drift in this thread I should find this link this morning--

http://finance.yahoo...-022900672.html

Edited by Tricia, 03 February 2013 - 10:37 AM.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#9 FarscapeOne

FarscapeOne
  • Islander
  • 3,891 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 04:49 PM

In regards to that link, for the average American, retirement is not only a fading dream, it's a complete fantasy.  To be honest, since Social Security will end up bankrupt long before my generation reaches reitrement age, I think the government should stop taking money out of our checks for Social Security because we're NEVER going to see any of it.

#10 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 06:41 PM

It's a shame but anymore a person can't retire because of the high cost of living. :down:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#11 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:14 PM

Apples and oranges- one, the Scott and Sparky thing, you'r not opposed, just speaking of two things, the one is the overall lifestyle, the other is the specific job position in a specific employer and who is in there and who is unemployed because of needing the position and the pay but not as many openings (or not as many without the 'Must have specific experience in the exact thing we need doing' like had the exact job before)

yes it is better to be active whether you use backroom something to keep your deputy director of whatever in your Org or Corp thing past the 64 age, or if you stay partner in your mid or small biz, or if you built a great personal brand and you can semi retire and keep that plus slow down a bit, call yer own tune, and add fam time and a hobby like sailing yer ketch six times a year ............... but many just do not have those choices, so must look at the paycheck thing and just who gets that post?

and yes I address in my post there about the master's worth it thing, there are twentysomethings not getting the job beside the 42 guy not getting the job, but Sparky is specifically addressing the twentysomethings in the job market , the position, need the weekly pay, need the cv building, and some 66 are in some o those positions, so who gets it? it is frustrating,there are 24 yrs job seeking for two years, just like some 54 yrs job seeking for two years what I call middle age long term job seekers- which brings me to my next point on here>

Remember there are Two different pension situations we see here> 'member that the UK and US have different things> in USA, it is true that folks pay into the SS sys and then when they hit the age they cannot live on that, not with rents what they are - unless you got the good groove with home ownership, leveraged up to a 800000 house then sold to buy cottage and stash monies from sale to pay yer lower mortgage at workable level ;) - digressing there; rents what they are, or a 2600 p mo. mortgage with tax collected, and what college fund for yer kid is now,my whole 4 yrs were 260000 on daddy, now it's 110000 or more and poor daddies all round jus canna do it you need a partial scholarship or fellowship at least! and mondo ginormous uni debts too- but digressing, this stuff is too complicated for a poor forum system, takes weeks of writing or chat in clubs and associations

so canna live on SS- so need the corp or org pensions over the years, but how if you fall into the whole job rotating redundancy thing, the corps and orgs get people out after six years, 'hey let's get some fresh blood in here' and no one can stay in a position long enough for those pensions, 'Hey let's replace this gal(or guy) who's only five years from pension Hey we can save, and bring in this new fresh blood too Hey it's for Innovative! the new corp catch Word!'

in UK they have a national pension scheme so you can become a lifelong pensioner; you pay and they do too, over all the years, across jobs or orgs or corps, it's your national account, so then you can be out and not take up a spot from some 29 yr old, so both R happy- but That sys is now under pressures from all the rising costs and not rising REVS and all the cut, save, climate and attitudes these days- Sheesh the SS and the UK pensions and the 401s - Let's NOT forget th e 401s in all this-

Used to be the corps would match in 401, you put in 2000 and THey put in 2000, so yer thing grows; but hey Not anymore! cut costs, so now it's all up to you, but you R out of job each four years, all the fresh rotating the hirers do so they can Look good on their Bonus reviews! so yer 401 is now out of luck ; plus all these accounts get raided, by org or by corp, or by gov, or by you jus to survive; so hey THat's now out of the equations, so people suffer and must die younger just to equate the damn equation!
so,
it's tough Out there eh yeah?

"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#12 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,083 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 10:58 PM

Ah, yes, spoken like a young fella :)

Listen here, laddie- I found out the hard way that when I retired, I was busier than when I was working. Everyone I know automatically assumed I had nothing but time on my hands- time they'd gladly make use of.

I should point out that we don't GET social security here. The very notion is unheard-of. We . . . er . . . call it Social Services. No, that ain't right. We call it Social Insurance. Whatever THAT's supposed to mean. Like society is insured or something.

Anyway, on Canada Pension you're allowed to work, and I do. I work odd jobs (or is that "off" jobs?), giving the mow-lawner and the blow-snower a workout. I make jams, jellies, fruit spreads and pies from my garden, and sell 'em or trade 'em.

I have to say that city-slickers and suburban dwellers are insane to remain where they are, once they're newly-minted retired. The taxes and the cost of living are FAR too high. Move to a rural area and everything is automatically more affordable, plus you know all your neighbours, and people tend to look after one another.

Just sayin'.

Edited by gsmonks, 02 February 2013 - 11:00 PM.

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#13 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:09 PM

Like many other women who took nothing but crap in the workplace, I am thriving in retirement.  Even the decades I spent in poverty, recovering from my injuries, in school trying to get back into the workplace, were better than patiently trying to show the jerks I could do the job in the hope (now recognized as forlorn, back in the day) that soon they'd recognize that I can (obviously) do the job they kept saying I couldn't do, and accept me.  And while I'm glad that every path I broke ground for has been easier for the women who came after, I wish I had had an easier time.

Retirement, which came early for me, helped me recover in mind and body and spirit, helped, of course, by the comp&pen the VA provided, the back pay being enough to justify home ownership.  Now I just hope that Boehner and his merry band of disabled veteran haters don't f**k it up for me.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#14 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:58 PM

I have always been resigned to the fact that I will no doubt be working until the day I drop or simply can't work anymore. I think alot of us know we will never be able to retire and afford to live, so it's not a question of older people being selfis and not making room in the workforce for younger workers, it's simply not having a choice. Perhaps if companies and shareholders were as concerned about their companies products and employees as they are about that extra dime profit they're screaming for, we'd be able to step aside. Perhaps if Social Security hadn't been endlessly raided and left with IOU's, perhaps if Wall Street spent less time looking for ways to screw everyone to the advantage of a few our 401K's might be in better shape, perhaps if the price of everything wasn't sky high (gee I thought all that offshoring was suposed to make them competetive and bring down prices), perhaps if CEO's and Corporate boards we rewarded on merit and performance instead of corporate cronism (each deciding the wages of the others because they sit on each others board of directers)... Let's be honest though, none of that is likely to happen is it? So we're left fighting each other over their table scraps until people get fed up enough to do something about it. It could be the Boston Tea Party part two but not with tea going into the harbor.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#15 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,083 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:57 PM

View PostLin731, on 03 February 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

I have always been resigned to the fact that I will no doubt be working until the day I drop or simply can't work anymore. I think alot of us know we will never be able to retire and afford to live, so it's not a question of older people being selfis and not making room in the workforce for younger workers, it's simply not having a choice. Perhaps if companies and shareholders were as concerned about their companies products and employees as they are about that extra dime profit they're screaming for, we'd be able to step aside. Perhaps if Social Security hadn't been endlessly raided and left with IOU's, perhaps if Wall Street spent less time looking for ways to screw everyone to the advantage of a few our 401K's might be in better shape, perhaps if the price of everything wasn't sky high (gee I thought all that offshoring was suposed to make them competetive and bring down prices), perhaps if CEO's and Corporate boards we rewarded on merit and performance instead of corporate cronism (each deciding the wages of the others because they sit on each others board of directers)... Let's be honest though, none of that is likely to happen is it? So we're left fighting each other over their table scraps until people get fed up enough to do something about it. It could be the Boston Tea Party part two but not with tea going into the harbor.

Getting by once you retire is a matter of location, location, location.

I bought the house I'm living in for $6500, Lin731. Lots in this town are $250 unserviced, $500 serviced (gas, sewer, electrical, water). Before that I was living in the city, had cheap rent, and the building I was living in got bought by rat-faced Calgary real-estate weasels who proceeded to flip the place each year until we were all royally screwed.

Getting out of the city, in and of itself, was a huge improvement money-wise. Most people here have big gardens, taxes are lower, our rush hour traffic looks like city traffic at 3:00 AM on a Sunday, and the hits just keep on coming.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Social Security, Retirement, 2013

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users