Yeah there's some of you posters on here that like to throw out bs like that and can't back it up. Facts are better than hyperbole.
GOP con game? Or just dumb voting bloc?
- Thread starter Veer2Eternity
- Start date
http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2014/12/26/12-ways-to-survive-a-forced-early-retirement
When most workers plan for retirement, they expect to work until their full retirement age, which is 66 or 67 for people born after 1942, or even longer.
But some workers find themselves out of a job at an age when it's difficult to find another one - and at a time when they expected to be in their peak earning years.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/05/03/older-americans-forced-retirement-unemployed/
[/B]
The age discrimination. So some gave up and tapped their Social Security benefits -- becoming retirees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/your-money/laid-off-with-retirement-almost-in-sight.html?_r=0
Achieving financial security in retirement is hard enough for most working Americans. But for those who lost their jobs just as the finish line was within sight, the whole notion may now seem out of reach.
Older unemployed people face the double whammy of declining home values and an investment portfolio that has been treading water, at best. But they have also lost the one stabilizing factor that was supposed to see them through: a paycheck.
That has forced many of these people - and there are nearly two million of them over age 55 - to make tough decisions about how to make up for the lost income, especially since it is taking them substantially longer than their younger peers to find work. In December, the average time someone 55 or older was unemployed was 52.2 weeks, according to the Labor Department; more than 210,000 others have simply quit looking. It may mean that you need to consider taking your pension a bit early, or finding a part-time job.
When most workers plan for retirement, they expect to work until their full retirement age, which is 66 or 67 for people born after 1942, or even longer.
But some workers find themselves out of a job at an age when it's difficult to find another one - and at a time when they expected to be in their peak earning years.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/05/03/older-americans-forced-retirement-unemployed/
[/B]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/your-money/laid-off-with-retirement-almost-in-sight.html?_r=0
Achieving financial security in retirement is hard enough for most working Americans. But for those who lost their jobs just as the finish line was within sight, the whole notion may now seem out of reach.
Older unemployed people face the double whammy of declining home values and an investment portfolio that has been treading water, at best. But they have also lost the one stabilizing factor that was supposed to see them through: a paycheck.
That has forced many of these people - and there are nearly two million of them over age 55 - to make tough decisions about how to make up for the lost income, especially since it is taking them substantially longer than their younger peers to find work. In December, the average time someone 55 or older was unemployed was 52.2 weeks, according to the Labor Department; more than 210,000 others have simply quit looking. It may mean that you need to consider taking your pension a bit early, or finding a part-time job.
There's two huge problems with what you are arguing:
1. This is not a new trend; old people have been getting canned forever. Guess what? The labor force of 2005 included in a lot of retirees who would like to have continued working longer.
Seriously, it's 2015 and you're just figuring out that age discrimination might be forcing people out of the workforce?
2. Government insurance benefits curtail employment heavily at ages 62 and later because they provide a guaranteed minimum level of income. To the extent that people live longer, the % of people who are retired will increase even if everyone works as long as they want to because these benefits heavily influence desired retirement ages.
You reach the dumbest conclusions.
This post was edited on 4/8 5:30 PM by Neutron Monster
1. This is not a new trend; old people have been getting canned forever. Guess what? The labor force of 2005 included in a lot of retirees who would like to have continued working longer.
Seriously, it's 2015 and you're just figuring out that age discrimination might be forcing people out of the workforce?
2. Government insurance benefits curtail employment heavily at ages 62 and later because they provide a guaranteed minimum level of income. To the extent that people live longer, the % of people who are retired will increase even if everyone works as long as they want to because these benefits heavily influence desired retirement ages.
You reach the dumbest conclusions.
This post was edited on 4/8 5:30 PM by Neutron Monster
And you have a lot of strawmen.
When did I say this never happened before?
I said it is happening at an abnormally high rate. That is the case and no one has attempted to show otherwise.
You don't get to say something and ask others to disprove you. You need to learn the facts before you open your mouth or else you look like an idiot:
It's not hard to look up a BLS report. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/labor-force-projections-to-2022-the-labor-force-participation-rate-continues-to-fall.htm
The hilarity of talking about strawmen when your entire argument is something you made up with no basis in fact.
If this chart is accurate (I assume it is) I stand corrected that it is happening at an abnormally high rate.Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
You don't get to say something and ask others to disprove you. You need to learn the facts before you open your mouth or else you look like an idiot:
It's not hard to look up a BLS report. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/labor-force-projections-to-2022-the-labor-force-participation-rate-continues-to-fall.htm
The hilarity of talking about strawmen when your entire argument is something you made up with no basis in fact.
(See Veer, if shown to be wrong I admit it, you just never do. You just claim you have)
You did say I said things I didn't though and based your arguement on those strawmen statements.
Similar threads
