PDA

View Full Version : Workers over 50 are the new 'unemployables'



Cigar
02-26-2013, 09:24 AM
Unemployed workers in their fifties are increasingly finding themselves stuck in limbo.

On one hand, they're too young to retire. They may also be too old to get re-hired.

Call them the "new unemployables," say researchers at Boston College.

Older workers were less likely to lose their jobs during the recession, but those who were laid off are facing far tougher conditions than their younger colleagues. Workers in their fifties are about 20% less likely than workers ages 25 to 34 to become re-employed, according to an Urban Institute study published last year.

"Once you leave the job market, trying to get back in it is a monster," said Mary Clair Matthews, 58, who has teetered between bouts of unemployment and short temp jobs for the last five years. She applies for jobs every week, but most of the time, her applications hit a brick wall.



http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/26/news/economy/over-50-unemployables/index.html


So here's a brilliant idea ... let's move the retirement age to 67; I'm sure all those Job Creators will hire you ... yea Brilliant :tongue3:

Peter1469
02-26-2013, 09:28 AM
In a weak economy this is bound to happen. Let's strengthen the economy and get back to the pre-crash employment numbers. These people would then have lots of opportunity.

Cigar
02-26-2013, 09:31 AM
In a weak economy this is bound to happen. Let's strengthen the economy and get back to the pre-crash employment numbers. These people would then have lots of opportunity.

Corporations have already made the adjustments to getting more with less and paying less with more hours.

Peter1469
02-26-2013, 10:04 AM
Corporations have already made the adjustments to getting more with less and paying less with more hours.


Because of misguided regulations such as Obamacare and others.

Cigar
02-26-2013, 10:05 AM
Because of misguided regulations such as Obamacare and others.

What ... ?

Come-on ... the plan just went into affect.

Peter1469
02-26-2013, 10:24 AM
What ... ?

Come-on ... the plan just went into affect.

And they are waiting to see exactly what the cost will be. That is the point.

Mainecoons
02-26-2013, 11:00 AM
Every time government makes it more and more expensive to employ people, businesses of all sorts, not just corporations, will look to hire people with lower government costs.

Just more results of your misguided, economically ignorant "thinking" Cigar. You think that these policies can be heaped on the backs of business and workers without limit and there will be no consequences.

Wrong.

nic34
02-26-2013, 11:03 AM
Retire at 55: Lower Social Security Eligibility to 55; Raise Benefits By 15%

Sounds crazy, right?

But only because the One Percent and the Media have moved the Overton Window so far to the right that we can no longer see out of the room and into reality.
The reality is that we need to move older workers out of the workforce so that young people can get the job experience and training that they need.
The reality is that we need to raise benefits to match the shadow cost of living increases over the last thirty years that government has excluded from Social Security by conveniently leaving out skyrocketing costs in housing, food and fuel from its calculations.
The best thing about this?

It's also a tremendous economic stimulus that will flush billions of dollars into the consumer economy, while providing security for old people and opportunities to work for the young.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/10/1118528/-Lower-Social-Security-Eligibility-to-55-Raise-Benefits-By-15

Chris
02-26-2013, 11:27 AM
Every time government makes it more and more expensive to employ people, businesses of all sorts, not just corporations, will look to hire people with lower government costs.

Just more results of your misguided, economically ignorant "thinking" Cigar. You think that these policies can be heaped on the backs of business and workers without limit and there will be no consequences.

Wrong.

The other aspect of this is government raising unemployment insurance and other benefits to the unemployed so high it pays not to go back to work. Once you stop looking for work you're not counted and the employment numbers look better.

Chris
02-26-2013, 11:30 AM
Retire at 55: Lower Social Security Eligibility to 55; Raise Benefits By 15%

Sounds crazy, right?

But only because the One Percent and the Media have moved the Overton Window so far to the right that we can no longer see out of the room and into reality.
The reality is that we need to move older workers out of the workforce so that young people can get the job experience and training that they need.
The reality is that we need to raise benefits to match the shadow cost of living increases over the last thirty years that government has excluded from Social Security by conveniently leaving out skyrocketing costs in housing, food and fuel from its calculations.
The best thing about this?

It's also a tremendous economic stimulus that will flush billions of dollars into the consumer economy, while providing security for old people and opportunities to work for the young.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/10/1118528/-Lower-Social-Security-Eligibility-to-55-Raise-Benefits-By-15

The media has moved to the right? Surely you jest!


The reality is that we need to move older workers out of the workforce so that young people can get the job experience and training that they need.

Why does government need to do what happens naturally?


The reality is that we need to raise benefits to match the shadow cost of living increases over the last thirty years that government has excluded from Social Security by conveniently leaving out skyrocketing costs in housing, food and fuel from its calculations.

And the money will come from where?


It's also a tremendous economic stimulus that will flush billions of dollars into the consumer economy, while providing security for old people and opportunities to work for the young.

Demonstrate a multiplier effect--and, no, not in projections or computer models based on projections, but on actual data.

Mainecoons
02-26-2013, 11:34 AM
Daily Kos

:rofl:

Chris
02-26-2013, 11:50 AM
No doubt Marx is to the right of them.

Mainecoons
02-26-2013, 11:58 AM
I suspect that even Marx has figured out that which is a total mystery to the magical thinker, Nic.

You can't just keep printing money without end.

This is a great solution--force the people in the work force who are the most skilled, educated and motivated out and replace them with the stupid young like Nic.

That should create a productivity boom to end all productivity booms, eh?

Let's see, we have Social Security that is already headed into insolvency as the number of workers paying into it per retiree falls like a rock. Obviously, if you are of the "double down on failure" school of thought, you exacerbate that situation and use printed money to pay for it.

Only to a magical thinker.

:rofl:

nic34
02-26-2013, 12:05 PM
Or you could just keep shoveling money to the banksters...

That kind of socialism the right has no problem with.

http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2012/08/09/suddenly-quantitative-easing-for-the-people-seems-possible/

Mainecoons
02-26-2013, 12:06 PM
Well no one wants to do that and that has nothing to do with what you and the Daily Kos fools are suggesting. So we'll assume you got your butt kicked as usual on the topic so now you're trying to divert to another one.

:rofl:

Cigar
02-26-2013, 12:07 PM
I suspect that even Marx has figured out that which is a total mystery to the magical thinker, Nic.

You can't just keep printing money without end.

This is a great solution--force the people in the work force who are the most skilled, educated and motivated out and replace them with the stupid young like Nic.

That should create a productivity boom to end all productivity booms, eh?

Let's see, we have Social Security that is already headed into insolvency as the number of workers paying into it per retiree falls like a rock. Obviously, if you are of the "double down on failure" school of thought, you exacerbate that situation and use printed money to pay for it.

Only to a magical thinker.

:rofl:

Just a thought, how many Business Owners you personally know who are "forced to replace the most skilled, educated and motivated out of the workforce"?

Chris
02-26-2013, 12:12 PM
Or you could just keep shoveling money to the banksters...

That kind of socialism the right has no problem with.

http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2012/08/09/suddenly-quantitative-easing-for-the-people-seems-possible/

Nic, who bailed out the banksters?

Chris
02-26-2013, 12:16 PM
I suspect that even Marx has figured out that which is a total mystery to the magical thinker, Nic.

You can't just keep printing money without end.

This is a great solution--force the people in the work force who are the most skilled, educated and motivated out and replace them with the stupid young like Nic.

That should create a productivity boom to end all productivity booms, eh?

Let's see, we have Social Security that is already headed into insolvency as the number of workers paying into it per retiree falls like a rock. Obviously, if you are of the "double down on failure" school of thought, you exacerbate that situation and use printed money to pay for it.

Only to a magical thinker.

:rofl:

Marx was actually a classical economist, even borrowed his labor theory from Adam Smith, so I'm sure he knew this as he instead counted on capitalism to collapse. Socialist gave up on that some time back, it took Keynes to come up with this nonsense about borrowing to stimulate the economy, something no one has demonstrated works.

nic34
02-26-2013, 12:20 PM
That's right, the taxpayers... that socialize bankster losses.... while being kicked out of their once rightside up homes ...

Now comes the: " it was Obama's idea ".....

Deadwood
02-26-2013, 12:23 PM
Every time government makes it more and more expensive to employ people, businesses of all sorts, not just corporations, will look to hire people with lower government costs.

Just more results of your misguided, economically ignorant "thinking" Cigar. You think that these policies can be heaped on the backs of business and workers without limit and there will be no consequences.

Wrong.

Yep.

We have found here that payroll taxes really affect the demographics of who is unemployed.

No one seems to care there is blatant age discrimination; no one wants experience, they want cheap.

They don't realize it costs in the long term. I just did a writing project in an hour an a half, it's delivered and paid for. My main competitor gave them his submission three days after the deal was done. Nothing beats experience.'

Cigar
02-26-2013, 12:27 PM
Yep.

We have found here that payroll taxes really affect the demographics of who is unemployed.

No one seems to care there is blatant age discrimination; no one wants experience, they want cheap.

They don't realize it costs in the long term. I just did a writing project in an hour an a half, it's delivered and paid for. My main competitor gave them his submission three days after the deal was done. Nothing beats experience.'

You make a great case for education and educating the American Workforce ... but good luck with that when we're shitting on the educators and access to the few that remain.

Mainecoons
02-26-2013, 12:32 PM
You and Nic are a very strong argument for shitting on so-called educators who managed apparently to grant you a number of degrees without teaching you how to spell or write understandably, let alone allowed you to graduate with such economic ignorance that you can't understand that if government saddles employment with a bunch of costs, there is going to be less employment.

You can "educate" until hell freezes over but if the employers have left town, there's still no jobs. The leftist/Democrat philosophy of "love the employee hate the employer" has come home to roost.

nic34
02-26-2013, 01:38 PM
I'll refrain from posting my personal thoughts...

Enjoy the continued failure of trickle down.

Peter1469
02-26-2013, 02:14 PM
This attack on trickle down is a bit old, isn't is?

Cigar
02-26-2013, 02:27 PM
You and Nic are a very strong argument for shitting on so-called educators who managed apparently to grant you a number of degrees without teaching you how to spell or write understandably, let alone allowed you to graduate with such economic ignorance that you can't understand that if government saddles employment with a bunch of costs, there is going to be less employment.

You can "educate" until hell freezes over but if the employers have left town, there's still no jobs. The leftist/Democrat philosophy of "love the employee hate the employer" has come home to roost.

Ever try reading source code all day ... oh wait ... I guess not, you're Political Forum Spellchecker, mother must be proud of her little pussy cat.

BTW ... I am an employer ... and I'm still employee centric.

So take your angry bitter ass and dip it in some cold water ... kitty kitty :laugh:

Cigar
02-26-2013, 02:38 PM
This attack on trickle down is a bit old, isn't is?

Not the affects ... they live on.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 02:39 PM
Not the affects ... they live on.

In one of if not the highest standard of living in the world.

Mainecoons
02-26-2013, 02:40 PM
I'll refrain from posting my personal thoughts...

Enjoy the continued failure of trickle down.

I will and I'll also enjoy looking at you and Cigar and realizing the failure of giving government schools and their unionized leftist "teachers" more money.

:grin:

Cigar
02-26-2013, 02:46 PM
I will and I'll also enjoy looking at you and Cigar and realizing the failure of giving government schools and their unionized leftist "teachers" more money.

:grin:

If you're "looking" at me, then you'll know what I'm asking you to do. :laugh:

Cigar
02-26-2013, 02:47 PM
In one of if not the highest standard of living in the world.

So you have nothing to bitch about ...

Mister D
02-26-2013, 02:48 PM
So you have nothing to bitch about ...

I'm not a materialist nor am I bitching so you just failed like a black man in highschool. :rofl:


Anyway, you stand corrected.

Chris
02-26-2013, 04:27 PM
That's right, the taxpayers... that socialize bankster losses.... while being kicked out of their once rightside up homes ...

Now comes the: " it was Obama's idea ".....

Here's the thing, though, nic, the banksters cannot force those losses on consumers who are free to choose their products and services. When government, be it Bush or be it Obama, bail the banksters out, we, the people, are forced to pay their loses. What a system it is, banksters gain wealth, politicians gain power, and the people sink lower and lower, moneyless and powerless.

Put together the ideas of the tea parties and occupy wall street and you've got something to fight crony capitalism.

nic34
02-26-2013, 04:44 PM
I'll give you that the government is an enabler.... that makes them "too big to fail" - but the practices of predatory lending, mortgage backed securities, mortgage bundling and other derivatives that was the primary cause of the ongoing economic crisis... that's all banksters.

Chris
02-26-2013, 05:47 PM
This attack on trickle down is a bit old, isn't is?

Reflexive. But it amazes me that those who reject trickle down accept trickle up when both are based on Keynesian economics.

Chris
02-26-2013, 05:51 PM
I'll give you that the government is an enabler.... that makes them "too big to fail" - but the practices of predatory lending, mortgage backed securities, mortgage bundling and other derivatives that was the primary cause of the ongoing economic crisis... that's all banksters.

I'll give you that those were causes, but the primary cause goes back to government regulations that incentivize such behavior, encouraging it and to this day never doing anything about it--nothing, absolutely nothing has changed in that regard.

Here, give a listen to Cathy O'Neil on Wall St and Occupy Wall Street (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/02/cathy_oneil_on.html):


Cathy O'Neil, data scientist and blogger at mathbabe.org, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about her journey from Wall Street to Occupy Wall Street. She talks about her experiences on Wall Street that ultimately led her to join the Occupy Wall Street movement. Along the way, the conversation includes a look at the reliability of financial modeling, the role financial models played in the crisis, and the potential for shame to limit dishonest behavior in the financial sector and elsewhere.

Dr. Who
02-26-2013, 08:56 PM
I suspect that even Marx has figured out that which is a total mystery to the magical thinker, Nic.

You can't just keep printing money without end.

This is a great solution--force the people in the work force who are the most skilled, educated and motivated out and replace them with the stupid young like Nic.

That should create a productivity boom to end all productivity booms, eh?

Let's see, we have Social Security that is already headed into insolvency as the number of workers paying into it per retiree falls like a rock. Obviously, if you are of the "double down on failure" school of thought, you exacerbate that situation and use printed money to pay for it.

Only to a magical thinker.

:rofl:
My field, insurance claims, is one of those that is beginning to face and will be increasingly facing a huge shortage in skilled employees. Unfortunately, although the Universities are graduating plenty of "so called" educated people, fewer and fewer are willing to put in the effort that the older workers put in to the job. They are not really as educated as they think, have unrealistic salary expectations and don't really like the idea of working their way up the ladder. As a result they don't stay in a job more than five years. Five years is about how long it takes to properly train an employee and begin realizing results, so unless you are talking about a huge claims operation, young workers are not popular. Hence the reason my field is dominated by older workers.

lynn
03-06-2013, 08:49 AM
Its a win for the insurance companies for employers to not hire people over 50 since your chances of dying increase for cancer and heart disease. It sucks for the individual.