Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The article is focused on the structural problems being created by our aging population.
No kidding. I've known that for 10 years now. Why do you think I keep saying your economic future is bleak?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
As you note the record number of people on welfare will be competing with the elderly for resources especially Medicaid resources as in nursing homes.
And the monsters you created will turn on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
Big picture solutions are not even being discussed,...
But, of course! That would be an admission of failure, and then, too, it's always someone else's problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalisiin
It doesn't help that so many jobs pay such a poverty wage as to require people to be on welfare. Most welfare recipients DO WORK.
No one is required to be on welfare.
Welfare is a choice, and specifically, a choice based on a false sense of entitlement.
There is no possible way to legally, morally or ethically justify the fantasy that you deserve your own personal private residence, in the same way that you cannot possibly justify legally, morally or ethically that you are entitled to a given standard of living.
A family of three that cannot "afford" to buy food needs to share living accommodations in a two or three bedroom apartment with a single person, or another family of two or three or four, so that they can have money to afford to buy food.
And just to prove how uneducated and ill-informed you are, there are places in the US where a single person with an annual income of $53,490 qualifies for tax-payer subsidized HUD Section 8, while in other areas of the US, a single person with an annual income of $9,101 will be denied HUD Section 8 housing for having too much income.
For those who are poor in math, $9,101 works out to $4.55/hour assuming 2,000 work-hours annually.
Perhaps one day, you'll realize their are 1,539 separately functioning economies in the united States.
Note that your government already realizes that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garthur
When I hear that boomers are going to work till they are 80 or till they die, my first question is , what makes it their choice, most companies will hire a 40 or 50 somethings over an 80 something.
Most companies will hire a reliable worker who shows up on time, works the entire shift, doesn't play around with their 'droid the whole time, and that does not require a lot of training.
At present, only Boomers fit the bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Boomers were born and raised in a post-WWII bubble of USA industrial supremacy and dominance of global commerce. It was an historical anomaly for one country to have such dominance. But by the 70s that dominance had ended.
That is concise and accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
The problem is that we Boomers did not realize in our gut that we were riding a bubble that could not last forever. We thought that was the world as it was, so we did not develop the frugal mentality and saving habits that our Great-Depression-and-then-Effing-World-War parents had.
Even when it broke in the 70s, we didn't understand what was happening. It was like the grasshopper not understanding what falling leaves means.
And why would you not consider the fact that everyone was being bombarded by government propaganda?
It's often hard to see the truth when you are constantly told lies.
You have a paradigm shift in the late 1890s, from Central/South America to Southeast Asia. That includes everything from your obsession with the Philippines to the colonization of China, to constant conflicts with Japan even before WW II.
That paradigm shifts again in the late 1960s.
Your "Neo-Cons" -- who at the time were called Social Democrats and then as now control your State Department, most of your Alphabet Agencies and run the White House -- created an exit strategy for Vietnam, closed nearly all military bases in Southeast Asia, reduced troop levels in Korea, sent a dove with an olive branch to China, and then got the US off of the Gold Standard and onto the Petro-Dollar with a new focus on the Middle East.
And that's where you've been ever since.
The fact that the US was forced to abandon the Gold Standard is telling indeed, but how they sold it to you was nothing but fun-filled propaganda.
So how are people supposed to know that the 1970s is a Turning Point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
Not sure the data supports the pattern of early Boomer retirement at all. In fact the number retiring and drawing SS is increasing at age 62
In December 2012, you had 7,346,000 "early retirees" drawing Social Security benefits. That figure also includes young survivors, so early retirees do not account of all 7.3 Million.
In October 2013, that number had declined to 7,180,000 early retirees and young survivors.
As of November 2013, it had increased to 7,200,000 early retirees and young survivors.
If we examine LNU05000097, we find that since July, only 293,000 Aged 65+ have left the work-force.
Contrast that with the 20-24 group where 828,000 have left the work-force over the same period.
That averages 58,600 per month or roughly 1,950 per day.....which is not the same thing as everyone screaming "13,000 Americans reach retirement age every day."
It's well-established that Boomers are not retiring in the same patterns as previous Generations, and that they never intended to follow the pattern of previous Generations.
Where do you think Boomer spending will go?
Healthcare and Hospitality, or Retail and Manufacturing?
Is it just me, or are these two statements out of balance?
I tell you what I get from it:
"I can replace me and my spouse, but, there's too many people on the planet, so YOU shouldn't replace yourself."
That's not the intent ...
Conventional wisdom states that as part of growing up, accidents happen, random acts of violence, depression leading to suicide, disease, etc. are all the dangers that children face growing up. Further, genetic abnormalities at birth can complicate future reproduction, like being born gay (or "choosing to be gay" as some people would have it whatever, leads to the same result so don't argue with me), or having severe mental disabilities leading to inability to lead a normal life, being born without eggs or ability to produce sperm, or just plain old "never getting around to it."
And it is because of these dangers, genetic twists of fate, and paths in life that people take that the "2.2 children" comes about for perfect replacement of the population. The reality is more like 2.1 children are needed for replacement. Regardless of the real number, if every couple had only two children, then natural attrition would take over eventually and you would have declining population.
That is what I meant to say ... I can replace me and my wife but I won't go above the 2.2 children to grow the population, or at least, won't contribute to it. At the same time, a sharp contraction in the population a'la Japan or, in the future, China or Korea and many parts of Europe, aren't good, so a gradual wind-down is what is needed. No malice or snooty belief that my genes are any better suited than yours were implied.
Sorta glad to be one of the early Boomers. Sorta funny that the very low interest rates seniors hate, we may well be contributing to the creation of.
Whatever problems Boomers may be causing will be temporary and pass with their passing. They have contribited so much to this nation's economy over their lifetimes that the country can afford to support them for their senior years.
Thanks for posting this thread. I think we have big issues and few ideas. The debate on another thread regarding health care is illustrative of one major challenge for the nation ie. what are healthcare rights?
Another article in Bloomberg speaks to part of our problems and that is we don't want to think about our own deaths.
Bloomberg, has been running a great series on Retirement in the US along with a number of great related articles. Really helpful for analysis and personal planning. Anyone thinking Medicaid will be there to pay for there long term health care down the road is smoking something illegal in most states.
Whatever problems Boomers may be causing will be temporary and pass with their passing. They have contribited so much to this nation's economy over their lifetimes that the country can afford to support them for their senior years.
What ever we could have afforded has gone out the window in most states with the ACA. We have dramatically expanded Medicaid in many states and the elderly will be in competition with the poor. Pay some attention to NC which did not accept the expansion of Medicaid and the problems we already had with Medicaid. In some states you have to many people needing and not enough wage earners making enough to be taxed to pay for it.
Conventional wisdom states that as part of growing up, accidents happen, random acts of violence, depression leading to suicide, disease, etc. are all the dangers that children face growing up. Further, genetic abnormalities at birth can complicate future reproduction, like being born gay (or "choosing to be gay" as some people would have it whatever, leads to the same result so don't argue with me), or having severe mental disabilities leading to inability to lead a normal life, being born without eggs or ability to produce sperm, or just plain old "never getting around to it."
And it is because of these dangers, genetic twists of fate, and paths in life that people take that the "2.2 children" comes about for perfect replacement of the population. The reality is more like 2.1 children are needed for replacement. Regardless of the real number, if every couple had only two children, then natural attrition would take over eventually and you would have declining population.
That is what I meant to say ... I can replace me and my wife but I won't go above the 2.2 children to grow the population, or at least, won't contribute to it. At the same time, a sharp contraction in the population a'la Japan or, in the future, China or Korea and many parts of Europe, aren't good, so a gradual wind-down is what is needed. No malice or snooty belief that my genes are any better suited than yours were implied.
Well it SURE sounded that way.
On one hand you say there's TOO MANY people on the planet.
THEN, out of the other side of your mouth, you state your own intention to replace yourself and your spouse.
If EVERYONE did that, then how is the population going to go down? It wouldn't.
So the obvious conclusion one could draw from your two statements is a snooty "Well, my genes are better than the average, so I will replace me and my spouse...but some of you inferior folks should not reproduce, so that population, overall is lowered."
That said, I am 42 years old, not married, don't plan ever to be married, and have had no children...and now never will as I am no longer capable. Just never was the marryin kind of girl. I like my freedom too much.
My point being...you should be careful how you say things, because I just pointed out exactly how it would come across to most people who were actually paying attention.
Whatever problems Boomers may be causing will be temporary and pass with their passing. They have contribited so much to this nation's economy over their lifetimes that the country can afford to support them for their senior years.
Be nice if they said that about us X'ers. But so many opportunities were denied us due to about 30 years of fairly horrible economies beginning with Reagan, broken only in the mid-late 90's by CLINTON. Thrown back into the toilet by DUBYA.
Well it SURE sounded that way.
On one hand you say there's TOO MANY people on the planet.
THEN, out of the other side of your mouth, you state your own intention to replace yourself and your spouse.
If EVERYONE did that, then how is the population going to go down? It wouldn't.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but anyone who has lost a child knows that if every couple had only two children, the population would steadily diminish.
What ever we could have afforded has gone out the window in most states with the ACA. We have dramatically expanded Medicaid in many states and the elderly will be in competition with the poor. Pay some attention to NC which did not accept the expansion of Medicaid and the problems we already had with Medicaid. In some states you have to many people needing and not enough wage earners making enough to be taxed to pay for it.
Bullshyt.
Sorry, but I am in the healthcare business. Specifically, I am a Practice Management Specialist - which means that I work to be informed about laws, rules and regulations affecting doctors and their practices, so as to keep them in compliance with those laws.
So, let me clear up any misinformation you may have about the Medicaid expansion. Which some states stupidly refused.
For the first three years of the Medicaid expansion THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT pays ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the cost....meaning it costs the states NOTHING.
For the fourth and subsequent years, the Federal Government pays NINETY PERCENT of the cost...meaning states only on the hook for the final ten percent. and there's nothing in the law that says a state could not take the free three years and then drop it.
When people in non-participating states FIND OUT that in other states they could HAVE Medicaid, but in their state they CAN'T....and they find out it is because the skinflint, mean-spirited, heartless, poor-hating Republicans denied it to them - they will become lifelong Democratic voters.
AND THAT, RIGHT THERE, IS THE REAL REASON REPUBLICANS HATE OBAMACARE - DON'T EVEN LET THEM FOOL YOU.
I will point out that ACA, aka Obamacare, is a REPUBLICAN plan, which was thought up by the conservative Heritage Foundation!
What ever we could have afforded has gone out the window in most states with the ACA. We have dramatically expanded Medicaid in many states and the elderly will be in competition with the poor. Pay some attention to NC which did not accept the expansion of Medicaid and the problems we already had with Medicaid. In some states you have to many people needing and not enough wage earners making enough to be taxed to pay for it.
I have had a hard time responding to this because I fear you are right, and that is not a prospect I want to live to see. The unjustified enmity toward Boomers from younger generations suggests to me that there will be little sympathy if the Boomers get left out on the cold. I am a War Baby, a bit older than the first Boomers, and there aren't many of us, but I consider myself part of the Boomers anyway. Many in the younger generations don't hide the fact that they resent even our existence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
whatever, leads to the same result so don't argue with me), or having severe mental disabilities leading to inability to lead a normal life, being born without eggs or ability to produce sperm, or just plain old "never getting around to it." 
