Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-12-2018, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Kansas
25,963 posts, read 22,138,411 times
Reputation: 26721

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli34 View Post
If you have a physical job, do you really want to be working until 75??
That is always my thought. Most here at C-D live in areas where manufacturing is dead, if they ever had it in the first place. We have manufacturing jobs here, 12 hours on your feet with constant moving, can include or even primarily be lifting 50 to 75 lbs. Maintenance jobs in manufacturing facilities include crawling under equipment, climbing ladders, carrying heavy tools. Many jobs require a LOT of physical strength that someone in their 70s does not have.

What happens in these cases, and many before age 70 is that they can no longer do the jobs for which they have skills, many suffer from injuries, arthritis, etc. so end up on disability.

Everyone doesn't have a desk job. Even in that case, while not all people lost mental efficiency, many do with advancing age and can become a liability to others on the job.

Anything past 70 is too much. While people are living longer, I think we are also losing a lot of people younger that have paid into the system and never used it. I cannot believe the number of people that have died before age 50 or 60. At 63, there is no way that I could work for 12 hours on my feet, and in 10 years..........

Maybe we just need to put Americans first. Illegal aliens and refugees are costing us billions, and we send "allowances" to nearly every country in the world while we have older people who can't afford both medication and food. Priority realignment is the answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2018, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,974 posts, read 75,229,826 times
Reputation: 66945
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
who said anything about, that raising the SOCIAL SECURITY AGE meant you had to work to that point
It's the reality most people face - they can't retire without Social Security.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067 View Post
Unless I hit the lotto or come into some decent money another way I don't see myself really getting to retire as a whole. I worked so many jobs when I was younger that paid under the table and moved too much to keep a job very long it wasn't until I it my 30's that I stayed in one place very long.


So either way I'm screwed.
I was never paid under the table, but there was and is an industry-wide transience in both of my careers (newspapers and non-profit fundraising). Neither industry pays very well (which I completely understand my career choices were mine alone, but those choices based on my skills have made it tricky to save enough to retire early, let alone at 65). Only one of the nine employers over my lifetime has offered any kind of pension - after 5 years, I got a check for $500 along with my pink slip.

So I can empathize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
Does anyone see the absurdity of a program designed for retirement that has become so dysfunctional that you now need to delay or keep people from retiring so that it may survive?
Why are so many corporate and public pension funds in trouble? It's not just Social Security.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinm View Post
Good luck trying to move up the corporate ladder with us "boomers" still there for another 20 years.
LOL - some of the young folks want us Boomers to die now. Imagine the outrage if we can't retire until 75. The youngest boomers wouldn't be retiring until 2039.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
What happens in these cases, and many before age 70 is that they can no longer do the jobs for which they have skills, many suffer from injuries, arthritis, etc. so end up on disability.
Even jobs not as strenuous as manufacturing and maintenance that are routinely open to seniors - home health care, retail cashier or clerk - require stamina and time on your feet. Even for a healthy 70-year-old, that might be too much. And often those jobs aren't full-time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2018, 09:43 AM
 
11,802 posts, read 5,804,343 times
Reputation: 14239
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
WHY????

why would the LOGICAL thing of raising it...just as life expectancy has been rising ???

if the design was it was granted at 65..while the (non-gender specific) life expectancy was 63.... don't you think it is logical to raise it??? life expectancy is now around 79.....why not raise it to the low 70's...it just makes sense.... not raising it is unreasonable and illogical
36 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of Long Island, New York - your location - and yet it's fine for everyone else to work into their 70's? People with hard physical jobs - do not have the strength or health by that age to continue working.

Let's raise the cap but not the payout. The % of people making $128,000 + back then was small compared with the amount of people making it today. Or if your net worth at retirement is over $1 million dollars - you can't collect what you put in - because really you don't need it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2018, 09:50 AM
 
13,651 posts, read 20,786,272 times
Reputation: 7653
Quote:
Why are so many corporate and public pension funds in trouble? It's not just Social Security.
Because people are living longer.

In and of itself, that is a good thing. Being alive usually beats being dead.

But Social Security and many pension funds were simply not designed to sustain people through decades of retirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2018, 10:19 AM
 
59,111 posts, read 27,340,319 times
Reputation: 14290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
What's your take on this?
It should be adjusted with the life expectancy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2018, 10:35 AM
 
19,654 posts, read 12,239,759 times
Reputation: 26458
They would all have to go on disability and unemployment. But they aren't going to be working, not most of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2018, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Florida
7,782 posts, read 6,394,423 times
Reputation: 15804
Trust me, job hunting in your 60s or 70s really sucks, big time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2018, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Boston
20,121 posts, read 9,032,117 times
Reputation: 18778
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee View Post
I wonder how many federal and state private industry taxpayers are needed to support you and your wife for possibly 30 years by providing you both a large retirement income and free health care premiums instead of using their income to support their own families, save for retirement, and pay for their health care premiums and deductibles? dozens and dozens.

government doesn't make money. the government's obligations are paid from tax revenue received from taxpayers or money borrowed from lenders.
that's the retirement deal the government offered me when I started. I could cut grass at a golf course from April-October and collect unemployment the rest of the year too if I wanted to. I have friends with similar pensions that do that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2018, 11:01 AM
 
1,209 posts, read 1,815,319 times
Reputation: 1591
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
SS was not designed to be your retirement...it was/is designed to SUPPLEMENT your retirement
It’s not designed to supplement MY retirement. I’m in my late 20s and I’ll never see a penny of what I am paying into the system. Social security probably won’t even be around in 40 to 50 years. Best to abolish it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2018, 11:15 AM
 
45,237 posts, read 26,464,208 times
Reputation: 24996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighty_Pelican View Post
It’s not designed to supplement MY retirement. I’m in my late 20s and I’ll never see a penny of what I am paying into the system. Social security probably won’t even be around in 40 to 50 years. Best to abolish it.
You're being made poorer today on the empty promise of getting some of it back tomorrow.
Good to see young people waking up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:33 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top