U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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)
 
Old 11-14-2016, 06:13 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
3,618 posts, read 1,631,616 times
Reputation: 6140

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wombleywomberly View Post
Very balanced and thoughtful. However, do you think the elderly will be able to perform the kind of work that illegals tend to do - and that's if enough of them leave, voluntarily or otherwise ?

Also, ageism is already an issue in hiring. I don't expect a great deal of support for labor discrimination cases from a Trump administration.

Thanks!
I'd start with the 2nd issue. Don't expect any support from the government on this. The problem with labor law enforcement at this time is succeeding in a labor lawsuit is a great way to never get hired again. If having Trump elected gets people to stop thinking the government is going to help them get a job, then we may have a great silver lining here.

Illegals can't get a normal job. Every company knows to do a background check on its employees. Even low level positions need a simple background check, mainly because their insurance will require it. Illegals get work because they will band together as a company to provide service jobs. Then the company will sell services to people. Whether it's harvesting, cleaning offices, cleaning hotels, caring for children etc. Most people won't know if they are using illegal labor.

The irony here is that it has forced many to be in a better position for the new economy. As jobs become more protected and benefits get more expensive even the status of permanent employment is becoming less common. Company A no longer plans on hiring a janitor anyway. They want to outsource this "non-core" item of their company and there's the traditional companies, and then these new companies that get the job done, but much cheaper. A contract is setup for service deliverables, and it's no longer any noise. If service is poor, they can simply end the contract and get a new supplier. It's far beyond menial jobs as well. Event Planning, Accounting, Payroll, Benefits, Marketing, Contract Manufacturing, Inside Sales....I met one guy with a very large printing company that no longer did anything except own the company and occasionally meet with clients. He'd outsourced every aspect of the company and was walking the tradeshow showing off an impressive build he'd just made for a major appliance maker. He was not small.

This is where I see the promise for retirees. They can be doers, and meet up to create these little companies just as illegals have done. They can find projects to help at. (My dad helps a pipe organ installer by sitting at the organ and pressing the key when they want him too which allows them to avoid climbing down each time...he's in his 70's and on oxygen in a town of 800.) Alternatively, my current client wants me to begin "in-sourcing" the various items that have been outsourced because coordination is breaking down, but he needs an older guy that's seen it from top to bottom. Once you start thinking about projects, and then groups, I think you can see more than fry guy at McDonalds....which is actually a very hot tiring job.

Finally, there's what I call family augmentation. Two people working regular jobs...school is over at 3:00...who picks up the kids? Who lets the dog out? Who can run to city hall with their office hours inside of the ones we have to work each day? People don't know how or have the time to cook, sew, care for their lawn, install new items, fix old items. Older people need to make sure they have their meds filled, pay the correct bills or just have some companionship. Have their kids that moved away pay. We'll totally be guilted into it and be thankful too.

Personally I'd love nothing more than to organize a bunch of retirees to go make money...I just don't have the time, but there are a million things to do. Get out, and see what's going on, see what needs doing. Turn off the TV. Stop writing letters to Congressmen complaining and worrying. You are a free citizen of the USA. The USA workforce is rapidly turning into an economy of people making their own work.

There's a million things to be done. What are you doing today? If you are conscious, you can be useful and someone will pay you for doing so.

 
Old 11-14-2016, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,084 posts, read 13,607,016 times
Reputation: 22142
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach View Post
Are you sure your figures are right? The US population in 2014 was pegged at 318.9 million, so that trillion dollar figure works out to $3.14 per person per year.

Also, do you have a source for your 70% claim? Choices can increase the odds of various ailments, sometimes a little and sometimes a lot. But just because being overweight increases the odds of a heart attack, not every overweight person who has one would have dodged it by not being overweight. I agree we should eat better, exercise and kick unhealthy habits like smoking and frequent excessive drinking to the curb but that 70% figure seems high.
I found his source, it's from the 'national healthcare underwriters' (I'm sure they have no motive make claims that might influence policy decisions and possibly create a higher premium for consumers who they assume have engaged in "bad lifestyle choices" )

That source attributes all obesity to a 'lifestyle' choice when in reality it may be at least partially caused by a metabolic disorder or as suggested by a Danish study obesity might be determined in childhood possibly by the use of antibiotics disrupting the normal bacteria in the gut

They then make a sweeping and unexplained claim that lifestyle behaviors lead to many serious chronic health conditions such as cancer, diabetes, heart and cardiovascular disease without acknowledging that there are many people who have those conditions and have led a very healthy lifestyle

The problem is I can't figure out how they arrvied at the 70% figure, the source they footnote doesn't explain it either, it merely throws out some costs for the increase in healthcare costs for smokers and obese people without any frame of reference and they then make this statement "Seventy percent of all health care costs are caused by unhealthy behavior, and the cost of these unhealthy behaviors is very high".

So, I can't prove or disprove the 70% figure but I won't accept it as fact without some solid analytical data
 
Old 11-14-2016, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Eugene, Oregon
9,162 posts, read 3,010,297 times
Reputation: 13834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
Privatization is a good idea. Should have been done years ago.
I'm a retiree and I support the idea.
The term, "privatization", is a republican code-word for destroying Social Security.
 
Old 11-14-2016, 06:57 PM
 
Location: San Diego
1,084 posts, read 714,070 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach View Post
Are you sure your figures are right? The US population in 2014 was pegged at 318.9 million, so that trillion dollar figure works out to $3.14 per person per year.

Also, do you have a source for your 70% claim? Choices can increase the odds of various ailments, sometimes a little and sometimes a lot. But just because being overweight increases the odds of a heart attack, not every overweight person who has one would have dodged it by not being overweight. I agree we should eat better, exercise and kick unhealthy habits like smoking and frequent excessive drinking to the curb but that 70% figure seems high.
Sorry but let's do the math again
 
Old 11-14-2016, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Eugene, Oregon
9,162 posts, read 3,010,297 times
Reputation: 13834
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach View Post
Are you sure your figures are right? The US population in 2014 was pegged at 318.9 million, so that trillion dollar figure works out to $3.14 per person per year.

Also, do you have a source for your 70% claim? Choices can increase the odds of various ailments, sometimes a little and sometimes a lot. But just because being overweight increases the odds of a heart attack, not every overweight person who has one would have dodged it by not being overweight. I agree we should eat better, exercise and kick unhealthy habits like smoking and frequent excessive drinking to the curb but that 70% figure seems high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slytrix View Post
Sorry, but let's do the math again: smack:
Yes, add three zeroes to the dividend (1 trillion, not 1 billion) and it becomes $3,135.77 per person, per year.
 
Old 11-14-2016, 08:52 PM
 
Location: southwestern USA
1,815 posts, read 1,759,890 times
Reputation: 2396
Congressman who agree to a cut in social security will be looking at writing their resumes.
 
Old 11-14-2016, 09:41 PM
 
9,198 posts, read 9,278,507 times
Reputation: 28813
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
Cutting taxes has always resulted in more money to the treasury and not less.

For example President Kennedy pushed through some pretty massive tax cuts in 1962


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU

Now let's see what happened in real life.

In 1961 we had wonderful high tax rates that many on the left would be very proud have.



After the tax cuts



Yes, tax rates went down in terms of percentage of GDP but income actually rose because there was more activity.

Every time we have had tax cuts we have enjoyed economic prosperity. It is not a zero sum game.

Mathjak?

So, if the tax rate is 0% that means that the treasury will collect the most money it ever has right?

My point is that you can't make a simple statement that cutting taxes will always result in more revenue. If I honestly wanted to answer that question, I would have a group of economists project out what the likely consequences of different tax policies would be on the amount of tax revenue actually collected.

That's what has always been missing from the Donald Trump campaign. That is a scholarly analysis demonstrating that his policies will achieve a particular goal. I'm afraid I need more than Trump simply saying that "My plans will be terrific" to believe in them.

Look, this country due to odd vagaries in our voting (an Electoral College) that allows the candidate with fewer votes than his opponent to win the election.

You can bet those of us that didn't vote for Trump will now hold his feet to the fire when it comes to all the silly general statements he made during this campaign.

The fun, the dishonesty, the name-calling are now over. Trump has to prove he can actually be President.
 
Old 11-14-2016, 11:20 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,047 posts, read 10,445,912 times
Reputation: 15683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McDonald View Post
The term, "privatization", is a republican code-word for destroying Social Security.
That's just silly.

Republicans have zero interest in destroying Social Security because it would destroy any chance of being re-elected.

Republicans -- and Democrats -- very much want to *save* Social Security.
 
Old 11-14-2016, 11:25 PM
 
2,630 posts, read 1,937,201 times
Reputation: 4597
Hillary Clinton, like her D cohorts in DC actually want to tax withdrawals from tax-deferred retirement funds at a higher level than regular income. They refer to IRA's and 401k's as "wealth." To be redistributed. Most of you don't even remember federal tax rates in the upper 50's and 60's. I do.
 
Old 11-15-2016, 12:11 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,289 posts, read 5,497,161 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinbrookNine View Post
Hillary Clinton, like her D cohorts in DC actually want to tax withdrawals from tax-deferred retirement funds at a higher level than regular income. They refer to IRA's and 401k's as "wealth." To be redistributed. Most of you don't even remember federal tax rates in the upper 50's and 60's. I do.
They were high in the fifties--along with a terrific growth rate.

Quote:
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower’s idea of a significant marginal rate cut was to push the top rate down to 91 percent from 92 percent. Corporate taxes hit 50 percent. Jobs proliferated, wages rose, and the economy prospered. Lately, several documentaries have tried to capture the period, including “Something Ventured,” about how the technology boom got its start.

The implications of this 1950s narrative are clear. High tax rates and the redistribution they might yield can stabilize us now, giving the economy “good directional stability,” to use an industry phrase for a 1950s car, the Nash Metropolitan. High rates can accelerate growth.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ican-nightmare

Resurrect Ike!
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.


Closed Thread

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 > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top