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.
what's the goal of this? pushing them out of the workforce? keeping them at home and out public areas? reduce the spread of the virus?
because it fails on all of these fronts.
are you forcing them to retire? what if they don't want to retire? i know I'm still going to be hustling after 50.
I never said make it mandatory.
It won't get them out of the public entirely, but it could significantly reduce the number of people they come in contact with on a daily basis.
How many people does an essential employee come within six feet of daily? Depends on the job.....but it could potentially be hundreds. (And BTW, I think six feet is probably an arbitrary number someone pulled out of their ass)
I don't think it has to be 100% foolproof or effective to be worthwhile......
I don't know if that would work or not. But think about this for a moment. I think when this is all said & done and we see actual #'s of people who passed away from covid-19 we will see the vast majority being over the age of 60 or with vulnerable. So we will look back and realize we sacrificed millions of jobs and lifestyles to protect the elderly. All while the same elderly is getting social security & medicare right now. Mean awhile so many people working today that are younger probably will have no social security. So basically we are protecting people that are living through our tax dollars (social security) & hurting our own future retirement options so they can be safe.
I'm not saying we should forget about them at all. I have elderly parents. But I think that one point we need to be honest here & make a point that if you're part of that vulnerable population you have go to stay home & out of connection with people who could make you sick so that we can get back to earning $ for our own retirement.
Early retirement would not be early or retired, since once the 18-49 crowd is laid up sick at home or in hospital the 50+ will have to work anyway.
Let's be clear on the concept: The issue is not the number of deaths, it's the number of people in hospital for 2-8 weeks and then another 2-4 weeks at home or at home sick for 2-4 weeks.
The hospitalization rate is 60.5 per 100,000 and in case no one gets it, you can't work if you're in hospital (although I'm absolutely certain some might think they should be working anyway).
I'm not talking about the age of those who contract it.....
I'm talking about the age of those who it affects more seriously......
Yes I know you can have death or serious complications at a younger age, but I'm talking averages here.
And on average, the people who die from it are over 50, and have some type of high risk health issues.
The incentive must include Medicare for those that retire early. Right now Medicare kicks in at age 65 for folks that aren't on disability.
There are a lot of people in the workforce today that have enough money to retire now but they stay working until age 65, until they qualify for Medicare at age 65. These folks would happily retire today if they qualified for Medicare, even if they had to pay a higher premium to get Medicare early.
Agreed.
Medicare age would also have to be adjusted.
Do I think this is a perfect solution?
Hell no, but I think it beats the tar out of the "universal basic income and single payer healthcare" idea.
I don't know if that would work or not. But think about this for a moment. I think when this is all said & done and we see actual #'s of people who passed away from covid-19 we will see the vast majority being over the age of 60 or with vulnerable. So we will look back and realize we sacrificed millions of jobs and lifestyles to protect the elderly. All while the same elderly is getting social security & medicare right now. Mean awhile so many people working today that are younger probably will have no social security. So basically we are protecting people that are living through our tax dollars (social security) & hurting our own future retirement options so they can be safe.
I'm not saying we should forget about them at all. I have elderly parents. But I think that one point we need to be honest here & make a point that if you're part of that vulnerable population you have go to stay home & out of connection with people who could make you sick so that we can get back to earning $ for our own retirement.
That's exactly what I'm proposing.
Helping older people stay home more and let younger, less vulnerable people take over their jobs and fund their own retirement to help the economy get back on it's feet.
Remember, There might be an awful lot of jobs that could take a very long time to come back.....if they ever do.
A lot of small to medium sizes businesses are going belly up or hanging on by a thread.
If you're going to start discriminating and kicking a group of experienced workers out of their careers you're going to have to make them offers too good to refuse. It would be really expensive, and the whippersnappers have to pay for it. The ideas here don't even come close.
Otherwise, we're all in this together.
No, boomers and Xers now in charge are not going to just step aside, because millennials and zoomers say they should. lol. This isn't new either, they have been wanting to kick older people out of employment for a long time, so this is obvious opportunism.
If you made it 50, then people who are 49 would get screwed.
Why do we make tax brackets change arbitrarily at certain income levels?
Have to draw a line someplace.....
And those at 54 now could be eligible if this is still going on when they turn 55.
But if it isn't, they're screwed. If this hypothetical were to happen, and it did go into effect, and if I were 54 in this hypothetical, I'd be p*ssed.
I've got some time to reach 54, and I'm still p*ssed about this. I'd like to retire early - but this is another one of those "as long as I get my hand outs, I don't care if you miss out."
Additionally, not everyone 55 and over wants to stop working. My dad retired at 56, but he took on a little part time job after that, because he liked being busy. Your plan would have denied him that. Instead of being out, feeling like he was doing something useful and productive, your plan would have told him: "Sit at home, we don't need you."
I turned 60 the day the national emergency was declared. I've been eligible to retire for five years now, but I was planning to work until at lease 65 for Medicare eligibility.
My mother didn't retire until she was 79, and she did so reluctantly. If I followed in her path, I would have another 19 years of income before having to rely on my savings.
It's tempting to see how long I could go before I just get tired, but right now, I still have the fire in my belly. As I say, I've finally gotten really good at this. Why would I want to quit now? I love what I do, even though my health has suffered due to a toxic work environment that has left me more vulnerable to a bad outcome when I finally get COVID-19. I just want to be able to hold out until there are more effective treatments, which will hopefully be in place by the fall.
The terms of early retirement would have to be exceptionally tempting to outweigh the benefits of another five or ten years of working. But I would consider them if they were attractive enough.
If you're going to start discriminating and kicking a group of experienced workers out of their careers you're going to have to make them offers too good to refuse. It would be really expensive, and the whippersnappers have to pay for it. The ideas here don't even come close.
Otherwise, we're all in this together.
No, boomers and Xers now in charge are not going to just step aside, because millennials and zoomers say they should. lol. This isn't new either, they have been wanting to kick older people out of employment for a long time, so this is obvious opportunism.
No, we're not "all in this together".......
A 58 year old grocery store manager with high blood pressure is significantly more at risk that the 30 something code monkey who's working from home.
And I'm a Boomer..... I'm not wanting to discriminate against anyone or "kick older people out of employment".
This should be 100% voluntary.
These are the people we're trying to SAVE with all the shutdowns and social distancing......
But if it isn't, they're screwed. If this hypothetical were to happen, and it did go into effect, and if I were 54 in this hypothetical, I'd be p*ssed.
I've got some time to reach 54, and I'm still p*ssed about this. I'd like to retire early - but this is another one of those "as long as I get my hand outs, I don't care if you miss out."
Additionally, not everyone 55 and over wants to stop working. My dad retired at 56, but he took on a little part time job after that, because he liked being busy. Your plan would have denied him that. Instead of being out, feeling like he was doing something useful and productive, your plan would have told him: "Sit at home, we don't need you."
What kind of message is that?
Again, I'm not advocating that it be mandatory.
Make it an option for high risk individuals, especially those who are essential workers with certain job descriptions that make any meaningful degree of social distancing difficult or impossible.
Bus drivers.....
Factory workers.....
Restaurant wait staff.....
Healthcare workers.....
Service industry workers.....
This isn't a thing I'm recommending for web designers or accountants working out of a home office
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.
