Toggle sidebar

No comment needed

K

KTeer

New member
Jul 24, 2014
289
5
0
I will comment. Look at the rate of decline from 2009 t0 2010. What an economy.
 
M

mule_eer

Member
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
Baby boomers are retiring at a rate of about 10k per day. That doesn't explain all of that, but it impacts the rate negatively. That rate is computed based on age 16 and older, no cap on age.
 
bornaneer

bornaneer

Active member
Jan 23, 2014
29,794
452
83
mule_eer said:
Baby boomers are retiring at a rate of about 10k per day. That doesn't explain all of that, but it impacts the rate negatively. That rate is computed based on age 16 and older, no cap on age.
Click to expand...

In a strong economy with a WILLING workforce, 10K workers OR MORE should be replacing those that retire. The chart speaks for itself. More people are making the choice to NOT seek employment.
 
P

Popeer

New member
Sep 8, 2003
21,466
81
0
bornaneer said:
In a strong economy with a WILLING workforce, 10K workers OR MORE should be replacing those that retire. The chart speaks for itself. More people are making the choice to NOT seek employment.
Click to expand...
First of all, it's pretty ridiculous to continue including everyone between 16 and 21 just because they're old enough to work, as many of them are in school and not really available to the work force. And your statement could only be true if there were 10K workers available to replace those that retire, meaning not only that they're old enough but also have the requisite training and experience to step into the jobs being vacated. Aside from the fact that there is not now and never will be a 1-for-1 exchange like that, simply declining birth rate affects the number on the back end -- more and more couples are having only one child, and many have none, which also doesn't bode well for the future of Social Security because when the last of the Baby Boomers has retired it's going to take something like 3 workers to pay one retiree's benefits.
 
bornaneer

bornaneer

Active member
Jan 23, 2014
29,794
452
83
Popeer said:
First of all, it's pretty ridiculous to continue including everyone between 16 and 21 just because they're old enough to work, as many of them are in school and not really available to the work force. And your statement could only be true if there were 10K workers available to replace those that retire, meaning not only that they're old enough but also have the requisite training and experience to step into the jobs being vacated. Aside from the fact that there is not now and never will be a 1-for-1 exchange like that, simply declining birth rate affects the number on the back end -- more and more couples are having only one child, and many have none, which also doesn't bode well for the future of Social Security because when the last of the Baby Boomers has retired it's going to take something like 3 workers to pay one retiree's benefits.
Click to expand...

You make some valid points. However, I stand 100% behind my last sentence: "More people are making the choice to NOT seek employment."
 
S

Snow Sled Baby

Member
Jan 4, 2003
44,489
86
38
bornaneer said:
In a strong economy with a WILLING workforce, 10K workers OR MORE should be replacing those that retire. The chart speaks for itself. More people are making the choice to NOT seek employment.
Click to expand...
......and THAT , my friend is a product of Maobama's version of the "Great Society".......what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine....just so I don't have to work for it......for someone who worked hard for 52 years to be able to enjoy retirement that's a slap in the face.......I'm tired of "give me this because I am......gay, jewish,Norwegian."..whatever....get off your dead *** and work.....even if it's only minimum wage....the rest of us did it and young folks today aren't any better than we were
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom