By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - $5 Trillion Price Tag for Public Pensions~ When is enough enough?

I'd make the retirement at the age of 60, see how many jobs open up. With that said, there's a huge money deficit in all countries, cutting retirement plans aren't going to solve anything.



Around the Network
darkknightkryta said:
I'd make the retirement at the age of 60, see how many jobs open up. With that said, there's a huge money deficit in all countries, cutting retirement plans aren't going to solve anything.


I say we just all riot against the banks.  If we all storm the banks at once how many people will be shot or arrested?  Probably a few but we can sure as hell get the money before they get all of us.  However, I wouldn't mind seeing currency going to pre WW2 German levels where a "barrel full of money couldn't buy a loaf of bread."  Once everyone realizes that their currency is worthless is when all hell breaks lose.



sethnintendo said:
darkknightkryta said:
I'd make the retirement at the age of 60, see how many jobs open up. With that said, there's a huge money deficit in all countries, cutting retirement plans aren't going to solve anything.


I say we just all riot against the banks.  If we all storm the banks at once how many people will be shot or arrested?  Probably a few but we can sure as hell get the money before they get all of us.  However, I wouldn't mind seeing currency going to pre WW2 German levels where a "barrel full of money couldn't buy a loaf of bread."  Once everyone realizes that their currency is worthless is when all hell breaks lose.

I'm in.



Soleron said:
...

Generally Green Sky is right on this. You can look at Japan for other examples; the need to stay employed longer does strangle new graduates. It's not at all about the young people choosing the wrong degree, but because instead that slow economic conditions mean old people feel compelled to stay on, which represses young people, which further stalls the economy because the old people are just spending that income on supplementing too-weak old-age plans instead of on the big consumer goods that young people usually buy. For instance, our generation does not buy homes, or cars. We live in apartments (which, surprise surprise, is causing *those* to become too expensive now too) and do rideshare.

Unless we can retire the old folks, the whole economy is going to collapse as the millennials instead become the "manchild generation," those who never grew up because they were never given a chance to grow up.

I don't believe in this economic value for its own sake thing. We don't "need people to buy cars" to have a good economy, it's like saying that the Hurricane helped the economy because of all the construction jobs now available. Old people have those jobs because they have the skills and experience to do them, and the moment a young person becomes better value they should be exchanged, in a free market (I definitely believe in weaker labour laws).

 

The issue with this is that "entry level" jobs have been destroyed due to salary cuts and hiring freezes and the value that is placed on experience vs skill. It doesn't help that many HR departments are uncoincidently  entrenched with older folk who can't properly assess modern skills.    At my job I produce nearly double the work as my fellow hiree with her 10 years of experience simply because I can google the answers to half the problems that come my way instead referring to the horrid training manuals.   Yet would anyone take "Expert level proficiency with Google" on a resume seriously?



Ataraxias said:
Soleron said:
...

Generally Green Sky is right on this. You can look at Japan for other examples; the need to stay employed longer does strangle new graduates. It's not at all about the young people choosing the wrong degree, but because instead that slow economic conditions mean old people feel compelled to stay on, which represses young people, which further stalls the economy because the old people are just spending that income on supplementing too-weak old-age plans instead of on the big consumer goods that young people usually buy. For instance, our generation does not buy homes, or cars. We live in apartments (which, surprise surprise, is causing *those* to become too expensive now too) and do rideshare.

Unless we can retire the old folks, the whole economy is going to collapse as the millennials instead become the "manchild generation," those who never grew up because they were never given a chance to grow up.

I don't believe in this economic value for its own sake thing. We don't "need people to buy cars" to have a good economy, it's like saying that the Hurricane helped the economy because of all the construction jobs now available. Old people have those jobs because they have the skills and experience to do them, and the moment a young person becomes better value they should be exchanged, in a free market (I definitely believe in weaker labour laws).

 

The issue with this is that "entry level" jobs have been destroyed due to salary cuts and hiring freezes and the value that is placed on experience vs skill. It doesn't help that many HR departments are uncoincidently  entrenched with older folk who can't properly assess modern skills.    At my job I produce nearly double the work as my fellow hiree with her 10 years of experience simply because I can google the answers to half the problems that come my way instead referring to the horrid training manuals.   Yet would anyone take "Expert level proficiency with Google" on a resume seriously?

Being on the front lines of the job hunt, i maintain that HR departments have no fucking clue what they're doing vis-a-vis hiring. Firstly, they need more efficient computer programs to sift through the resumes (acknowledging that they're getting too many resumes to have a human work at it). Secondly, skill is more important than experience. Thirdly, networking as a means of getting a job should be completely banned.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
Ataraxias said:
Soleron said:
...

Generally Green Sky is right on this. You can look at Japan for other examples; the need to stay employed longer does strangle new graduates. It's not at all about the young people choosing the wrong degree, but because instead that slow economic conditions mean old people feel compelled to stay on, which represses young people, which further stalls the economy because the old people are just spending that income on supplementing too-weak old-age plans instead of on the big consumer goods that young people usually buy. For instance, our generation does not buy homes, or cars. We live in apartments (which, surprise surprise, is causing *those* to become too expensive now too) and do rideshare.

Unless we can retire the old folks, the whole economy is going to collapse as the millennials instead become the "manchild generation," those who never grew up because they were never given a chance to grow up.

I don't believe in this economic value for its own sake thing. We don't "need people to buy cars" to have a good economy, it's like saying that the Hurricane helped the economy because of all the construction jobs now available. Old people have those jobs because they have the skills and experience to do them, and the moment a young person becomes better value they should be exchanged, in a free market (I definitely believe in weaker labour laws).

 

The issue with this is that "entry level" jobs have been destroyed due to salary cuts and hiring freezes and the value that is placed on experience vs skill. It doesn't help that many HR departments are uncoincidently  entrenched with older folk who can't properly assess modern skills.    At my job I produce nearly double the work as my fellow hiree with her 10 years of experience simply because I can google the answers to half the problems that come my way instead referring to the horrid training manuals.   Yet would anyone take "Expert level proficiency with Google" on a resume seriously?

Being on the front lines of the job hunt, i maintain that HR departments have no fucking clue what they're doing vis-a-vis hiring. Firstly, they need more efficient computer programs to sift through the resumes (acknowledging that they're getting too many resumes to have a human work at it). Secondly, skill is more important than experience. Thirdly, networking as a means of getting a job should be completely banned.

The harsh reality is that there isn't enough job for graduates and the blue colar work is being shipped over seas.  Running software to look for experience is gonna narrow down resumes, but doesn't change the fact that there are thousands of people applying for jobs and only a handful of them are gonna get work.  I had to network to get my job after two years of job hunting.  I got let go recently now it's probably gonna be another two years till I find something in my field cause app developer does't translate into anything other than app work and there aren't too many need for mobile developers anymore (Nor would I want work in that field either).



darkknightkryta said:
I'd make the retirement at the age of 60, see how many jobs open up. With that said, there's a huge money deficit in all countries, cutting retirement plans aren't going to solve anything.


Sorry but that is an awful idea ...

When the retirement age was set at 65 people were entering the workforce at 18 (or younger), working until they were 65, and mostly dying by the time they were 70 (or so). In this set up people were dependents for about 1/3 of their life and productive members of society for 2/3 of their life. Today people are going to school until they're 25 (or 30) and living until they're in their mid 80s. If people retire at 60 they will spend nearly 2/3 of their life as dependents on society and 1/3 of their lives as productive members of society.

Our problem isn't that there are too many people working, the problem is that there aren't enough people working in productive fields to support the vast number of people who've become dependents on society. If there were fewer people going to school until they are 30 to get their PHD in basket weaving, and there were fewer people who retired at 50/55 on their government pension, we would have a stronger economy and there would be more jobs for the young.



HappySqurriel said:
darkknightkryta said:
I'd make the retirement at the age of 60, see how many jobs open up. With that said, there's a huge money deficit in all countries, cutting retirement plans aren't going to solve anything.


Sorry but that is an awful idea ...

When the retirement age was set at 65 people were entering the workforce at 18 (or younger), working until they were 65, and mostly dying by the time they were 70 (or so). In this set up people were dependents for about 1/3 of their life and productive members of society for 2/3 of their life. Today people are going to school until they're 25 (or 30) and living until they're in their mid 80s. If people retire at 60 they will spend nearly 2/3 of their life as dependents on society and 1/3 of their lives as productive members of society.

Our problem isn't that there are too many people working, the problem is that there aren't enough people working in productive fields to support the vast number of people who've become dependents on society. If there were fewer people going to school until they are 30 to get their PHD in basket weaving, and there were fewer people who retired at 50/55 on their government pension, we would have a stronger economy and there would be more jobs for the young.

I disagree, there aren't enough jobs and the more people we get out of jobs with retirement the more jobs there are for the young.  Though the greater problem is the blue collar work has been shrunk down.  Too many people getting degrees, masters, PH.d's, not enough jobs for them, no other jobs for them to fall back on (Since, they're all over seas).  So what do people do?  Like I'd agree about the retirement age, but when it come down to it, there just aren't any jobs and any little bit to free up jobs will help.



TL;DR



Rip up all contracts and make it so that employees never retire.  You don't stop working until you either drop dead or are in a coma.  Who needs retirement anyway?  And the young folk coming along?  Well, they can still live at home with their elderly parents who can't retire.  If this is too harsh, maybe implement the Logan Run solution of offing everyone who gets above a certain age.  No death panels needed either, just individuals to check that your birth cerificate is on it.  You can have 1%ers like Trump run that department and exempt them from being offeds.  Heck, anyone who is is in the 1% income-wise OBVIOUSLY deserves to be there, including Paris Hilton.  Of course, one could take exception to the Jersey Shore folks being in the 1% now, but hey, we can look to make an exception to their exception and not exempt them.  They could also join Ewe Boll, Michael Moore, and all liberal media types.  All those will be subject to Logan Run rules.

Only down side for the GOP is they will have a 1% of the population voter base.  But, since everyone else will get offed early, they can outlive everyone, kinda like the way vampires do.