Social Security

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
11,404
Location
The Sandhills of NewYorkistan
The generally accepted number of people commencing social security benefits each day is 10k.

If those people are actually retiring, how many of those jobs do you figure to be filled or eliminated through attrition?
 
The real problem is that companies are still trying to figure out what is their "Right Size" in today's market.

So there is not 1 job created for every 1 job lost.
Many times that job is left vacant, or the position just disappears within the company.

Besides, with a stagnant 8% unemployment the USA needs to create 100,000 jobs every month for something like 12 years to get back to where unemployment was in 2007.

10,000 jobs is a very tiny drop in the bucket.
 
8% "reported" unemployment, many are not reporting, have given up or are falling out of qualification for unemployment benefits...the figure is at least double that figure if not 2.5x.
 
You bring up an interesting point with the 10K a day retiring. However in all the debate about the economy since the housing crash, I've never heard any economists say that all the baby boomers retiring will be what turns the economy around. There's a lot of other factors and as SuperDave pointed out companies are still trying to figure out the right size for their workforce. Layoffs are still occurring although they don't get the media attention they did shortly after the crash.
 
Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
The 10k retiring each day don't show up in unemployment numbers. Technology has eliminated blue collar jobs as well as white collar jobs.



Spot on. That is the number one crisis we face IMO. The multi-century supply/demand of labor equilibrium peaked in the mid 80s. That is also when real wages peaked in the developed economies of the west, and wages for educated and skilled workers are now peaking in the developing world. I don't know what the future holds, but without another big leap in technology or something that requires lots of semi skilled labor, things don't look good. We've gone through the modern urban city revolution (sewer systems/water systems) the agriculture revolution, the industrial revolution, and we may be at the peak of the current digital revolution as far as demand needed for skilled labor. You can see that in China's stock market. I actually think the United States "could" start the energy revolution with natural gas, if the certain people would allow it. Companies are ready to go converting the trucking fleet into liquid natural gas. The stuff is spewing out of the ground everywhere they poke holes and as soon as the infrastructure is put into place to be able to store it and ship it efficiently, the US could kick off the clean energy revolution.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Spot on. That is the number one crisis we face IMO. The multi-century supply/demand of labor equilibrium peaked in the mid 80s. That is also when real wages peaked in the developed economies of the west, and wages for educated and skilled workers are now peaking in the developing world. I don't know what the future holds, but without another big leap in technology or something that requires lots of semi skilled labor, things don't look good. We've gone through the modern urban city revolution (sewer systems/water systems) the agriculture revolution, the industrial revolution, and we may be at the peak of the current digital revolution as far as demand needed for skilled labor. You can see that in China's stock market. I actually think the United States "could" start the energy revolution with natural gas, if the certain people would allow it. Companies are ready to go converting the trucking fleet into liquid natural gas. The stuff is spewing out of the ground everywhere they poke holes and as soon as the infrastructure is put into place to be able to store it and ship it efficiently, the US could kick off the clean energy revolution.



Well said.

Keith
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: azjake
You bring up an interesting point with the 10K a day retiring. However in all the debate about the economy since the housing crash, I've never heard any economists say that all the baby boomers retiring will be what turns the economy around. There's a lot of other factors and as SuperDave pointed out companies are still trying to figure out the right size for their workforce. Layoffs are still occurring although they don't get the media attention they did shortly after the crash.



I wonder why layoffs are not getting the same 'media attention' now as in 2008?
 
There are around 125,000 to 150,000 new people (kids growing up) entering the job market every month. These new workers do not have the same experience and training that elderly people do, so there is no direct exchange of jobs when older people retire.

Current teen unemployment is 25%. This delays their entry into the job market and stunts their skills. This degrades their life time money earning potential which reduces the amount of money flowing into SS and other entitlements.

Those 10K a day moving to SS is at a great, and unfunded, cost to the government. This, combined with the lower tax receipts (due to lower earnings) of new job seekers will result in a higher national debt spiral.

The prime reason people, especially youth, don't have jobs is due to the minimum wage. It discriminates against those with few skills and that is exactly what most new jobs seekers are.
Other regulation increases the cost of employment as well, so the brake even point of a new employee is moved ever higher. This is one reason why technology to make any given employee more efficient and moved so rapidly the last few decades. It has become necessary due to the mandated high cost of labor.

The lower the cost of doing business, the easier it is to hire new people and get them job experience so they can more easily move up to higher paying jobs. Unfortunately, there are many third party mandates that interfere with this.
 
Drew99GT I actually think the United States "could" start the energy revolution with natural gas said:
I cannot agree more.

Take one part gov't control of GM via bailout and convert a large percentage of production over to natural gas engines.

Take one part gov't funding/subsidies for wind/solar/ethanol/etc and use them effectivly in funding/jump starting and filling station infrastructure.

Get what will lead to a semi-transparent natural evolution over to less expensive alternative to liquid fuels that stands a chance at working as opposed to the subsidized programs we have now.

I always looked at natural gas replacing gasoline as a few minor technological/safety issues with fuel storage, but the major holdup is the chicken-before-the-egg with filling stations or mass production of vehicles coming first. Well the current form of government (both sides of the aisle included) has not siezed the moment since they control both sides of the equation here with partial GM ownership and the funding ability for alternative energy which could very well be used to subsidize as far less glamorous, yet infintely more useful, natuaral gas filling stations.
 
Last edited:
I have a friend that's 59 years old who retired on SS disability. More people are retiring on Social Security disability benefits than there are new jobs being created every month. This is one reason why the true unemployment rate is actually much higher than is being reported.

And my company reported last month that they are moving their corporated HQ from Cleveland, Ohio to somewhere in Ireland. Ireland has much lower corporate tax rates than the USA.
 
Originally Posted By: pbm
Originally Posted By: azjake
You bring up an interesting point with the 10K a day retiring. However in all the debate about the economy since the housing crash, I've never heard any economists say that all the baby boomers retiring will be what turns the economy around. There's a lot of other factors and as SuperDave pointed out companies are still trying to figure out the right size for their workforce. Layoffs are still occurring although they don't get the media attention they did shortly after the crash.





I wonder why layoffs are not getting the same 'media attention' now as in 2008?


I don't wonder.
 
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Originally Posted By: pbm
Originally Posted By: azjake
You bring up an interesting point with the 10K a day retiring. However in all the debate about the economy since the housing crash, I've never heard any economists say that all the baby boomers retiring will be what turns the economy around. There's a lot of other factors and as SuperDave pointed out companies are still trying to figure out the right size for their workforce. Layoffs are still occurring although they don't get the media attention they did shortly after the crash.





I wonder why layoffs are not getting the same 'media attention' now as in 2008?


I don't wonder.



Actually, I don't either....
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The lower the cost of doing business, the easier it is to hire new people and get them job experience so they can more easily move up to higher paying jobs.


That makes no sense...
 
Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
The 10k retiring each day don't show up in unemployment numbers. Technology has eliminated blue collar jobs as well as white collar jobs.

The practice of "featherbedding" is disappearing


One of the things that I've "learned" recently is that in a business sale process, a wage that isn't being paid, is paid for by the buying company fourfold.

A $50k wage that's gone before the sale earns $200k in the sale proceeds, and a redundancy payment of half a year's wages still pays 7:1.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest

Those 10K a day moving to SS is at a great, and unfunded, cost to the government. This, combined with the lower tax receipts (due to lower earnings) of new job seekers will result in a higher national debt spiral.

The prime reason people, especially youth, don't have jobs is due to the minimum wage. It discriminates against those with few skills and that is exactly what most new jobs seekers are.
Other regulation increases the cost of employment as well, so the brake even point of a new employee is moved ever higher. This is one reason why technology to make any given employee more efficient and moved so rapidly the last few decades. It has become necessary due to the mandated high cost of labor.

The lower the cost of doing business, the easier it is to hire new people and get them job experience so they can more easily move up to higher paying jobs. Unfortunately, there are many third party mandates that interfere with this.


What you mention is completely political and biased, and not true.

Retirees typically have higher cost to a businesses due to health care and higher salary / wage. Their retirement is also not completely a drain on the society as most of them will start consuming their savings after they stop working completely. This is a continuous process, although it is bumped during a recession. The only way around it is to discourage child birth and increase retirement age, and have an older population and work force.

I cannot believe you said the primary reason for people without job is due to minimum wage. How many people out there are unemployed because McD is paying $6/hr instead of a market rate of $3/hr? Will the economy be better off when everyone lower their standard of living to China (heck, even they have minimum wage now)? Most of the job lost to outsourcing and technologies are way higher pay than minimum wage (i.e. auto jobs starting at $14 / hr) and the alternative is even lower (i.e. China at $3 / hr for the same job, $1 / hr minimum wage, and a server replacing customer service rep at 1 year salary as fix cost and only electricity thereafter). These jobs are just eliminated no matter how low you set the minimum job at (even slaves need to be fed).

Lower cost of doing businesses (i.e. regulations, insurances, health care, management, work space, etc) are good but they are a necessary part of the businesses in a developed society. You can do it like 3rd world country do with no work place safety or accidental insurance, no health care, no limit of work hours, dumping all pollutants in the ground water and the air, etc. But that's going to cost you over time. There are now lots of protest in China for rare earth mining and they have the highest death toll in the world for coal mine accidents, but hey, they have cheap coal and cheap rare earth minerals, and their lives are cheap. Why don't we do this here and we'll get all the jobs back and more?
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The lower the cost of doing business, the easier it is to hire new people and get them job experience so they can more easily move up to higher paying jobs.


That makes no sense...


What Tempest said is:

Make the burger flipper's salary lower, and they will hire more burger flipper, and they will have more opportunities to move into the McDonald's store manager position, and there will be more regional managers, and more CEOs.

The problem is each burger joint only need so many burger flippers and managers, no matter how much little they make. People will not eat twice as many burgers when their price drop from $2 to $1.50, so they will not hire twice as many people when they reduce the wage by half.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Originally Posted By: pbm
Originally Posted By: azjake
You bring up an interesting point with the 10K a day retiring. However in all the debate about the economy since the housing crash, I've never heard any economists say that all the baby boomers retiring will be what turns the economy around. There's a lot of other factors and as SuperDave pointed out companies are still trying to figure out the right size for their workforce. Layoffs are still occurring although they don't get the media attention they did shortly after the crash.

I wonder why layoffs are not getting the same 'media attention' now as in 2008?

I don't wonder.

No need to wonder. The media continues to fawn over the current crew like they were movie stars.

Too much kool aid is served here for my taste. Just like the popular line that the "rich" have somehow run off with all the money! Total baloney.

Look guys, I RUN a small biz. I need to buy new trucks, but I won't if I don't know where the economy is going. I need to hire some young guys to train, but I can't because biz is so soft right now and could get worse!

Net result, a biz that could easily buy 150k in trucks and create 3 new jobs can't due to the current mess. This country better remember who creates more jobs and personal wealth than anybody, that would be small biz just like me. Our average salary here is very close to 50k annually, and we pay TONS of taxes on fuel, supplies, payroll, unemployment, etc!!!
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The lower the cost of doing business, the easier it is to hire new people and get them job experience so they can more easily move up to higher paying jobs.


That makes no sense...

So it's better to have people languishing for longer periods of time with no job experience?

Are they more likely to move up the pay scale with no experience or some?
 
Quote:
Their retirement is also not completely a drain on the society as most of them will start consuming their savings after they stop working completely.

I didn't say "society", I said government. The two are not the same. People get SS regardless of their situation. If there are fewer people working, there are less people paying into SS which is fully drained every year. The government must have an ever growing pool of new people to pay into it's entitlement programs or the system fails. Please see Western Europe for a real life example.

Quote:
Will the economy be better off when everyone lower their standard of living to China


So it's better to have lots of idle (unemployed) people on government assistance, being unproductive and increasing costs on employers, than it is to have people being productive and getting job experience? All to satisfy an arbitrary minimum wage?

And please define for me what the minimum standard of living should be and how it should be financed (see Western Europe again).

Quote:
There are now lots of protest in China for rare earth mining and they have the highest death toll in the world for coal mine accidents, but hey, they have cheap coal and cheap rare earth minerals, and their lives are cheap. Why don't we do this here and we'll get all the jobs back and more?

This mining is largely owned and controlled by the government, as is the export limit. The results of central planning are not surprising.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom