E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jason Reed / Reuters file
Warren Buffett, 82, is among the most high-profile Americans who have continued their careers well past age 65.
If you’re planning to work past age 65, you may find that you have a surprising amount of company among your peers.
A larger chunk of Americans are working into their late 60s and even beyond, part of a long-term trend that has continued despite the tight job market of the past five years and is expected to increase in coming decades.
“It’s one of the most important changes in the labor force over the last generation,” said Richard Johnson, director of The Urban Institute’s Program on Retirement Policy.
Most Americans still stop working by the time they hit 65. But about 18.5 percent of Americans age 65 and over were working in 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s a nearly 8 percentage point increase from a low in 1985, when just 10.8 percent of Americans over age 65 were still at work.
The trend toward working past age 65 is an about-face from the decades that followed World War II. From the late 1940s through the mid-1980s, the percentage of people over age 65 who were in the labor force generally fell as workers took advantage of pensions and Social Security payments that gave them plenty of financial incentive to quit working by age 62 or even before.
These days, however, people have an incentive to work longer and wait to collect more lucrative Social Security benefits.
Perhaps more importantly, more companies have moved from pension-type retirement plans to 401(k)-type plans. Johnson noted 401(k) plans can have the opposite effect on retirement, because they aren’t as generous and provide incentive for people to work longer so they can bulk up their funds more.
“The erosion in traditional pension plans has really encouraged people to work longer,” he said.
Still, not everyone is healthy enough to work past age 65, and many people don’t want to. Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, said her research has shown that people ages 55 to 64 are more likely to keep working for a few extra years because they didn’t think they could afford to retire.
But she said people who are still working at age 65 and beyond are generally healthier, wealthier and more educated than those who have stopped working, and she thinks a significant chunk are doing so at least partly by choice.
“When you’re talking with people older than 65, people are healthier and better educated and jobs are less physically demanding, and that makes it attractive to stay in the labor force,” she said.
Munnell noted that not all professions are friendly to older workers, so working longer isn't always rewarding or even pleasant. But in some fields - such as academia - it is more common and acceptable to stay at work past age 65.
There are also plenty of examples of famous older people, such as Warren Buffett, 82, who are clearly staying on the job more for love than money.
Related: Are you struggling in the suburbs? We want to hear from you.
The percentage of people 65 and over who are working has continued to increase in the past five years, even though the overall labor force participation rate has fallen because the tight job market has made it so hard to find jobs.
Phillip Levine, an economics professor at Wellesley College who has studied retirement trends extensively, said he doesn’t think the recession itself has played a big role in exacerbating the existing trend of older workers staying in the labor force longer.
His research has shown that the Great Recession has had an opposite effect on many workers who were close to retirement, pushing them into early retirement because they lost a job and couldn’t find a new one.
But in years to come, he does expect the Great Recession will play a role in increasing the number of people who work past age 65. That’s because younger people who were unemployed for several years during this period will then work a few extra years to make up for the earnings, and retirement contributions, they lost during their stints of unemployment.
Johnson, from The Urban Institute, said the continued decline in pension plans also will likely play a role in more people choosing to hold onto their jobs longer than their parents or grandparents.
“The idea of retiring at age 62 – I think a lot of young people think that’s a quaint idea,” Johnson said.
Leave a Comment:
Warren Buffett is a very poor example to show. There is a BIG difference in wanting to work and having to work.
Yep...Govt is spending us into oblivion. Govt is bankrupting Social Security. They will add 12-20 million illegal aliens to the SS & food stamp dole when they get amnesty. Govt is going to tax the people so that they can't save enough. Govt is going to tax businesses so much that they raise prices costing consumers more and more and more.
Gee....I wonder why people are expecting to work until they die. Hmmm.
Ray Charles just called and said, "Even I can see that."
PAWS93
Illegals do not collect Social Security. The system is broken because now one out of 13 Americans is collecting SS Disability, many because they are too fat and lazy to work. 15 years ago that figure was 1 out of 20, 25 years ago the number was one out of 40 ! DO you see the trend here ? Now there are only 13 contributing for each one mooching off of our system. Not saying legit disabled should not get help, saying that a large percentage of those on disability are phoney slackers. Remember that getting on to the disability gravy train also gets them other benefits that we pay for, such as free medical, no taxes, food stamps, and much more. Get the fat lazy people off of disabiity and take better care of the really disabled, and the system will be able to survive.
According to the poll in this article only 6.6% plan on working till they die. Paws must be one of those few.
LOL...Planning on retirement and actually having enough money so that you can live comfortably after retirement are 2 different things, How many people do you know that actually have enough money taken from their income for a retirement.
FYI...Social Security witholding is not considered saving for your retirement
MM584 is right about that. I'd add that there are a thousand ways people are getting things, claiming they deserve it, and turning a blind eye to the fact that someone else has to have it taken from them in order for the claimants to collect it. We are cannabalizing each other. Blame the Wash DC folks who facilitate it for their own gain, but in the end, you have to file for the benies ( and often lie) to collect it. Talked to a state employee working in a tax office. Said a co-worker told him how his parents transferred their assets to the adult children so they could qualify for medicaid. If a person has assets, Medicaid requires a spend down of those assets before they ask taxpayers to cover your bills. But if you illegally give your assets to your children, then claim you are broke you get away with it if the gubmint employees don't do an audit. This is an increasing tactic. So lying and cheating lets you give your wealth to your kids and send your bills to someone else. There are thousands of ways people lie and cheat. Gubmint employees with their paycheck for life deal, retire at age 52 ~56 and will live in retirement longer than they worked. The reason the US is getting more miserable is it is not possible for the private sector people producing wealth to pay for all this. They are too few now. They have been cannabalized. Too many cheaters, too many gubmint employees. The numbers no longer work.
Raise taxes. Fund health care. It works in a TON of other countries. Until Americans lose the 'capitalism is the be all and end all' mentality, Americans will continue to be screwed. Your priorities are such a mess.
If you want to work after 65, good for you. If you have to work past 65, blame the system. Why? Because your system is broken and has been for nearly 20 years.
Also agree with MM, I have never taken a dime of aid from the govt and am proud of that, but todays generation and parts of mine seem to think thats a loser attitude. My parents generation however were ashamed to get govt aid, we have become a nation of parasites and that includes the rich who also feed off our govt and middle class.
Hmmmmm...........let's see........... I've had about 150 dollars a month MORE stolen out of my paycheck per month to pay for ponzie schemes like Social Insecurity and Mediscam (money I know I'LL NEVER see) and my wife's about 100 per month, that just pushed up our retirement age by at LEAST five years - we did the calculations. And we've been maxing out our 401k's all this time. And my wife and I are NO WHERE NEAR rich!
BUT WAIT - WAIT: I THOUGHT OBAMA WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO TAX THE RICH!
Ummmmmm......... so much for for his "hope and change" for the middle class, eh, suckers?????????
Pffffffffft.
Paws and MM are both wrong.
Paws: “We’ve been assuming that when the Baby-Boomer population gets most expensive [to support], that there are going to be [enough] immigrants and their children who are going to be paying into [programs for the elderly], but in the wake of what’s happened in the last five years, we have to reexamine those assumptions.” - Roberto Suro, Professor of Public Policy - University of Southern California - who studies trends in birth rates.
What happened in the last few years is the birth rate has declined more than expected due to the economy. Hispanics think Obama wants to help them. He wants to use them to support the Baby Boomers in their retirement years.
------
MM: Illegals get $4.2 Billion using fraudulent Tax Claims…
The Internal Revenue Service allowed undocumented workers to collect $4.2 billion in refundable tax credits last year, a new audit says, almost quadruple the sum five years ago.
Wage earners who do not have Social Security numbers and are not authorized to work in the United States can use what the IRS calls individual taxpayer identification numbers. Often these result in fraudulent claims on tax returns, auditors found.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/undocumented-workers-got-billions-from-irs-in-tax-credits-audit-finds/2011/03/23/gIQAhtaKvJ_blog.html?hpid=z3
stanwoodgirl- true said.
The poor economy that wiped out thousands of jobs for mid-lifers have created a generation of people who will never recover from being layed off and will be forced to work well past their useful years. Employers discriminate and further victimize this same skilled generation.
Add to that inflation in its various forms, including being gouged at the pumps, higher food prices, etc. and you have a shrinking middle class to add to the mix. Going great under the current administration of big promises.
What are the age ranges of those collecting disability? It isn't anyone in the 65 year age range. They are mandated to be covered by Medicare which has been anything but free. The joke is that if you continue to work past age 65, your paycheck is still deducted roughly $400 a year for Medicare all while you pay $104/month for Medicare Part B...which covers only 80% of your healthcare needs, forcing seniors to pay for supplemental insurance which in today's vulture Big Insurance market can cost another $200 a month to cover the 20% plus a drug coverage plan for prescription drugs.
Correction: They have the incentive to work longer as SS benefits are not enough to take care of their basic needs. The use of the word "lucrative benefits" is insulting. Yes, you receive more if you retire later, but that increase is hardly "lucrative."
This happened decades ago in the private sector, you only are now noticing? 401's used to be generous until the stock market and the economy tanked.
As of now, I will have to work until I die. By the time I'm old enough, SSI will be bankrupt. But then, the lack of Health care due to Obamacare may kill me off before then.
My thoughts are that although some may have to work past 65 due to economics I believe a majority of those continuing to work do it out of shear boredom. Back in 1940 the average life expectancy was around 62. 70 years have now passed and it's around 79 and will continue to rise. I know a lot of people that retired and within a year were looking for work.
The authors are complete imbeciles. The reason that few are planning on retiring at 65 is that the Social Security retirement age has been 67 for some time now. This represents a complete lack of common sense and research.
I retired seven years ago at age 57, enjoying everyday of it..only got one life!
FORE!
Comparing Buffet to people who WORK for a living is ridiculous. Plumbers, Carpenters, Ship Builders, etc stop working because they can't work anymore. They have reached their physical limitations. Even a Typist gets arthritis and loss of vision after 40 years.
While I like Warren... What he does and his ilk do is not work. They aquire money from the real labor of others.
Congrats Mike! That was my plan until I lost 1/2 of my investment money to the Robber Barons in the 90's and then again in 08.
I'm still working, but those who caused it are relaxing somewhere.
If Obama had a third term he would have everyone dependent on the government. There wouldn't be any jobs as all businesses will have left the country due to all the NEW regulations being handed down. No incentive for new businesses since Obama will take $'s from the successful and continue giving it to those who refuse to work to put food on the table.
ALL the new regulations being forced on businesses will have a tremendous impact on prices we the consumers pay. This new money will eventually make its way back to the government to help fund the enormous amount of money needed for the millions on government assistance.
One interesting thing here is, young folks need not worry about planning for future retirement as the government will determine your future years and any dollars you save will probably be taken from you to support others who have relied on the government during the years they should have been working but chose the easy way out.
Keep in mind also, no one but the criminals will have guns and any money you DO have could easily be taken as you will have no way to defend yourself, your family or any savings you may have accumulated.
Backed by the liberals and most of the media, Democrats are already preparing to carry out this agenda as we experienced this week with Obama and Clinton appearing on 60 minutes. Make no mistake about it, they are out to destroy the Republican party and will go to extremes in doing so.
Life in America is changing rapidly and what's sad is, the majority of folks are going along with anything this administration wishes to do, including gun control, which goes against the 2nd amendment, abuse of power, which the Federal court has now ruled unconstitutional on the appointments, out of control spending, no budget, high unemployment, refuses to even work with Congress on Social Security and Medicare to ensure that future benefits are there in the long term, shows a lack of concern for the number of people now on government assistance and the growing number of people being added to the disability program and the list goes on and on.
Is this the country we want to leave to our children and grandchildren and the future generations?
I laugh every time someone (usually a right-winger) comes out with their "thoughts" on things.
"Some" may need to work past 65?
"a majority" work past 65 because they like to work?
Try using facts instead of your "thoughts". You might be more credible that way.
The simple fact is that our "job-creators" are worried more about their bottom line than their employees' retirement. The time of pensions and the stigma of layoffs have long gone. Now, you're considered a smart CEO if you cut jobs and pensions.
That's funny, because it was only a couple of years ago you were telling us that if Obama had a second term, he would have done this (along with turning the US into a communist country, taking away all our civil rights, and collapsing the economy).
I guess we'll never disprove your new statement now. You'll live the rest of your life knowing your prediction would have come true. All of this, to justify your pathetic life.
Wilson, do you write these things from your underground bunker while you're listening to Faux News, and right-wing radio?
I'm with Mike277-I want to retire a.s.a.p. I've got a bucket list as long as my arm and I am more than ready to leave the race to the rats. My husband and I have worked our whole lives -he retired last Oct and I'm hanging in untill the first possible second (light at the end of the tunnel). Someone else can have my job and I wish them all the best!!!
My facts are my father is 79 years old and works as a car porter at a Chevy dealership and does landscaping for friends because he likes to work. He by no means has to work. I know a lot of individuals like that. The entitlement mentality generation, such as yours, doesn't and will probably never understand this. You have no clue about pensions. Pensions had to go when people started living longer. Defined benefit pension plans were unsustainable. Eventually you'd have more retirees receiving benefits than employees working. Just look at GM. They have over 118,000 retirees or surviving spouses receiving pensions as of this past July when they started offering some of these individuals buy-outs. They only have 74,500 US employees. Defined contribution plans are the only sustainable retirement vehicle out there.
You know what they say Jr. about opening your mouth and removing all doubt.
Gee StoptheCannibals Obama is destroying the country as we type. You can't see that? And let me tell you, he IS NOT going to have a third term. He was unqualified for his first term and screwed so much up, but 51% of the country is too stupid to see it and re-elected him to screw up some more. Not something I'm looking forward too. It is so sad I have to make my financial decisions based on protecting myself from the govt. taking what little I have.
MM didn't understand the post...I said, "After Amnesty"....Once they're citizens, the illegals (aka new citizens) will be eligible for govt programs.
Since most of them will likely not be high paid people, they are more likely to not pay income taxes and utilize govt services. Some of them will be successful, but the vast majority crossing the border could not be successful in Mexico, so why would you assume they will be here. It will take a generation or two for them and their kids to elevate their standards.
If anybody has to work past 65, it's his/her own damned fault. Social security isn't going to cut it for you; if you want secure retirement, you've got to do it for yourself. And don't tell me it can't be done. I started investing a small monthly amount in my early twenties, and retired...very comfortably....at age 62.
Air Thief - "Only 6.6% PLAN to work until they die."....But after govt bankrupts SS and they've been taxed by govt so that they can not save. What are they gonna do....live under a bridge.?
I bet that number will go up substantially. See? Things change in the future.
Yes, I am one of the few....The few that thinks ahead and understands the affects of reckless spending, taxes, inflation, and a govt that is out of control and needing 20 million illegals turned into citizens so that they can tax them etc.
Paws,
Like the government taxing all the 401K money sitting out there to pay for it all? I can see the campaign now. We need to tax them millionaire and thousandaires (401K values) so they pay their fair share!
If you can find a job.
"After 55 we should all have the option to retire."
Lets say you start work at 20 and retire at 55 and live to be 85.
You work for 35 years and expect others to take care of you for 30 years?
How can that be mathematically possible?
(maybe we should switch to communism or socialism because that has worked so well in the past)
Warren is not the guy to talk to, ask a factory worker, a coal miner, anybody but someone that has more money than they know what to do with. Hence the problem, they have so much and afraid to spend a little. He dose not follow in the paths of the men that helped build America.
Stop - "The simple fact is that our "job-creators" are worried more about their bottom line than their employees' retirement."
If you have investments you are part of the "job creators" worrying more about your bottom line, so are you saying you want it all three ways? You investment to go up, employees get high pay and retirement, and low costs?
Care to explain how that can happen?
Untrue. You have actuaries telling you every year how much to fund. The number of employees later are of no consequence. Legacy health-care costs are what the problem was and is (and not funding a pension plan). The President is looking at ways to solve the health cost issue, despite people like you insisting on keeping health care costs the same.
I also know what they say about reading the article first before you give us your "thoughts" as facts (and that your 79 year old father represents everyone else).
The government has been taking about the same for 100 years now. Can you walk and chew gum at the same time? It looks like Spider 1.26 can do that.
Never going to happen, but that never keeps the right-wingers from trying to scare people with red herrings. Yes, and the govt is going to take all our guns too.
Not really. All I care about in an stock investment is how well the stock price is doing. The middle-class are the job-creators. They buy all that "stuff" from the "so-called" job-creators. The more they sell, the more workers that need to be hired. The "so-called" job creators mission in life is to reduce costs by reducing pay and/or headcount. They're hiring is a direct reflection of how well the middle class is doing, and not a result of them being charitable by giving someone a job.
Not certain exactly what you mean by this. Obviously, yes, we all want that, but all things are relative. I don't mind a organization paying a decent wage, with decent benefits, making a decent profit, and passing those costs on to the consumer, but if you ask me if I want an organization to exploit workers, going overseas to do that, just so I can get a cheap knockoff from Walmart, then I think that's moving in the wrong direction (although those "cheap" workers are starting to complain the same way Americans did during the Robber Baron years from the early 19th century).
Svenolafson - They're already some talking about "nationalizing" 401Ks.....Translation...govt steals it, spends it, then bankrupts it like they did to social security.
It's a scary world.
Paws, maybe you can share that same bunker with Svenolafson.
The only person that was going to tax retirement accounts twice was Herman Cain, the Republican candidate. Remember his 9/9/9 plan? That would have taxed a Roth payout (normally non-taxable) with a 9% sales tax when spent.
And Republicans were all for HIS idea. And you call the 51% who voted for Obama as clueless..........yes it is a scary world.
I'll be working till I'm dead...
stopthecannibals -So then you agree that politicians are talking about it. You mock me and then prove my point.
I'm not a Republican. Obama is a fool spending the country into oblivion and he's raised taxes on everyone. I don't care if you call it a fee or penalty that causes insurance to raise their rates or caused food prices to go up from moving corn for gas. The bottom line is big govt is costing us big time. The Republicans have been total failures, but at least the Republicans NOW are talking about cutting the out of control spending. Obama has not been fiscally responsible since he's been in office.
People relying on govt will ultimately get slammed. Look at Greece, Spain, France....At some point, it will collapse. Obama is a big govt guy...we'll take care of you...It's an illusion.
stop the cannibals
You are a prime example of what's happening in our country today. "Stupid folks full of confidence while intelligent folks are full of doubts."
One day you will wake up and wonder what happened. So sad.
squaredude #1.8 is right. good post.
It is Congress that decides what goes into the budget; it's the president, who by law, must buy the things authorized by Congress. And, the president must collect tax revenue to pay for that stuff. So, don't blame the president - it's Congress that's responsible.
All this squabbling about who is breaking social security is off the point. Social Security is not the problem. The problem is the American economy has been destroyed by the American People. Too many are looking to manage the rules of some program or priviledge to collect something instead of improving their skills so they can produce more or better and EARN wages and commissions. Most jobs in a vibrant economy are private sector wealth producing jobs. Wealth
producing means the value of the output is worth more than wages for that job.
IF this weren't true private business owners would not hire anyone. IF an
endeavor (called a job) is producing wealth, then the job holder is better off
because he receives wages and the owner is better off because he receives
wealth gains. Both can then put their money into the economy and this creates
another round of investing, spending. This produces wealth in the community. Healthy wealthy vibrant economic communities can pay their taxes and still enjoy life. This is the economic model. IT isn't
working as well as it used to because now people take their made in America
paychecks down to WalMart and send 'em to China and Korea. They still want you to keep working in America and earn to money to pay them of course, and they will still spend their check in China too. The
US economy is not getting that second or third round of econ activity. China and Korea is. So the American businesses cut back for lack of customers, the workers get
laid off and now the remaining Americans with money have to support the laid
off guy. This is where we are now. And look at all you people shouting at each other about who is getting too much. So just how much got saved when you spent your check in China ? Actually
it costs more because the increase in taxes you should be paying to support the
jobless people is far more than the little bit you saved when you bought that
Chinese junk. Many people argue against this model and we keep having a
miserable time. There are too many gubmint programs, too many gubmint employees and too many people sending their paychecks to China. You are sucking the life out of your own economy and crying about it. Deny it at our peril.
Gumps - Do you blame Pelosi for the George W Bush spending? Obama can veto laws as well. So don't give me that Obama is teflon garbage.
It's amazing how liberals scream Bush was the worst president in history, but Obama is completely blameless for anything. I blame them both, but liberals won't hold Obama accountable for anything.
And, Obama is personally requesting Obama care, stimulus bill, and various other spending bills over his 4 years. Remember those "shovel ready" jobs? Now, he's ignoring the economy and jobs to work on guns and immigration.
So gumps, are you consistent in the way you blame people? Are you ready to say George Bush wasn't responsible for housing and the economic meltdown? Nevermind, I already know your answer.
We've been round this block before - you want to pin the blame on a single, preferably liberal, person. The Republicans' have controlled the House for awhile now. And yet more spending is being authorized by Congress.
you dopes voted bushII in twice, the WORST president in history !!!!
I would prefer to keep up with my productivity till the last day of my life, i do believe that is one of the main purposes of our existence in this world!!!
I agree, being productive all through life is a good thing. If I were retired, I'd make a point of finding things to do - volunteering, etc., but many of us will have to continue working just to survive. With more older citizens not retiring, spots won't open up for younger people, who will possibly remain unemployed. And if older workers lose their jobs, because of downsizing or whatever, who will hire them? It's usually illegal to discriminate, based on age, but it happens. Used to be that older workers would retire and live off SS or pensions, with younger people taking their places.
I retired at 66. I liked my career, but a passive/aggressive department head who was constantly feuding with a backstabbing manipulating employee, who loved dragging everyone in the department into her little war, drove me out of the job. To make it worse, I was expected to train two under qualified employees to take over my position. By the time I left, the place had become a nightmare, and I was glad to be out of there. At that point, I was more concerned about my health than my finances.
mcbarker...I so agree. I find the minute companies designate a management position to the younger generation, these new managers suddenly want to teach you everything you learned 5 decades ago. Which wouldn't be so bad if their management was actually productive and their work ethic stellar.
More and more Americans are finding employment in hi-tech fields online. Many seniors work past age 65 because if they remain employed until age 70, their Social Security compensation increases by 8% every year from 65 to 70. For some seniors, that works if they have good health. It still doesn't address the fact that you are 70 years old and no longer have 25 year old endurance levels.
RussH,...No SS wasn't. But, when employers began dumping back their employer expenses on salaries of employees they stagnated by refusing annual cost of living increases and offering healthcare benefits and pensions, how was that NOT going to erode these older employees paychecks?
The number of employers who stopped giving annual salary increases began in the late 1980's at the same time they instituted employee paid healthcare and pensions. How much of a salary that doesn't increase every year for half a decade can you afford to save? Do employees choose between saving for retirement or paying their mortgages?
It always amazes me the pressure employers put on their employees today. They help themselves to our tax revenues to bolster their businesses and then refuse to offer employees cost of living increases regularly. You can't save if your pay is constantly taking the hit from price gouging business owners who charge more for less, help themselves to our tax dollars to bolster their businesses and then dump their responsibility for retirement and healthcare on their employees stagnated salaries for half a decade or more.
I'm in accounting and love my job, so I plan to do it as long as I can (also will be helpful financially).
We're living longer, and staying healthy longer (for the most part), so I don't see why people wouldn't work longer. It's almost impossible to plan for retirement when you retire at the same age but are likely to live 20 years longer than when SS/pensions were set up- especially when pensions have been replaced with 401ks, etc.
Unless you are mentally retarded, anyone can do accounting until they're 80. Sitting in an air conditioned office staring at a computer screen isn't that demanding. The most physically demanding part of accounting is walking to the copier, water jug or coffee machine.
Try being the person that builds/fixes things; your sewer, your water, your Internet, your air conditioning etc.. Those things require labor which takes a toll on a person's body and they most likely can't go on until they're 80.
RTypo, the truth is most accountants don't do traditional accounting, and the accounting that is done is run using sophisticated software using forms and programmed calculations. So in a way you are right, but today's accountants need strong computer skills. Those that don't have the skills work for H&R Blockheads.
And those things are also some of the lower paying jobs too, the ones more likely to need income later into life. Some of the highest paying jobs are office jobs requiring minimal physical exertion.
Not everyone can do accounting, especially some of the more complicated aspects. I'll admit, pretty much anyone should be able to do a data-entry type job, but when you get into some of the more complicated areas like ledgers and taxes, it takes some extra math ability.
I'll admit that an office job makes it more likely that you'll be able to do your job quite a bit longer, but even in physical jobs, people are able to work longer than they once were. We're now able to repair joints and various tissues, and are often able to get a person back to work rather than have them crippled for life.
I'm in favor of universal healthcare partly for that reason- everyone pays in, everyone gets care. Including repairs needed so they can get back to work instead of drawing disability.
That's only those at the top of the food chain. Most of us (the accounting clerks working for a controller or CFO) do ok, but not great. I make more than hubby does now as a long-term temp doing trash collection for the city, but less than he used to make in a processed food factory.
RTypo,
WTF does that mean? If you don't like what you do it doesn't matter how physically demanding it is or isn't it will take a toll on you. If you love what you do you should do it as long as you like. Same thing for your so-called labor jobs. Obviously if your body can no longer take it you stop. If you love the field you find some other job that's not as demanding.
It's just hard for me to show a great deal of respect for accountants when it requires such a low skill set. It's about like a real estate agent who takes a 6 month course at a community college to learn their "trade".
I'll bet I could learn an accountant's job in less than a week and by a month have it down pat. Hardest part would be learning the software and tax codes.
That said, I do have a certain amount of respect for anybody that works for a living regardless of what they do. Even flipping burgers at McDonalds.
Construction isn't just labor. I went to a 5 year union trade school for HVAC/Sheet Metal, have a one year certificate in welding processes and an associates in electrical/ electronics.
I require a lot of technical math, building/fire codes which are constantly changing, use of hundreds of tools including shop fab equipment and field hand tools ( including welding machines and plasma cutters) and how to properly design duct systems and installing AC units from a set of blue prints.
So either I'm on a union job, foreman on a union job or working for myself. That's pretty much the only way to make a decent living. And no, I probably wont be able to do it all until I'm 80.
Pragmatic -
No, those jobs are not necessarily low-paying jobs. Shipfitters, welders, and construction trades are higher paying jobs that put a lot of wear and tear on a body.
I had planned to retire at 65, but took a little longer to sell my house, needed the cash to follow through on my plan, so retired at 66 and moved overseas. The only drawback is I cannot use Medicare, but it's worth it, to enjoy the rest of my life with my wife and have no financial worries. There are many places you can live the good life on Social Security. There's a couple million Americans doing thi.
Rtypo: I work in accounting. There are parts of it that are incredibly simple yet I noticed over 40 years there is a bunch of people who can't do it. Some, like you have strong opinions about who is worthwhile. Yet they can't balance a checkbook. The fun part starts when you try to show 'em and they want to fight with you about it. The simple idea that they can't do it, but someone else can never occurs. They trot off and tell everyone else what a dummy accountants are. Such is the state of many people in our society now. It's funny to watch.
The stinking baby boomers won't go home and let 20, 30, 40 and even up to about 55 get a job that most of them NEED. They then take their senior discounts and bitch that everyone, but them are lazy and never worked as hard as they do. In addition, they are ENTITLED TO EVERYTHING AND GODDAMN IT-YOU AREN'T Because they paid in, you didn't, but they did. The majority of them are rude, blood sucking leeches. I stand by this statement.
Well Brenda, if it weren't for those "stinking baby boomers", you're sorry ass wouldn't be enjoying the life you have. And what makes you so much better? Are you a leech? Are you the boil on the taxpayers ass? Are you the succubus pig?
Brenda, I think you're confusing baby boomers with liberal Democrats.....in that case, you're spot on.
I agree with CEO, not everyone in the Baby Boomer Generation is to blame, but certainly it was the liberals in that generation that started the ball rolling to the destruction of what was once the greatest nation on earth.
RSB-1731041 & ceo-722851
It was the 'liberals' in that generation that started the ball rolling to destruction? Gimme a break. The conservatives are the ones (supporting the republican party) that also contributed to our current situation.
Oh yes, its the democrats that caused everything. Give us a break, the republicans are the root cause of most of the issues in this country.
ItsAboutTime-3704531 - Its all about your perspective. I value individuality and opportunity, the ability to create my own destiny. A milestone in our destruction, the Great Society, the government became the future of many. Those programs destroyed the family unit, encouraged irresponsible child birth rates within the poorest populations and is continuing to keep an entire segment of our population existing with no dreams of anything better than what little the government puts on their "Independence"card - what an oxymoron.
its the repugnicants its the dumbascraps its the ruling elites of both parties i like to call the rhinno's and dimwitted liberals do you think jesus was a liberal or a conservative?
Yes, its definitely all about perspective. Destroyed the family unit? Umm no. The right/conservative base has their opinion on what the "family unit" is, and if you dont' subscribe to that traditional line of thinking, then you are wrong. Its pretty clear the republican party today wants to FORCE that line of thinking on us.
As for irresponsible birth rates within the poorest population, we could be more like China and make it illegal to have more than one child. The right may actually subscribe to that if it wasn't for the far right christian ideology.
We have created a society in which many abuse the social programs that were put in place to help someone get back on their feet. I am a moderate democrat and do not believe in having social programs as a way of life.
As a member of generation x, I watched as the babyboomers were in power and how that power moved us towards a nation that is corrupted by lobbyists, pac groups, corporations, and unions. All things that both the 'liberal' base and conservative base did NOTHING to stop.
Brenda, Your parents ARE part of the baby boomers. Just about every Republican president has decided to borrow money from social security and tries to not pay it back. Nixon did that very thing and forgave the government from that lone and made it to where I paid double into social security. I pay for myself and the people in retirement now. Remember, without them, you wouldn't be here now. So stop trying to blame the baby boomers.
Time - I do not support limits on how many children people can have. I do however request that you be able to afford to have those children.
I also support helping people out who have experienced some kind of event where they need a helping hand to get back on their feet.
I also agree with your last two paragraphs. So see, if we were in Congress we could actually find some common ground from which to work together. Amazing what may be accomplished.
I
I would never give up my work on the theory that some younger person whom I don't even know "needs" it. Brenda, you have a sorry attitude. Maybe you're just a troll.
I agree w/you. People shouldn't have more children than they can afford. That's called being responsible.
Same here RSB. We all have pitfalls in life, and I am more than willing to help someone who wants to help themselves. However, I am sure you agree, there has to be limits here.
:). Let's go to Congress. If it was only that easy. The hardest thing in our govt today isn't so much our leadership as it is those who BOUGHT them.
Brenda, I'm a "stinking baby boomer". I work full time, I rent, do not live a luxurious life, focus on the basics, am fairly frugal, don't have high debt, and STILL find it hard to save and pay bills with my salary. I'm one of the people who will have to work past age 65. If you can suggest something that I might legally do to have food, clothing and shelter, while at the same time freeing up a job position for you, please let me know. Those who came before, by their hard work and sacrifices, made much that I enjoy, possible. I'd like to do the same for you and your generation. Tell me how Brenda. Would giving up the tiny senior discount that I get when I shop at Goodwill be a good start?
Both political parties destroyed this nation. Both political parties are pawns for the global elite. Members from both political parties are guilty of treason. They may not have given up top secret information to a foreign power, but their actions are responsible for the destruction of this country. These people ran up a debt that is not serviceable, broke entitlement programs, are using technology to spy on every American citizen, shipped good wage producing jobs out of the country in exchange for cheap Chinese goods, created regulations that stifle small businesses, kept our borders open so that armed cartels were essentially free to operate every in the US, and created inflation as a hidden tax that takes roughly an additional $5k a year out of the average middle class families budget. Now, the fascist state is working to disarm its populace. If you do not believe that our country is fascist just Google is the US fascist? The results may definitely surprise you. Sound familiar anyone who knows a little history? The global elite has already used their pawns to declare war on us. What are we going to do about them?
A few links about fascism here in the US.
A link to why we have the problems we do.
Another Obama voter chimes in!! What I love about this is that those who supported President Stinky (bo) will suffer along with those of us who knew better! If I could get the money I paid into SS back in cash (with NO interest), I'd do it in a heartbeat. Forget the monthly checks, just give me my money back, and consider it a 40+ year interest free loan.
Brenda, you sound like most of the old people I know. Bitter, judgmental, and not resposible for anything that is wrong.
Americanvoter 1... I believe that it was Democrat President Lyndon Johnson that had his hand in the SS cookie jar.
While I'm not one to blame all boomers, let's look at the generational contributions. The generation before gave us nuclear weapons, rockets, the computer, microchips, the MRI machine, genetic engineering, etc etc etc. What has been the biggest mark of the boomers? Credit default swaps? Outsourcing? Greed? Many boomers won't be comfortable in their golden years because of the deep greed of their peers. And my generation will work until we die, because the entitlements will be gone and we aren't getting paid enough to save money.
I fear my generation's contributions to human kind will be virtual products. Ugh.
Dumb rednecks OUT of USA... NOW!
Fewer means "amounting to or consisting of a small number.'" What's the big deal about a few people not counting on retiring at age 65? Many, most, a majority, or giving a percentage would actually make this story meaningful.
There's a bar graph at the bottom of the article showing when people believe they are going to retire.
With Medicare projected to go bust in 11 or 12 years, without major reform...and with SS in not much better shape, broke in 20 years or so. And with a $16T debt expected to hit $20T by the end of Obama's second term (with no end in sight)...again, unless major reform is implemented. Many people approaching retirement are very uncomfortable with the idea of losing a source of income. But not to worry.....the nanny state is there to take care of us all....just look at how well FEMA has taken care of those poor wretched people suffering the after affects of Sandy. The ten most dreaded words in history...."I'm from the federal government and I'm here to help."
Our parents and grandparents were able to get the system to work for them. They got employers to fund pensions. They got the government to provide better SS benefits. They pushed until it could not be pushed anymore. Then, the companies stopped funding pensions. The government started cutting SS benefits to keep it solvent.
Anyone 55 or younger (which is always repeated by the government when they talk about cutting SS benefits again... if you are over 55 you won't be cut) can look forward to very little in their later years... no pension... reduce SS benefits... age discrimination.
People are working longer (if they can find a job... age discrimination!) out of necessity, not by choice... It's because the age 70+ people pushed the programs for more and more until they broke and now there is much less left for the younger generations...
I think you're wrong about your main assumption, vinca. Before pensions and before Social Security, poverty among elders was terrible. The assumption was that those over 65 would move in with their kids. However, not everyone had kids to move in with, or kids who would allow that. Social Security is just what the name implies. Social Security was never intended to be one's sole source of support, and for most people it won't be.
I don't think the 70+ people pushed anything until it broke. You make it sound like there was an age cutoff! People of all ages have always been participating in government, so it's wrong to blame a single generation.
Jay, agree with parts of your statement and vinca on others, there is no doubt that adding additional benefits over the years has contributed to these programs decline and I do blame older folks who contributed little yet over a lifetime will get many times what they put in. SS your right was not intended as a sole support but thats changed over the years with companies no longer doing the pension thing for most.
Also don't forget that the 'new corporate morality' in this country is to funnel all profits to the CEO's. Their pay has increased tenfold while the rest of us have seen our incomes actually flat or in decline over the last 40 years.
They cut our pay and benefits, hide money offshore, work the system, buy Washington to their benefit, and all the while we cry for more 'entitlements' and more tax cuts in the face of a failing economy and tax base.
We want a great society but we don't want to pay for it - rich and poor.
We are doomed.
It's always the other generations fault when someone is a miserable failure.
I retired at 62 and living overseas. The United States is ridiculous as far as the cost of living whereas abroad I can do what I want and a loaf of bread is thirty five cents. I read about people barely hanging on to what they have and just getting by on what they make and it's not worth it having all that stress.
Costa Rica and Belize are looking better and better to me every day.
Loaf of bread 35 cents huh?
One, I don't believe it. However if you are living 'overseas'... if it's South America you risk your very existence on a government that can change literally overnight.
You'll wake up one morning to the sound of your door busting in and troops escorting you to a holding area. All the while hoping and praying the good ole USA will save your mangy A.
I made a similar post on #2.15
As for "Tired-of-it", those of us with the courage to do this, made our bed and don't whine to the government if something goes wrong. I heard the same horror stories from my workmates & neighbors 5 years ago when I did this. I pity them; when I talk to them, the conversation centers on finances and how tough life is. I don't have those problems.
The SSA retirement is now 67--duh, I think that may be why folks are no longer retiring at 65....wake up folks...
This is of course not obama's fault - he's just continuing to contribute to the problem. This goes way, way back. But wouldn't it be nice if just one political leader would step up and fight to return to our origin of 1776...
Oh, you mean back to the time when only white male landowners could vote?
and we didn't need SS because life expectancy was 38 years.
Dont forget Slavery as well.
I believe Roy . . . meant to get back to the Constitution and the limited government the Constitution calls for. Return to the States the programs they can do best for their citizens and quit allowing representatives from all States to determine what my state should do for its citizens.
Problem is that the states are choosing to not do it because they feel it isn't cost-effective. After all, when you have all those non-productive retirees...
Independently Logical, we all knew what Roy meant, but it's a romanticized ideal. See Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, in which Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
People need to plan for their own retirements, not wait until the gov't says they are eligible for SS. I am 46 and don't believe for a minute it will be there when I'm in my later 60's and certainly nothing to live off of. Started planning when I got my first job. Amazing what compounding interest will do with consistent saving. My husband and I are on track to retire at 55. Not lavishly, but comfortably. Priorities have been to make sure to save, buy only what we could afford, pay off debt. Screw the gov't. I decided when I retire, not them. I understand there are generations before me who did buy into the great lie, my mom being one, and we cannot just throw them to the wind. We must live up to our promises, but my generation and those after me, take care of yourselves.
Right there with you RSB!! At 57, I work now to keep busy. When wifey got laid off her teaching job in NYS in 2011, we got out of that hell hole and moved to a right to work state. Just that move alone added over 150 bucks a WEEK to my pocket, just in income and property taxes, not to mention insurance and other items NYers get raped on.
PLANNING is the key! Live on less than you make! Be debt free! Live on less than you make! Be debt free! Live on less than you make! Be debt free!
If you're reading this while having a latte at Starbucks, you're doing it wrong.
I agree but you know what is going to happen. All of us that saved our money and can live ok are now the evil rich that need to give our money to those that saved nothing. Won't get fixed until we get rid of the politically correct media and can laugh and make fun of all the losers rather than treat them as victums.
RSB -
I'm in my 50's and I doubt it will be there for me either.
Oh, and my 'retirement age' was moved up the last time they 'tweaked' Social Security.
"and can laugh and make fun of all the losers"
Billoooo, why would you do this? What kind of mean, vicious person are you? I'm not saying we need to support people who have made bad decisions, but we don't need to ridicule them, either. One twist of fate and we could be there...
the article is trying to spin the fact that the majority will have no choice but to
work till they drop. back to the day's of the the robber barons and captains of industy where workers (common people) are a necessary evil to be used till
they aren't able then discarded to die in poverty
Working til you drop was the natural condition for everyone in the world except royalty for thousands of years. Only 80 years ago did this idea that if you didn't prepare for old age would the gubmint extend charity to you by taxing someone else to pay for it come along. As it started it really was based on good intentions and it was not extravagant. The workers could pay for it. it wasn't a burden. But since then every Congress has expanded the bennies, failed to index them, promised more to more people so they could play the role of sugar daddy. Add to that all the cheating people do to qualify for things they are not eligible for. Many people moved from the ranks of those "paying for it" to the ranks of those "collecting it". Now it's all broke. Nobody wants to unravel the twist on who got benies not originally intended. No gubmint employee wants to audit claimants to make sure they aren't cheating. The gubmint employees want to work 20 to 30 years and collect retirement for 35 to 45 years with the private sector people working 50 years to pay for it. The US has lost it's way. Fairness, equitable treatment and personal responsibility are long gone and not coming back. It's now a shoving match to see who will collect the last bennie before the whole thing stops.
IReadYou, pretty big rant. "Only" 80 years ago was four generations ago, so it's not recent history in the U.S. If you think Social Security is "extravagant," go look up the maximum monthly benefit and see whether you think you could live on that.
Retire? Obama's taxes, regulations and economic agenda canceled that idea.
I am now one of those who will have to work until death paying for Obama's welfare leeches and Government worker retirement plans.
Thank You Democrats.
When Stinky (bo) was first selected 4 years ago, I went on defense. Got out of debt, quit spending money on unneccesary things, and saved, saved, saved. So far, it's worked out well. Work is now a "choice" that I make, not Stinks or his minions.
steve -
I've done that as much as possible, but it's harder when your adult children move back in with their families because a job was lost and the shipyard where the other 3 adults were working is scheduled for closure so they lose their jobs as well. Luckily, 2 of us have found work, and my husband is starting a business.
But it does make it very hard to plan for retirement.
steve,
If it took the election of a man to spur you to do that, you're not doing it properly. I maintain low debt, save what I can, be thrifty whenever possible, cut creature comforts, etc. I do these things no matter who is in the WH. Work isn't a choice, but I'm younger and don't have a lot saved. (Hard with a mortgage and a baby.)
Convenient of you to omit Republican tax cuts over the last few decades for corporations and the wealthy that have contributed to the huge decrease in revenue to fund your entitlements.
But it is cute of you to try and blame it on Obama.
pete -
Any excuse for your own lack of responsible action, huh?
By the way, those tax cuts actually increased revenues to the federal government. You can look it up on the IRS web site. What hurts is that federal spending went up at a much faster rate than revenues did.
Tammy -
Nice try. Go back to your percocet and Ladies Home Journal.
My responsible action, to your horror, began 20 years ago when I graduated from college (debt free! Hope you weren't holding a bottle of vodka!) and began saving for my own retirement.
I'm on track to be set up just fine and retire early.
Perhaps I'll stop in and you can pour me a cup of coffee. Don't forget the cream, either, or your tip will be 'should have stayed in school.'
peteMT, you are so superior to the rest of us, it's a wonder we even bother to post.
Jay - just responding in kind to Tammy's thoughtful post.
If she can assume I'm an 'irresponsible' liberal looking for a handout, I can retort accordingly and put a cigar out in her butter dish.
She's also wrong about the increased revenues.
It is amazing how much I try to put money away for my own retirement to only find that I end up spending it on stuff you can't live without, you know, food, fuel, and clothing. Why is it a millionair or even a billionair thinks they just need to raise prices to better thier own bank account. You have enough to retire on. If your in your 70's and have millions or more, RETIRE ALREADY! Stop sucking my money out of my retirement!
It is not your money until you earn it, Someone at age 70 with a million dollars saved is not taking any money from you, If you do not think you are being paid enough then start your own business and work for yourself.
Lost, today there is less upward mobility than just about any other time in our history, the rich are pulling up those ladders. Gap between middle classs and rich is also growing, we are working harder for less today with the difference going to people paying 15% while we pay 30% tax. Wake up sucker!
Today most people won't live without that big screen TV, smart phone plan and driving a big SUV. We've done volunteer work fixing up houses and it is sickening the number of welfare recips with 60 inch TV's a smoking $7/pack cigarettes! On the other end of the spectrum, those guys making the big bucks are making them the same way your 401K or other investments are--- from the profits of big companies. So really, you have the same ideas as the big guys only have not been as successful at it. So tailing that down---the profit mongering companies are the problem for higher prices and no pensions? Or is it the profit mongering stock owners like you and me??? Do you pick your retirement stocks by who is "nice" and sells goods for prices you think are "reasonable" as a consumer? you can't have it both ways. If you want more you must take a risk not wait for someone to hand it to you-- as the old saying goes-- you cannot get blood out of a turnip and youcannot get benefits out of a company that does not turn a profit for its stockholders--- read you and your neighbors.
That's what I'm talking about. It IS easier (much easier) to bitch and complain about others success when you've had none of your own, and no willingness to change your life. I'd wager that you voted for President Stinky (bo) twice.
Enough with the lies about paying 30% income tax, Unless your adjusted income meaning that your income after all of your deductions (including standard deductions) exceeds $70,700 you are not paying over 15% and most likely you are paying less than 10%, The only suckers are fools like you who believe that someone else is taking your money.
I will say it again, It is not your money until you earn it.
The Mutual Fund IRA meltdown,the 401k's tanking,the stock market floundering and the banking industry going south due to bad mortgages was all carefully orchestrated by the U.S. government.They saw that the majority of the population were baby boomers and they wanted us to keep working to keep paying taxes.It backfired as employers downsized to cut the older workers loose.Now most boomers are collecting their Social Security at their earliest age and will work part time.The baby boomers have paid taxes and funded generous benefits for the greatest generation.Now it's our turn to retire and an article a few weeks ago stated that at least 2/3's of baby boomers do not have the funds to retire.We planned,worked at jobs with promises that weren't delivered.For all the smug posts that I read,let me tell you that this can also happen to you.The younger generation better learn to live lean and mean if they expect to be able to retire in their lifetime.
Everthing will be manipulated to the advantage of the rich and powerful.
But it's their right, after all. Because they're rich and powerful.
The dilemma here of course is that working past the retirement age reduces opportunity for those trying to enter the work force for the first time.
On the other hand, some western governments recognise that, in this age of much improved health amongst the elderly generally, the loss of a retired person's experience from the work place is a squandered resource that a country can hardly afford.
There needs to be some kind of balance but I nevertheless concede the inestimable value of experience.
Read Logan's Run. There's a solution there.
No Aussie: Your idea is based on the underlying assumption that jobs are a welfare program with finite limits. IF one guy holds it there is no room for the other guy. That may be true for certain gubmint jobs. But most jobs in a vibrant economy are private sector wealth producing jobs. Wealth producing means the value of the output is worth more than wages for that job. IF this weren't true private business owners would not hire anyone. IF an endeavor (called a job) is producing wealth, then the job holder is better off because he receives wages and the owner is better off because he receives wealth gains. Both can then put their money into the economy and this creates another round of investing, spending. This is the economic model. IT isn't working as well as it used to because now people take their made in America paychecks down to WalMart and send 'em to China and Korea. They still want you to pay them of course, and they will still spend their check in China too. The US economy is not getting that second round of econ activity. China and Korea is. So the American businesses cut back for lack of customers, the workers get laid off and now the remaining Americans with money have to support the laid off guy. So just how much got saved when you spend you check in China ? Actully it costs more because the increase in taxes you should be saving to support the jobless people is far more than the l;ittle bit you saved when you bought that Chinese junk. Many people argue against this model and we keep having a miserable time. Deny it at our peril.
IReadYou,Absolutely the best post by far.It's good to see that there are others in this country who understand economics.
I have noticed few people respond to comments like mine. Many respond if the topic is not how Americans cannibalize each other by sending the paychecks to China - thus killing instead of stimulating the economy. I think the "quiet" is because they do it, they know they do it, they don't want to admit it and they have no justification for it.
"people who are still working at age 65 and beyond are generally healthier, wealthier and more educated than those who have stopped working"
Well, I wouldn't say they were more educated than those who retire earlier...I would say they were STUPID for not enjoying what they already have!!!!
I plan to keep working after age 65 (just turned 65 this month) because I like what I do for a living. Do you consider that to be stupid?
Severed Head - that's the way to do it; do what you love and it's not like work at all.
I don't expect to be able to retire but I love what I do; I'd prefer to cut back my work time rather than stop working entirely.
trojh confused educated with smart. I know a lot of highly educated dummies. I know some uneducated smart people too. Educated smart people are terrific. Then there is personal preferences for comfort. Some early retirees life in near poverty but are OK with it. They trained themselves to do with very little. And some young retirees are gubmint employee retirees - beneficiaries of a system they had nothing to do with setting up. And sum are unidicted Madoff's - having robbed their clients, customers and employees and getting away with it. There are many kinds and each one swears he deserves it.
Like my dad said, whoever came up with the 401K, was a moron!!! I'm 45yrs old, damn glad I served my country instead (25yrs) and receive a descent retirement, plus I receive 50% VA disability too for issues received from my service!!! Medical costs are cheap and I get many other benefits like discounts on my property taxes for life, this includes my wife even after I' gone!!! Plenty for me until I reach 62, then collect SS (IF) it's still around!! For all you younsters reading this post, it really is not a bad gig!!!!
Maybe it's because fewer of us are working...the rest are on the gummint tit...
Its not just us but corporations which make billions off the govt as well.
Welcome to Obama world, I'm 61 and will most likely work till I'm dead because of health ins. concerns.
My mother is almost 93, has been a "senior" for quite some time, and has lived through several presidencies. She will be the first to say that the financial worries of older citizens predate Obama by a long shot.
hkdakota.........that is a strange statement. I guarantee you that your health insurance costs are going to go way down in 4 years when you hit 65. Obama's policies and changes have only served to help your health insurance situation, not hurt it. Your comment makes no sense at all.
"I agree with CEO, not everyone in the Baby Boomer Generation is to blame, but certainly it was the liberals in that generation that started the ball rolling to the destruction of what was once the greatest nation on earth."
Right, we were a much greater nation when women were limited to doing "women" stuff, when non-Christians had to recite Christian prayers in public schools, when gays could be beaten to a pulp just for existing, without it making the police blotter, and when blacks had to sit at their own lunch counters. Damn liberals.
Right, we were a much greater nation when women were limited to doing "women" stuff, when non-Christians had to recite Christian prayers in public schools, when gays could be beaten to a pulp just for existing, without it making the police blotter, and when blacks had to sit at their own lunch counters. Damn liberal. To Nikolaus20
WOW, your a piece of work,
I wish people like you could just flush yourself down a toilet, you belong with the of the crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I wish that knee-jerk self righteous people like you americanvoter, had the brains to read sarcasm AS sarcasm, which my comment WAS. Honestly, I listed several bad things to illustrate why the "old" America WASN'T good in some ways, and you took my comment as an endorsement of those things! Try reading my past comments. A gay bashing, racist, sexist pig, I most certainly am not. IN the future I'll use a "sarcasm disclaimer" in big letters to keep you from getting upset.
Go back and read your own statement. That is how everybody will view you in that manner. I did, if it was meant to be sarcasim, then I'm sorry that I took what you said wrong. Please no hard feelings OK.
Thanks, no hard feelings. I could have made the sarcasm factor clearer, but thought it to be pretty obvious. I disagree though everyone would view my comment as you did. Thanks again.
The sarcasm WAS obvious!!
Nikolaus20 I took your comment as you intended. It made perfect sense to me as I have read other people write a similar comment many times in the past. The good old days are good for memories only sometimes. This proves how divisive we have become because of people like Karl Rove, the staff at Fox News, Newt Gingrich as he goosestepped to the Speaker of the House in 1995 and the rantings of Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. We have a mentally ill country.
You may want to use the HTML tags /sarcon and /sarcoff in your posts.
I lived and worked in those "good old days" My parents never gave me a allowance so I started mowing lawns, pulling weeds, stacking wood, splitting kindling when I was 7 or 8. Trust me the 50's were not the good old days, when I started working in a hardware store (64) half the employees were making a nickel more than minimum wage ($1.25). Several were on SS but still worked there after working there for 30, 40 years (without a retirement plan). Most would talk about how good it was compared to when they grew up in The Depression, and that is why people called it the good old days. Trust me it wasn't.
Anyone wanting a "Free Ride" should be given a one-way ticket out of the country in exchange for their citizenship.
The good thing about the 60's through 80's were you could party hard and a DUI wasn't a sin. It was almost always reduced to reckless driving or less and wasn't a $15,000 punishment.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; just deport the unemployed and the elderly. Eliminate Social Security, unemployment, Medicare, and Medicaid. Just round up those losers and shove 'em across the Mexican border. After all, if they can't take care of themselves they're not true Americans, right?