The Daily Page | Madison, Wisconsin • View topic

by **AaronTheSnob** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:19 am

I hadn't really thought of this and don't know why, since it is so straightforward and simple, but heard it being discussed last night on MSNBC:

There are currently millions of people between the ages of 62 and 66 who are still working because they 1) do not yet qualify for Medicare and need the health insurance they have through their employers and 2) do not want--or can't afford--to take a lower monthly Social Security payment than they would get if they reached full retirement age.

Potential Solution: Lower the retirement age to 62 and let them go. By so doing, it would conceivably open up millions of jobs for those who are unemployed and have been unable to find new employment. Most employers could never stay in business if they just refused to replace the millions of workers 62 and over who retired. Meanwhile, it would be ultimately cheaper for the states (and Fed) to let retirees collect Social Security and avail themselves of Medicare than to continue to pay out unemployment benefits.

Thoughts?

by **Bwis53** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:27 am

Oh, you hit a nerve! I'm pushing 60 and I had to ask a program head for a face-to-face meeting, about why I'm not getting hired. People will say things privately, they would never say over the phone or via email. I could be legally put on the street with nothing. In our current climate, many boomers are taking early retirement, because they have to. I checked out what I'd get, including my husband's income. It's poverty. There's not a lot of options.

by **Crockett** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:32 am

AaronTheSnob wrote: Meanwhile, it would be ultimately cheaper for the states (and Fed) to let retirees collect Social Security and avail themselves of Medicare than to continue to pay out unemployment benefits.

It would?

by **Silas** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:50 am

AaronTheSnob wrote:Most employers could never stay in business if they just refused to replace the millions of workers 62 and over who retired.

My gut says they'd replace 'em with overseas workers.

Business doesn't do anything for the good of the country, they do what's good for the bottom line. That's why trickle down and tax breaks for corporations never worked to add more good paying American jobs.

by **Bwis53** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:38 pm

Funny thing is, a young person, just out of college, wouldn't put up with nearly as much BS, as an older person. An older person will show up, even if they feel like crap, and on time! And guess what reward the older person gets for it?

by **uwstudent** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:08 am

If you're implying it's much better for young people, it aint. Some are coming out of school with mounds of debt and we'll never be able to afford to buy a house either.

by **Ned Flanders** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:53 am

Bwis53 wrote:Funny thing is, a young person, just out of college, wouldn't put up with nearly as much BS, as an older person. An older person will show up, even if they feel like crap, and on time! And guess what reward the older person gets for it?

Good take bwissy. Two articles in todays Strib back you up. Imagine trying to keep these darlings happy:

They want to work when it's convenient to their lives -- not punch in at some 9-to-5 job and be stuck sitting in a cubicle. They relish a challenge more than a paycheck, and resent it when bosses look over their shoulders or fail to reward them for a job well done.

For this, the 120 million members of Generations X and Y have been called self-centered, spoiled, slackers and lacking in motivation. But in the coming decade, 40 percent of America's baby boom workforce will be eligible for retirement. And ready or not, employers are going to have to reckon with the workplace desires of the next generation of workers -- and customers-- if they hope to survive.
http://www.startribune.com/business/651 ... nchO7DiUsT

Filling the shoes of boomers

Employment experts say if companies want to hire the right people, they need to understand what makes them tick. And they need to gear the work and work environment to a restless new generation of workers.

http://www.startribune.com/business/651 ... nchO7DiUsT

by **feh23** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:47 pm

Bwis53 wrote:Funny thing is, a young person, just out of college, wouldn't put up with nearly as much BS, as an older person. An older person will show up, even if they feel like crap, and on time! And guess what reward the older person gets for it?

Yeah, right...Tell that to Epic who won't hire anyone over the age of 30.

by **Henry Vilas** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:03 pm

feh23 wrote:Yeah, right...Tell that to Epic who won't hire anyone over the age of 30.

Not always the case. My brother-in-law, who has a PhD in microbiology, was hired some years past his thirtieth birthday. He also has a vast depth of knowledge in computing.

by **green union terrace chair** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:24 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
feh23 wrote:Yeah, right...Tell that to Epic who won't hire anyone over the age of 30.

Not always the case. My brother-in-law, who has a PhD in microbiology, was hired some years past his thirtieth birthday. He also has a vast depth of knowledge in computing.

Oh, that's all I need on my resume then.

by **Madsci** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:55 pm

I am thinking the computer skills were more important than the PhD.

by **feh23** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:12 pm

Most everyone I know with great computer skills, good job references, and over the age of 30 has applied at Epic at one time or another, and none of them were hired...those who inquired got the bullshit "you were overqualified" excuse. The one person I do know who works at Epic has told me they rarely hire people over 30 because those people know what they're worth and won't willingly work themselves to death for anything less. They want young people who can be easily molded to fit in their corporate hole.

by **Madsci** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:33 pm

Maybe you know a bunch of slackers?

by **minnow** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:35 pm

Many years ago, I was off on Maternity leave, when I got a call from a friend at the office where I was to return after the baby was born. We had a new manager and he had commented that he would never hire anyone over 30 because they were too set in their ways. However, he had to take me back (though I was 32) because of my status. At about the same time, he'd hired an 18 year old girl and worked with her to get her husband a job so that she could stay in Madison. What a laugh. in less than 6 months, she and her husband left the company. And we had to clean up several problems she'd created because of misunderstanding our accounting and sales promotion processes. This particular "young" manager learned. He changed his hiring practice shortly thereafter.

by **green union terrace chair** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:54 pm

minnow wrote:Many years ago, I was off on Maternity leave, when I got a call from a friend at the office where I was to return after the baby was born. We had a new manager and he had commented that he would never hire anyone over 30 because they were too set in their ways. However, he had to take me back (though I was 32) because of my status. At about the same time, he'd hired an 18 year old girl and worked with her to get her husband a job so that she could stay in Madison. What a laugh. in less than 6 months, she and her husband left the company. And we had to clean up several problems she'd created because of misunderstanding our accounting and sales promotion processes. This particular "young" manager learned. He changed his hiring practice shortly thereafter.

That's also terribly illegal. You're not even allowed to ask someone's age during the hiring process (other than to make sure they're over 17). So your manager was breaking the law if he was asking people if they were over 30.