7 ms·

I don't think I'll ever get tired of posting the chart ZeroHedge put together with BLS statistics showing that the 55+ cohort has, in practical terms, monopoliz

I don't think I'll ever get tired of posting the chart ZeroHedge put together with BLS statistics showing that the 55+ cohort has, in practical terms, monopolized the 'economic recovery' since 2008. http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/07/03/job%20additions%20total%20by%20age_0.jpg http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/im... Anecdotally I've seen more and more 60+ workers doing line-level gigs like cashier or low-skill retail than ever. I think there's an undercurrent of discrimination against youth, actually, in that the 55+ group will be dependable and complacent because they need to work and therefore will show up to work. In the modern US economy, longevity in one firm or role is actually bad for a young person's career! There are no pensions to earn. There are limited annual raises that are lower than inflation. On and on and on. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the plight of the elderly in such a position if they weren't, you know, basically kicking away the ladder they used to climb to the top, spend the country broke, and then continue to vote entitlements while passing a faux-future of success demanding everybody get a Bachelor's to even be a Secretary answering phones. This whole system is so broken pointing it out sounds extreme or mean, but it's just obvious to me over these past 15+ years of working. I just got my SS statement the other day, and was extremely proud to see that every year I was eligible to work, even if I was going to school / college / etc, I did work. Not a single year without an above the board job. I don't think a lot of Millenials will be able to come anywhere near it, and I don't think it's entirely their fault. End of my $0.02 that is really worth about 1/8 of that...

tcoppi 10y ago
I'm amazed that this is the first halfway-reasonable post to come out of this discussion. The real story here is the demographic breakdown the western world is experiencing, and that Japan has been knee-deep in since the 90s. This has tons of implications, from expected 401k returns that are expected to fund our retirements, to the evidenced fact that older people are working longer, retiring later, and hence eating up a lot of the income and job gains made in the last decade.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Honestly it took me a long time to turn 'anger' into 'acceptance' and then into 'context' regarding this subject. I was raised in a very frugal home that spent good money on "good" things (ex: education, learning experiences, an Encyclopedia Set for Christmas one year), avoided really buying in to materialism (ex: driving older, paid off cars) and I appreciate how different this was from apparently a great deal of my peers. It's unfortunate. If I could go back and tell my parents to cool it with the "success is earned here in the US more often than not" line of motivation and be a little more realistic about power dynamics, I wouldn't have spent as much time trying to figure it out, to see things as they kind of sort of work. I'm not angry anymore, per se, just becoming a grumpy old man, as one is wont to do.
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    What really angers me (coming from a similarly frugal upbringing and taking that into my adult life) is how frugality has been penalized at a macro level. The last 7 yrs of zero interest rates, the easy access to money prior to that, etc, have just made responsible living actually seem 'irresponsible'.
    - hackaflocka 10y ago
      Frugality and responsible budgeting are "superpowers". Your neighbors who took those zero interest rate loans and are living "the life" going on vacations and buying new cars... it's all a big show, and it looks grand from outside, but they're probably experiencing all kinds of stresses that you don't. These are the kinds of people who keep the psycho-pharma complex profitable.
      - 6stringmerc 10y ago
        Or, as my parents said a long time ago, "When they die, a bunch of trucks show up to take it all away."
      - infinite8s 10y ago
branchless 10y ago
over 55 can afford to do jobs like cashier because they likely don't have to rent (in most cases). All our problems are laid at the door of land price ramping.
- Retric 10y ago
  Land is really cheap in most of the US, that does not really help as much as you might think. Sure, your house might be 40-80k but good luck finding a good job or customers. IMO, a lot of this has to do with housing subsides keeping people near city's who don't need to be near city's. If your rent has not kept up with inflation for the last 20+ years then why move? You don't have any equity to liquidate and rent control is keeping the price stable so just stay.
- sharemywin 10y ago
  If you take SSN early you can only make so much before feds take back 50% of it for each dollar you earn. So, why lose 1/2 or more of your benefit and take a more stressful job.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- mikestew 10y ago
  over 55 can afford to do jobs like cashier because they likely don't have to rent (in most cases) Anecdotally, I know an astounding number of people over 55 that still hold a mortgage. Hell, I've known people who retired with a mortgage. So I'm guessing that in many cases they're a cashier because if they don't work they'll lose the house.
  - lettercarrier 10y ago
    <<< So I'm guessing that in many cases they're a cashier because if they don't work they'll lose the house. Heck no! Stop working, start dying.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
a3n 10y ago
> spend the country broke I'm 59. I don't remember doing that. (And are we actually broke?) I do remember voting. Everyone I voted for said one thing to me, and did what they were told by their donors and the MIC. I hope I live long enough to see what the currently upcoming generations get blamed for in their old age.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- badsock 10y ago
  If any generation had the power to change things how things ended up today, it was yours. To pick one example: all the supreme court justices who presided over the Citizens United case were appointed during your prime years. If a generation inherits a better world than they leave to their kids, I don't think they get to blame how hard it would have been to have done better. The buck's got to stop somewhere. And having failed to do little but enrich themselves, at the very least your generation can stop talking about lazy and entitled the younger generation is. The hypocrisy is staggering.
  - lawpoop 10y ago
    If you're going to blame voters for the Supreme Court nominees of their presidential picks, then it's fair to say that the political class is completely disconnected from the common people. In other words, it's not their fault, but rather the Elites'. Those nominated for the Supreme Court come from a short list of federal judges and other legal wonks. No average voter has any idea of the name of any of these people. Therefore, they cannot be said to be voting on a candidate based on their Supreme Court picks, except in the most liberal/conservative sense. Case in point: Merrick Garland. He was on everyone's short list, including mentions by Republican leaders as a candidate who could be confirmed by the Senate. But the average voted hadn't heard his name before he was nominated by Obama. It's really the political class that sold us out to privatization and globalization. That's where the buck stops. It happened regardless of who was voted in. Both parties were captured, and 3rd parties are not a realistic option in our system. We are /not really/ a democracy.
bwanab 10y ago
> I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the plight of the elderly in such a position if they weren't, you know, basically kicking away the ladder they used to climb to the top, spend the country broke, and then continue to vote entitlements while passing a faux-future of success demanding everybody get a Bachelor's to even be a Secretary answering phones. This whole system is so broken pointing it out sounds extreme or mean, but it's just obvious to me over these past 15+ years of working. It's funny to think that this was exactly what I was thinking when I'd been working for 10+ years in my early thirties looking for a house after they'd skyrocketed in value the previous few years. Inflation had eaten away at any savings I'd made, gas lines were a recent memory as well as several recessions one after the other. Oh, this was in the early 1980s. I get it. I've got kids coming into this economy and I'm worried for them. I also get that there are a lot of people my age who really are self-centered a-holes and consistently vote to keep the pie moving up toward them. What I think we need is massive infrastructure investment funded by both current taxes (to get the people with money to pay) and low cost debt (so the beneficiaries of the investsments can pay) to kick the hiring structure down to the people that can do those jobs.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  For sure - I think there's a middle ground, a real sweet spot where infrastructure investment puts able bodies to work, pays them a fair wage (or maybe generous so they spend/kick-start consumerism/pay down debt), and actually improves the long-term outlook of the nation. Those FDR "make work" programs did a lot of good things that I think we'd be wise to study for potential emulation. The CCC initiative. Politically, to a large voting bloc - disenfranchised Millenials - I think it could pull some water (not to mention stir up encouragement from the older population that "those dang kids" are doing something good with their time). People would have to go where the work is, more than likely, but that's a trade-off. Unfortunately a great deal of the "low interest debt" seems to be funneling into equities and buy-backs, only worsening the transfer of wealth to investor classes rather than working classes, at a time when, really, it doesn't make sense to do that.
lettercarrier 10y ago
I wish I could find the link to an American Heritage article on a female (I believe) that was on a failed crusade to overcome the amount of poverty, poor conditions and voicelessness in America for the elderly at (I believe) the turn of the century or first decades.. I am very glad many older Americans can make it. Taking care of the non-working elderly Americans is mostly a chore that I see in both my day job and my family's own history. One true benefit of being an older worker is you don't ever have to put up with any BS at your job. I work now at the most hated retailer and love it, but will quit the minute I stop liking it. I will move on to the next part time job. When I was in the tech scene I never had the choice to leave because the pay was too good. But as an older dude, the freedom from saying "Screw you employer" is better than power or prestige
throwaway1979 10y ago
Err .. how does one get an SS statement? I'm 37 .. don't recall seeing one. Do you have to request it? As far as I know, I contribute into SS every paycheck.
- neon_electro 10y ago
  You can create a my Social Security account at the Social Security Administration web site: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/ https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/ There you can view your statement.
- muzz 10y ago
  I got these years in the mail several years ago, and then again last year. I looked it up at the time, and the mailing is infrequent and depends on the budget.
hackaflocka 10y ago
Serious question: I keep reading about high real unemployment in the U.S. and in Europe. Then 2 paragraphs later I will read something along the lines of how immigration is great because a large number of workers are needed in U.S. and Europe. Can anyone point me to some well argued work that squares the above 2 sentences? I'm an immigrant to the U.S. myself, so I'm not anti-immigrant per se, it's just that some things have left me scratching my head.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  While I don't have the links to provide right away, the "unemployment rate" in the US is around 6%, but to get to that number, a large number of people who haven't had a meaningful job for a long time and have "given up looking for work" are simply not counted as part of the labor force. Thus, in the US, labor force participation rates are at an all time low - directly in contrast to the low unemployment rate talked about. A large number of workers are needed in the US to do low-wage tasks - pretty much so their employer can profit from their labor - and some of the issue is that illegal immigrants wouldn't be counted as part of the labor force (because they aren't supposed to be here), but in theory, they are displacing the opportunity for Citizens to do those jobs. The issues are more complex than I describe, and they certainly will apply to skilled labor too (ex: nurses to care for an aging population). One of the major contentions is that companies, in reality, post jobs with requirements that are high (10+ years! X, Y, Z skills!) but offer a salary or compensation that is way, way below market value. This means that technically yes, the company can not find a qualified candidate to do the job, because they have targeted people who would be willing to do it for much less just to, well, have an opportunity to get into the US. It is very backwards for the US to be "anti-immigration" as a general concept (it's the foundation of the nation!), so how the arguments get twisted make it hard to figure out in some ways. This explanation is simply my perspective using my observations and stuff I read, so it is not peer reviewed or anything like that!
  - hackaflocka 10y ago
    > are simply not counted as part of the labor force Which is why I said "real unemployment." The official rate may be 6% but the real rate may be 20% (if we were to count the people who have given up and are now on welfare).
muzz 10y ago
There is a lot of demographic effect in that number, as the 55+ cohort is a larger number of people because of the Baby Boom. The data tells us that almost all of the new jobs created since the recession have gone to those with at least a college education: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-30/americans-with-more-education-have-taken-almost-every-job-created-in-the-recovery http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-30/americans-...

tcoppi 10y ago

I'm amazed that this is the first halfway-reasonable post to come out of this discussion. The real story here is the demographic breakdown the western world is experiencing, and that Japan has been knee-deep in since the 90s. This has tons of implications, from expected 401k returns that are expected to fund our retirements, to the evidenced fact that older people are working longer, retiring later, and hence eating up a lot of the income and job gains made in the last decade.

6stringmerc 10y ago
Honestly it took me a long time to turn 'anger' into 'acceptance' and then into 'context' regarding this subject. I was raised in a very frugal home that spent good money on "good" things (ex: education, learning experiences, an Encyclopedia Set for Christmas one year), avoided really buying in to materialism (ex: driving older, paid off cars) and I appreciate how different this was from apparently a great deal of my peers. It's unfortunate. If I could go back and tell my parents to cool it with the "success is earned here in the US more often than not" line of motivation and be a little more realistic about power dynamics, I wouldn't have spent as much time trying to figure it out, to see things as they kind of sort of work. I'm not angry anymore, per se, just becoming a grumpy old man, as one is wont to do.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  What really angers me (coming from a similarly frugal upbringing and taking that into my adult life) is how frugality has been penalized at a macro level. The last 7 yrs of zero interest rates, the easy access to money prior to that, etc, have just made responsible living actually seem 'irresponsible'.
  - hackaflocka 10y ago
    Frugality and responsible budgeting are "superpowers". Your neighbors who took those zero interest rate loans and are living "the life" going on vacations and buying new cars... it's all a big show, and it looks grand from outside, but they're probably experiencing all kinds of stresses that you don't. These are the kinds of people who keep the psycho-pharma complex profitable.
    - 6stringmerc 10y ago
      Or, as my parents said a long time ago, "When they die, a bunch of trucks show up to take it all away."
    - infinite8s 10y ago

branchless 10y ago

over 55 can afford to do jobs like cashier because they likely don't have to rent (in most cases). All our problems are laid at the door of land price ramping.

Retric 10y ago
Land is really cheap in most of the US, that does not really help as much as you might think. Sure, your house might be 40-80k but good luck finding a good job or customers. IMO, a lot of this has to do with housing subsides keeping people near city's who don't need to be near city's. If your rent has not kept up with inflation for the last 20+ years then why move? You don't have any equity to liquidate and rent control is keeping the price stable so just stay.
sharemywin 10y ago
If you take SSN early you can only make so much before feds take back 50% of it for each dollar you earn. So, why lose 1/2 or more of your benefit and take a more stressful job.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mikestew 10y ago
over 55 can afford to do jobs like cashier because they likely don't have to rent (in most cases) Anecdotally, I know an astounding number of people over 55 that still hold a mortgage. Hell, I've known people who retired with a mortgage. So I'm guessing that in many cases they're a cashier because if they don't work they'll lose the house.
- lettercarrier 10y ago
  <<< So I'm guessing that in many cases they're a cashier because if they don't work they'll lose the house. Heck no! Stop working, start dying.
- antisthenes 10y ago

a3n 10y ago

> spend the country broke I'm 59. I don't remember doing that. (And are we actually broke?) I do remember voting. Everyone I voted for said one thing to me, and did what they were told by their donors and the MIC. I hope I live long enough to see what the currently upcoming generations get blamed for in their old age.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
badsock 10y ago
If any generation had the power to change things how things ended up today, it was yours. To pick one example: all the supreme court justices who presided over the Citizens United case were appointed during your prime years. If a generation inherits a better world than they leave to their kids, I don't think they get to blame how hard it would have been to have done better. The buck's got to stop somewhere. And having failed to do little but enrich themselves, at the very least your generation can stop talking about lazy and entitled the younger generation is. The hypocrisy is staggering.
- lawpoop 10y ago
  If you're going to blame voters for the Supreme Court nominees of their presidential picks, then it's fair to say that the political class is completely disconnected from the common people. In other words, it's not their fault, but rather the Elites'. Those nominated for the Supreme Court come from a short list of federal judges and other legal wonks. No average voter has any idea of the name of any of these people. Therefore, they cannot be said to be voting on a candidate based on their Supreme Court picks, except in the most liberal/conservative sense. Case in point: Merrick Garland. He was on everyone's short list, including mentions by Republican leaders as a candidate who could be confirmed by the Senate. But the average voted hadn't heard his name before he was nominated by Obama. It's really the political class that sold us out to privatization and globalization. That's where the buck stops. It happened regardless of who was voted in. Both parties were captured, and 3rd parties are not a realistic option in our system. We are /not really/ a democracy.

bwanab 10y ago

> I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the plight of the elderly in such a position if they weren't, you know, basically kicking away the ladder they used to climb to the top, spend the country broke, and then continue to vote entitlements while passing a faux-future of success demanding everybody get a Bachelor's to even be a Secretary answering phones. This whole system is so broken pointing it out sounds extreme or mean, but it's just obvious to me over these past 15+ years of working. It's funny to think that this was exactly what I was thinking when I'd been working for 10+ years in my early thirties looking for a house after they'd skyrocketed in value the previous few years. Inflation had eaten away at any savings I'd made, gas lines were a recent memory as well as several recessions one after the other. Oh, this was in the early 1980s. I get it. I've got kids coming into this economy and I'm worried for them. I also get that there are a lot of people my age who really are self-centered a-holes and consistently vote to keep the pie moving up toward them. What I think we need is massive infrastructure investment funded by both current taxes (to get the people with money to pay) and low cost debt (so the beneficiaries of the investsments can pay) to kick the hiring structure down to the people that can do those jobs.

6stringmerc 10y ago
For sure - I think there's a middle ground, a real sweet spot where infrastructure investment puts able bodies to work, pays them a fair wage (or maybe generous so they spend/kick-start consumerism/pay down debt), and actually improves the long-term outlook of the nation. Those FDR "make work" programs did a lot of good things that I think we'd be wise to study for potential emulation. The CCC initiative. Politically, to a large voting bloc - disenfranchised Millenials - I think it could pull some water (not to mention stir up encouragement from the older population that "those dang kids" are doing something good with their time). People would have to go where the work is, more than likely, but that's a trade-off. Unfortunately a great deal of the "low interest debt" seems to be funneling into equities and buy-backs, only worsening the transfer of wealth to investor classes rather than working classes, at a time when, really, it doesn't make sense to do that.

lettercarrier 10y ago

I wish I could find the link to an American Heritage article on a female (I believe) that was on a failed crusade to overcome the amount of poverty, poor conditions and voicelessness in America for the elderly at (I believe) the turn of the century or first decades.. I am very glad many older Americans can make it. Taking care of the non-working elderly Americans is mostly a chore that I see in both my day job and my family's own history. One true benefit of being an older worker is you don't ever have to put up with any BS at your job. I work now at the most hated retailer and love it, but will quit the minute I stop liking it. I will move on to the next part time job. When I was in the tech scene I never had the choice to leave because the pay was too good. But as an older dude, the freedom from saying "Screw you employer" is better than power or prestige

throwaway1979 10y ago

Err .. how does one get an SS statement? I'm 37 .. don't recall seeing one. Do you have to request it? As far as I know, I contribute into SS every paycheck.

neon_electro 10y ago
You can create a my Social Security account at the Social Security Administration web site: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/ https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/ There you can view your statement.
muzz 10y ago
I got these years in the mail several years ago, and then again last year. I looked it up at the time, and the mailing is infrequent and depends on the budget.

hackaflocka 10y ago

Serious question: I keep reading about high real unemployment in the U.S. and in Europe. Then 2 paragraphs later I will read something along the lines of how immigration is great because a large number of workers are needed in U.S. and Europe. Can anyone point me to some well argued work that squares the above 2 sentences? I'm an immigrant to the U.S. myself, so I'm not anti-immigrant per se, it's just that some things have left me scratching my head.

6stringmerc 10y ago
While I don't have the links to provide right away, the "unemployment rate" in the US is around 6%, but to get to that number, a large number of people who haven't had a meaningful job for a long time and have "given up looking for work" are simply not counted as part of the labor force. Thus, in the US, labor force participation rates are at an all time low - directly in contrast to the low unemployment rate talked about. A large number of workers are needed in the US to do low-wage tasks - pretty much so their employer can profit from their labor - and some of the issue is that illegal immigrants wouldn't be counted as part of the labor force (because they aren't supposed to be here), but in theory, they are displacing the opportunity for Citizens to do those jobs. The issues are more complex than I describe, and they certainly will apply to skilled labor too (ex: nurses to care for an aging population). One of the major contentions is that companies, in reality, post jobs with requirements that are high (10+ years! X, Y, Z skills!) but offer a salary or compensation that is way, way below market value. This means that technically yes, the company can not find a qualified candidate to do the job, because they have targeted people who would be willing to do it for much less just to, well, have an opportunity to get into the US. It is very backwards for the US to be "anti-immigration" as a general concept (it's the foundation of the nation!), so how the arguments get twisted make it hard to figure out in some ways. This explanation is simply my perspective using my observations and stuff I read, so it is not peer reviewed or anything like that!
- hackaflocka 10y ago
  > are simply not counted as part of the labor force Which is why I said "real unemployment." The official rate may be 6% but the real rate may be 20% (if we were to count the people who have given up and are now on welfare).

muzz 10y ago

There is a lot of demographic effect in that number, as the 55+ cohort is a larger number of people because of the Baby Boom. The data tells us that almost all of the new jobs created since the recession have gone to those with at least a college education: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-30/americans-with-more-education-have-taken-almost-every-job-created-in-the-recovery http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-30/americans-...