Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Jun 6, 2014
"With Baby Boomers ... turning 65 at the rate of 10,000 a day"
In olden times age 65 may have been a milestone, but what is its significance today?
This happened in Japan about 25 years ago, and it was indeed ugly. Basically, the younger generation felt they should not have to work as hard as their parents and grandparents had to to make all the same economic gains.
It doesn't work that way, younglings.
This report left me wondering how much relevant context the speaker omitted (or didn't even know about).
'smaller cohorts of working adults financing the retirements of larger cohorts of older ones — represents "uncharted territory, not just for us but for all of humanity."'
What about existing parallels like Belgian unemployment policy, famous for unemployed workers receiving longtime benefits that rise with age. This leads to older workers effectively disincentivized to work, while younger ones resent the burden of supporting them through taxes.
'[The US went from] 16 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary in 1950 to just three today.'
But -- wasn't this mentioned? -- exacerbating that issue, the US, in the same interval, also went from Social Security as last-resort retirement safety net (largely self-sustaining, benefits linked closely to contributions) to far more generous payouts. That was partly a political move (starting in earnest with the Johnson administration) to buy elderly votes. The increased payout magnitudes continue to be seen emotionally as entitlements, something "earned," though that has long been inaccurate compared to past generations. Today's retirees see potential payouts far out of proportion to anything their grandparents did, and the taxes to fund that situation keep rising.
I wouldn't say it going to be a "showdown", but its going to be a rough transition for all, dealing with 40 years of deficit spending, lack of investment in infrastructure, and NIMBY based housing policy, though at least we're starting to fix the problems now that they've come to a head.
His comparison of millennials to boomers seems off, especially in the number of workers per retiree.
It appears there are slightly more millennials than boomers in the U.S.
William Strauss and Neil Howe projected in their 1991 book "Generations" that the U.S. Millennial population would be 76 million people. Later, Neil Howe revised the number to over 95 million people (in the U.S.). As of 2012, it is estimated that there are approximately 80 million millennials residing in the United States.
The generation can be segmented into two broadly defined cohorts: The Leading-Edge Baby Boomers are individuals born between 1946 and 1955, those who came of age during the Vietnam War era. This group represents slightly more than half of the generation, or roughly 38,002,000 people of all races. The other half of the generation was born between 1956 and 1964. Called Late Boomers, or Trailing-Edge Boomers, this second cohort includes about 37,818,000 individuals, according to Live Births by Age and Mother and Race, 1933–98, published by the Center for Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics.
The lack of financial security for the future is combated by a strong sense of entrepreneurship and an attitude of 'my future is in my hands' in the Millennial Generation. Despite many critics who regard the Millennial Generation as lazy and entitled for moving back in with parents, in reality, it's much wiser than spending beyond your means as many Boomers found out in the real estate crisis. In many cultures, young people live with their parents until they can make it out on their own. In my speaking about the Millennial Generation, I have found quite a few other Millennial leaders who would like to work with all generations to create a more sustainable future. I hope that the media and generations start working with us and taking us up on those offers where they come.
Gen Y Speaker, Millennial Speaker
The fallacy in this argument is that it is by numbers of workers and not by money brought it.
The Social Security tax is regressive and if they would just fix the tax system putting it back to its original progressivity and tax all income the same based on the total income of the person from all sources - problem solved.
Robert, a resident of another community
said: I wouldn't say it going to be a "showdown", but its going to be a rough transition for all, dealing with 40 years of deficit spending
The deficit spending was really the top 1% refusing to pay taxes and rigging the system by getting Reagan elected who started all this deficit spending. After Reagan trying to push the tax burden down on the lower income levels while corruption and greed went ballastic at the higher levels has
1. corrupted government
2. killed any idea of reducing poverty
3. created one of the most unequal societies on the planet now
4. also corruped media and journalism
5. been a big motivator toward dumbing down our schools so the masses of people do not understand what is going on.
6. reduced educational and work opportunities.
7. put private money - most of which is in the hands or control of about 30,000 people in this country in charge of everything, and in order to sustain and protect this system is pretty much killing anything that might challenge or change it.
Coffeebar opens in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 2 comments | 5,295 views
Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 868 views
Spring College Fairs
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 791 views
Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 783 views
The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 408 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Express / Weekend Express
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2018 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.