Taking those 50-65 and turning them into receivers of SS instead of payers into the system is the quickest way to bankrupt it.

It isn't a bottomless pit. The money to pay to those over 65 has to come from someone.

Posts like these are why large chunks of the population don't take our side seriously.

There is a "sweet spot" in which those working are enough to pay for those retired.

That sweet spot is much higher than 50.

You're forgetting that aspect of this.

Which is why wages are so stagnant with our current wave of retirees.

What happens is that for lower paying jobs, a big wave of immigrants come in to take them. For higher paying jobs, production is moved offshore to where wages are cheaper. This lowers jobs. Or jobs are automated as that becomes cheaper than manpower.

We are not a closed system economy. And if tomorrow we passed a law to ban all imports of goods and all immigration, within a few short months we would experience crippling shortages, because we no longer make many essential products. GDP would fall.

We wouldn't be selling burgers in fast food joints if the price went up a whole lot.

Nor would the 50 year olds actually retire. SS doesn't provide enough to live on. Instead, they would go out and work whatever jobs they could find, or their current jobs, which would drive wages down instead of up.

You find a lot of older people working in jobs that teens used to have, and they can do so for under living wages, because they have a base income from SS. That wouldn't change. It would increase.

There is so much wrong with the OP that I don't know where to start, but the theory that wages would automatically go up is flawed no matter what theory of action you come up with. They wouldn't.

Wages have not gone up. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/business/economy/wage-disparity-continues-to-grow.html?_r=0

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Some of us have bills to pay.

figured you were just really into their stuff, I guess if we all retire at 50 there is lots of free time for shopping eh?

When we lose our humor all we have left is.....sadness...

Maybe this will make you laugh

should I google it?

Its the dirty secret in DC that everybody knows about.

Personally I think it's a great idea. What the hell is the point of increased productivity if we all still have to work full time for 45 years?

Unless wages double, and the SS tax rate goes up to 50%, the idea fails through math alone.

That would have a drastic upward effect on wages.

It moves 60 million people from "working" to "retired".

There are 40 million people over 65. There are 100 million over 50.

Raise wages? I would hope so, if for no other reason than 10 people must do the work that is now done by 14.

Hell, one person today does the equivalent of what dozens of people did even just back in the 1950s.

If the number of workers and retirees are equal, a 50% tax rate yields enough money to pay retirees 50% of the average wage.

I mean, obviously this or that particular person may do worse under this scheme. The trick is scaring businesses into keeping wages at their current percentage of GDP throughout this process.

Plus most people have kids either in college or getting married at age 50..no retirement anytime soon.

the sarcasm thingy....

and I would also support some means testing above, say, 250k in income for retirees.

I justify this by looking at the last few decades in which the ownership class has destroyed wages for the middle class. let some of this be rectified in retirement.

Without contributions from those between 50-65, the whole system will collapse. I'm 52 and not near ready to retire or hand my job over to someone 20 years younger.

Truck test
http://www.techhive.com/article/2046262/the-first-driverless-cars-will-actually-be-a-bunch-of-trucks.html

automated pharmacy
http://www.scriptpro.com/Products/Robotic-Prescription-Dispensing-Systems/?gclid=CPmAp6b3qroCFc2d4AodcRkAqA


Hope these job looses don't affect you but get real.

They're called freight trains.

Lump of labour =! technological obsolesce

Also, here is Paul Krugman scorning people that believe in it: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/opinion/lumps-of-labor.html Are you going to argue with Krugman now too? I'll but his Nobel prize in economics against you any day.

Try again?

How did you arrive at 50?

I'm guessing under 50.

And try to get my kids through college on SS! Yay!



Who the hell can afford to retire at 50 these days??

Also you can be on SS and still work. At some point your income will begin to reduce your SS. .

Lump of Labour fallacy.

You have as usual totally missed the point, made up your own, and pronounced it a failure.

And I did not make up the Lump of Labour fallacy. As I linked above, noted left wing and Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman laughs at anyone that believes in it.

I will say I enjoyed you trying to act like you have an alternate formula for the time value of money though. That was a classic.

What a misguided proposal on many levels. But just on this one alone: the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data on unemployment (September 2013) reveals that the age group 45-55 has an unemployment rate of 5.5% and 55 years and over has a rate of 5.3%--the lowest on the charts.

The problem areas in unemployment are with the age groups 16-19 (21.4% unemployment) and 20-24 (12.9%). In other words, students or young non-students.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm

And the 20-35 year olds get the jobs the 35-45 year olds have taken.

Lower the labor participation rate, and you tighten the labor market, which drives up wages, which helps fund the social spending you used to lower the labor participation rate.

We better get used to this logic: as more and more jobs automate we need to find ways to get money from the fewer and fewer people who have jobs to those who don't.

and it doesn't fit with the facts.

If you're saying you want to force 45 to 55 year olds out of the job market—to make room for younger people—you're making both a social and economic mistake.

Is there some stack of widgets going unmade that need desperately to be made? If not, what we need to be doing is figuring out ways for it to be OK for many more people not to have jobs.

I mean some are, but most of those have gone overseas. And many companies already push older workers into retirement to lower costs or to replace with newer skills. This would just give them another reason to outsource more jobs overseas. And the number of people who would retire in this age group would not be compensated by younger workers. Not to mention how these new retirees would take part-time jobs away from teenagers.

than was required in the past, despite our standard of living being much higher than it was in the past.

The past few decades persuade me that the required labor isn't going to catch up any time soon.

So, we have a situation where there's a lot more wealth out there, requiring a lot fewer people to produce. The options are:

1. Massive poverty
2. Massive redistribution (my personal preference)
3. Forcing currently non-renumerative activities to be renumerative (which amounts to the same thing as #2 but may be more politically feasible)

Paul Krugman agrees with me.

And who says 20 - 35 years olds have the requisite knowledge for the managerial positions generally occupied by the 36 - 45 set?

And since people stop paying into the system 15 years sooner but will be living substantially longer that's a massive drain on production even though consumption continues to rise. Any added wages will be devoured by increased taxes and insurance premiums.

Not that the young people will tolerate being the slaves of the older generation's self-indulgences; they might just tell their elders to f-off.

"Muddle through"? That's the sort of dismissive magical hand waving that convinces me this is a self-serving con job.

I think it's an interesting idea as a way to tighten up the labor market.

We actually need to start constructing the system for the future in which people gradually work less over a period of 20 years or so. Most folks are "Peter principalling out" around 50 - 60 and become "top heavy" employees in companies that would be better off with a lower median age work force. We need a retirement/economic system that utilizes people in a "partial retirement" mode for 20 years or so where there is still income, but not the "gotta pay off the mortgage and put kids through college" level. Either enabling people to embark on new careers, with lower annual income levels (Everything from teaching to sculpture, as well as nonprofit work) or people continuing to participate in their original professions, but more advisory/mentoring/surge capacity sense. I watch people struggle with picking the right age to retire. They know it is a one way street and once out, getting back in is difficult. So there is a tendency to "hang on" too long. If they could go, legitimately, to reduce work weeks without the fear of become expendable, it would go a long way toward enabling a more efficient work force and one that gently ease into retirement.

But most importantly, older people are not dead weight or inefficient. If anything, their skills are double what a younger person's are because of the years of experience.
What you are saying is that the problem of young people being unemployed is to make older people unemployed.

I didn't talk about making room for young people or their unemployment. But it is a constant across the economic spectrum that organizations (not all) become "top heavy" with more experienced talent than is required. And there is an associated issue of "on the job retirement" of people who have reached the end of their careers, and yet are hanging on for purely short term economic reasons. Those reasons force people into into a binary "all or nothing" choice of retirement or continued work at the levels they have achieved.

And sadly, the experience these people have is desparately needed in nonprofits and in education, two areas traditionally that don't have the economic resources to pay people at the levels that much of the commercial world does. Furthermore, in some blue collar industries, the "longevity" of the physically working class cannot meet the same longevity capacity that more white collar work allows. These people also need to be able to transition into a different economic model, something other than the "retire or stay at your current job".

I just think there has to be a way to bring back those jobs that are "over there", wherever the h*ll that is, China, Mexico, or Vietnam. We need jobs in this country, and if people want to still work beyond 50, let them. They need the opportunity to work and decide for themselves when they retire, but I think we need the jobs first before an early retirement. JMHO

How is trying to remove people ages 50-67 from the workforce a good idea where the funding of social security is concerned?

How many people in this group would WANT to retire on a social security income at that young of an age? Social security provides basic needs type money, not high quality of life type money.

How many people in this group have other retirement plans they are paying into that they would need to pay into for those extra years between 50 and 67 in order to get a real benefit out of it when it comes time to retire?

This is ultimately a terrible idea. We just need to shave another 2% off the unemployment rate and we will be in decent shape. Make that 3% and we will be in full employment territory. That doesn't require making social security truly unsustainable which is what I believe your idea would lead to.

Hundreds of thousands of civil servants have lost their jobs in the name of cutting budgets. Restore the budgets and reinstate their jobs, and that will take care of a nice chunk of the unemployed. Properly funding the federal, state and local governments will not only bring back those jobs, but likely add additional jobs, since most of them have been underfunded for years, if not decades.

I just hope, the life expectancy of African American men in Washington D.C. Goes up with it. The avg is 66! They are barely cashing in at retirement.

LIFE EXPECTANCY AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE
United States Average for 70.68
Arizona Average in Washington D.C. 75.56
Washington D.C 66.22

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-african-american-male

In terms of jobs i would like to deal with the competitive advantages of Internet retail over brick and Mortars. Amazon is finally charging state taxes, but not for all states, this has always been unfair. We need to even the playing field more.

iTunes selling music for .99 and Target has to pay employees to sell their Cd's. legal zoom handling the business of attorneys. There must be a way to keep the Internet from shutting down all the malls and mom and pop stores.

Thank you for the post.

I agree

While it sounds great, never going to happen.....

If fewer people are in the labor pool, wages go up. That means FICA levies go up.

I wish it would, but it won't.

I also think even if unrealistic, it's a good idea to help set the Democrats' baseline at a point aimed at making the program more EXPANSIVE and more GENEROUS than it is today.

That way, any 'compromise' is actually a gain for our side.

They wouldn't hesitate for one single second to entertain discussions about how to get from where we are today, to the extinction of SS.

Meanwhile, here we are, chasting the threadstarter for thinking too big.

LOL

Because that's what you're preaching. 29 years of full-time work -- assuming you're lucky enough to get a job straight out of college and keep it until you're 50 -- will not leave you owning your own home by the time you retire, which has been a crucial part of the retirement safety net for many Americans. It also means you'll probably have kids entering college after you retire, which is a formula for economic devastation. And it sure as hell isn't enough time to put away significant funds to supplement your SS retirement income with significant savings.

Take all that, and now add in longer life expectancies, and here's the world you envision: a world in which, after 29 years of work, people live for an additional 25-40 years supported entirely by the payroll taxes imposed on those still working. The economic devastation that would wreak (to say nothing of inter-generational resentment) would be terrifying to behold. No thanks.

There are few, if any able-bodied cops or soldiers who truly retire after 20 years. Hell, the private military contractor racket is rife with them. And that doesn't even touch the fact that a govt pension is WAY more generous than SS; I can't imagine the cost of extending govt pension-style benefits to the entire population at age 50. You really haven't thought this through.

worldwide.

And it's not going to level out for at least 25yrs. We see this happening with college graduates. Only 1/2 are being employed or underemployed. A shorthand for McJob. If your 40+ you need to prepare for being dumped.

Corporation will first and worry about it later.

Like it or not it, lowering the SS age will have to happen.

Right now people under the age of 20 and people over the age of 50 constitute, taken together, more than half the population of the US. If we stipulate that those under 20 are dependent upon their elders, and those over 50 in your scheme are wholly dependent on those younger than themselves (for reasons I explain above), then you're talking about a minority of Americans supporting themselves and everyone else. What are you imagining the tax rates will be? And how is it going to keep going when the birthrate drops, as it inevitably will once people can't afford kids because they're supporting their parents and grandparents? There's no way this solves anything unless your goal is to consign everyone to lifelong poverty; for that goal, it's brilliantly conceived.

The need for labor is shrinking and will continue to do so. More wild eyed than your suggestion is the idea that we can just do more of the same and it is crazy to think increasing the retirement age is beneficial.

We don't have fifty years of forty hour weeks for most people ahead of us.

How about a better idea, Like people who are disabled but still able and willing to take a position in an appropriate position with whatever accommodations are required within reason, Paying a livable min wage w /medical, That would take alot of pressure off the system, If one applies the same logic to unemployment and welfare etc. the unemployment rate would drop like a stone as for those too disabled to work either mentally or physically up the disability payments too be equal to minimum wage, If we were repairing all the infrastructure in this country we could create millions of these type of jobs.

... but without a doubt, we should be lowering the eligibility age. I find it fascinating how your suggestion brought such a kneejerk reaction from so many. Proof positive that mind-numbing propaganda does indeed work quite well on some.

many are willing to fight over cutting the Cost of Living Index.

Make them fight for real change.

That is how sick and corrupt this country has become.

It wouldn't be that hard to provide at least a basic outline of how the economics of this would work, well except for the fact that the math won't even remotely add up.

There is evidence that increased employment of older workers is associated with a increase in the employment statistics of younger workers. Since Social Security isn't designed to fully replace one's pre-retirement income, it only makes sense that those older workers who would retiring at 50 in this suggestion would have less money to spend and thus generating less economic movement. It's the same reason why giving a tax break to a multimillionaire doesn't have the same economic impact as spending on infrastructure. The original post's suggestion would have the end result of taking money out of the economy from people who would spend it.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Economic_Mobility/EMP_retirement_delay.pdf

http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/IB_12-18-508.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB40001424127887324049504578543603704083428

Yes in theory as workers become more efficient, there will be fewer of them necessary to do some jobs. But when we got to the point where not everybody was needed to do the farm work and people had spare time we started creating art and technology. Today people can create apps for mobile devices, create podcasts or work/volunteer with a non-profit, even one across the world from their home. There won't be a shortage of things to do because doing nothing is boring and people don't like boring. It's entirely possible to turn one's hobbies into profitable ventures with hard work and luck.

... on the corporate apologist double-speak.

Less people working means more jobs available. Period. You twisting yourself into a pretzel doesn't change that simple, basic FACT.

First of all, less people working does not mean more jobs available. The job pool is the job pool; the OP is suggesting we deal with that by eliminating workers. This reduces the number of workers vying for jobs, but does nothing to the number of jobs themselves.

Second, as several people have pointed out, retirement at 50 creates: (1) a much larger pool of social security recipients and (2) a much smaller pool of people generating social security revenue. At a minimum, you're doubling the number of people on social security AND doubling the amount of time they're receiving it (note that you'd have to do the same thing with Medicare, since SS recipients won't be able to afford private insurance). Now factor in that the people you're taking out of the FICA tax pool -- the 50-65 year olds -- are the ones who pay the most FICA tax, since you earn more at the end of your career.

Q: how high is FICA + Medicare going to have to be to finance all this? 25% is a good guess. Where does a working family find that?

To say nothing of my favorite part. I'm 50. If you tell me that I have to retire right now, live on a social security payment that represents about 1/4 of what I'm currently earning, sell my home (because I can no longer afford the mortgage), and stop paying for my daughter's education (again, unaffordable on SS) -- well, congrats: you just created a Republican voter.

Up is down. Dark is light. Blah, blah, blah. More job seekers than jobs available makes more jobs.

30 yrs of Work then 30 yrs of benefit payments? Not sustainable

There are 100 million people in the US over the age of 50.

There are roughly 310 million people in the US - total.
- 74 million of them are under 18.
- 18 million of them are in college.
- 2.3 million of them are in jail.

also
- 11 million people are unemployed

That leaves roughly 104 million workers to finance the retirements of 100 million retirees. Look at your pay stub. See the line that says "FICA" withheld? That's all you can expect as a SS benefit.

The solution to the jobs problem is to constrain the supply of labor by shortening the workweek or mandating time off.

Non-Euclidean geometry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

Is Greece better than Canada??? Nice chart but it makes no sense to me.

they are working past the age of retirement and Social Security eligibility.

60 is the perfect spot...and yes, no more benefits if you retire late...

A real solution involves multiple efforts. This could be one of them.

You'd have to not only lower the age, but increase the benefits, to get enough people to actually retire at age 50 to make a difference. I wouldn't do it. Not while I'm physically and mentally capable of work; the economic crisis has drained every last resource I once had, and all I've got left is my paycheck.

We still need to create more jobs. The best start would be to ban "free trade," return to trade based on stringent labor and environmental standards, and institute regulations that would make it harder, and more costly, to outsource jobs.

That, plus lowering the age for SS, plus investing all that money that goes to military operations domestically, are three solid places to build on.

It was a reduced pension, but I had that option, and I could afford to retire with what they offered, so I retired so I can spend time with my wife, and concentrate on her health.

As a childless couple, we had no reason to work until age 65 or beyond. People with kids often can't start saving for retirement until after the nest is empty, so 65 makes sense. We don't need a cookie-cutter retirement age. People who can afford to retire early should not be barred from doing so. My pension was actuarialy reduced so that I pose no more of a liability to the system than someone who retires at any other age. It works, and our GOP governor hates it.

you are very fortunate and I'm glad it is working for you now...

You do realize how the calculation works? They take the highest 35 years. Every year you didn't work gets a zero. That's how they get your benefit at normal retirement age. Then they reduce it for every year under normal retirement age.

If you think social security is hard to live on try collecting at 50!

Then you are without medical insurance too. And you get penalized for working.

You can't just change the benefits and expect everything to work. Social security has a defined funding.

It is only slightly redistributional for the bottom, 105% at the lower 20th IIRC.

and you can not wait to take action until all problems have solutions.

Here are a few facts to consider. Today, the retirement age is 67 and the average lifespan is about 77, so SS is paying people roughly 10 years of retirement on average. If you move the age down to 50, you will be paying 27 years of retirement, so the time period for payout will practically triple. On top of that, the years spent paying in will be reduced from roughly 47 years to only 30 years.

Today, the system is marginally solvent as a pay-as-you-go system. It is close to balanced now, but it will increasingly be spending surpluses generated in the past. We will probably have to increase taxes or cut benefits at some point in the future (unless our economy starts growing more quickly).

If you increase payment years by 2.7x and decrease tax years by 35%, you'll have to make up for that with a proportional tax increase. That would mean that taxes, already about 13% of payroll, would have to more than triple. I don't think that you'll convince people that a 40% payroll tax is a good thing.

I don't even want to start on why encouraging dramatically lower labor force participation would be a bad thing.

= No point in working.

Unless of course corporations will use it to dump those over 50 but SS at 50 would give labor leverage.

Also you are overlooking the fact that the Cyber-era can not produce jobs for over 1/2 the world population. Just look at the EU.

I think it is not going to be a choice in the near future, Detroit will be an object lession on how it is going to go.

It would be a fucking joke to set the retirement age so low.

I'm 33, and have already accepted the fact that I'll be working until the day I die, most likely. It worked for my grandfather and my greatgrandfather (both died working the family farm when they were in their late 80's/early 90's). Why break with family tradition, right?

unemployment rate of 40%... 200 might be work.

At your age you'll need a PhD to have a job at 50.

Yeah, that will work really well

While I "only" have my BS (biochemistry) and not a PhD, I'm lucky enough to work in an industry that's not likely to go anywhere soon (quality control and safety testing in the food industry, in a state with a very high number of food-related businesses), so I'm not really concerned about losing my job at this point.

By the time there's no demand for someone with a decade of lab experience making sure food going on store shelves won't cause mass food poisoning and deaths, I'd probably be looking at subsistence farming on the family farm as the country does a death spiral into 3rd-world irrelevancy.