25 Nov 10
1 edit
We are frequently told that we need to raise the retirement age from its current level (between 60 and 65 in Europe) to ensure that the working-age population will be able to support its dependents.
But if older people stay in work longer, will this not simply lead to mass unemployment among the young? Where are the jobs to come from to support a larger working-age population?
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeLet people raise and lower their own returement age. That's not the business of guvamint.
We are frequently told that we need to raise the retirement age from its current level (between 60 and 65 in Europe) to ensure that the working-age population will be able to support its dependents.
But if older people stay in work longer, will this not simply lead to mass unemployment among the young? Where are the jobs to come from to support a larger working-age population?
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by Sam The ShamWhat's wrong with that claim?
yes there is an infinite supply of jobs once again you have amazed us with your claims
There may not be an "infinite" number of jobs, but the number of jobs out there is not limited by some hard standard. If people want services and have money to pay for them, they will hire people to perform them.
In a good economy in the US, there is essentially full employment. When unemployment drops to 4% that essentially means that every employable person who wants a job can get one. There are going to be a % of people who simply are unemployable because of incompetence, personal problems or the way they present themselves.
If people keep working later in life, they will not steal the jobs from the young people. They will have more money to spend, thus creating more jobs for the young people. They will also be less of a drain on the government, thereby theoretically allowing the government to cut taxes, thus indirectly creating jobs.
The economy is not a zero sum game, folks.
25 Nov 10
I work for the St of Az and have for 19 yrs. I can retire in 2013 to gain the rertirement benefit. That will make me 58 yrs old. I'll claim that monthly check and work for 4 more years in the private sector then get the SS check.
I say all this because the local media is slamming us for this program. But darn it, I haven't done anything wrong yet we're vilified.
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by badmoonIt's not YOU people vilify but the politicians or bureaucrats who set up the boondoggle that you were intelligent and opportunistic enough to take advantage of. It's not your fault for taking it. It's the government's fault for giving it.
I work for the St of Az and have for 19 yrs. I can retire in 2013 to gain the rertirement benefit. That will make me 58 yrs old. I'll claim that monthly check and work for 4 more years in the private sector then get the SS check.
I say all this because the local media is slamming us for this program. But darn it, I haven't done anything wrong yet we're vilified.
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by sh76If the government set up a system that has rewarded the intelligent and opportunistic, isn't that a good thing?
It's not YOU people vilify but the politicians or bureaucrats who set up the boondoggle that you were intelligent and opportunistic enough to take advantage of. It's not your fault for taking it. It's the government's fault for giving it.
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's true that there is "always something useful to do". It is not true in a capitalist economy that there will always be someone willing to pay you to do it.
It's a common misconception that the number of jobs is limited. It's not, there is always something useful to do.
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by sh76Those are interesting claims in an economy that already has 30 million people who either can't get a job at all even though they are actively seeking employment or are working part time when they would prefer a full time position. There's something wrong with the picture you paint.
What's wrong with that claim?
There may not be an "infinite" number of jobs, but the number of jobs out there is not limited by some hard standard. If people want services and have money to pay for them, they will hire people to perform them.
In a good economy in the US, there is essentially full employment. When unemployment drops to 4% that essentially ...[text shortened]... nt to cut taxes, thus indirectly creating jobs.
The economy is not a zero sum game, folks.
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's because of either poor economic policy, natural down cycles in the economy or some combination thereof. 6 or 7 years ago we were virtually at full employment. Unemployment is not a function of there being too many people seeking work. There is nothing inherent that requires unemployment.
Those are interesting claims in an economy that already has 30 million people who either can't get a job at all even though they are actively seeking employment or are working part time when they would prefer a full time position. There's something wrong with the picture you paint.
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI have given it some thought. I don't see how there can be a hard limit on the number of jobs that are available. In a good economy where people are wealthy, confident and spending, people will require, demand and pay for goods and services to the point of full employment.
What's wrong with the claim that there are an UNLIMITED number of jobs available?
Give it a little thought and if you really have to ask again i'll explain it to you.
Of course the raw number of jobs is limited by the number of people in the society. But I don't see why there has to be a limit on the percentage of the society that can find work.
Indeed, the swing in unemployment percentage that occurs regularly underscore this.