I guess the answer to that follows, Lois. In addition to fewer jobs available because of elders continuing in their jobs, increased automation and over-seas production will further reduce the number of jobs available to the younger U.S. citizens. However, there is a solution. The government can start a minor police action in some country, offer military service to both male and female young people, build up our military to the point that we can find some pretext to have a real war, thus allowing us to spend more money to build weapons and support the troops. If enough of them can't be killed to solve the unemployment problem, some country will have to be motivated enough to use chemical, biological or nuclear warfare. After all of this is done, we'll have plenty of money for Social Security for those few that are left. OccamSounds like the perfect Republican plan--one that Republicans have tried to put into effect more than once. Lois
And unfortunately, often succeeded. 
Occam
It would--but keep in mind that every adjustment making the retirement age later means a certain number of young people will lose their opportunities to get jobs, learn the ropes and move up the hierarchy. There are only so many jobs to go around, even in a good economy. Jobs can't be created out of thin air. It's going to be either older people hanging onto their jobs to older and older ages or additional young people joining the workforce. You can't make room for young people at the bottom end without moving people out at the top end. What has to be decided are the following: Is it better to have a young workforce or an old one? If there must be people not working, is it better for the young or the old to be idle? Whichever group it is will need monetary help. Do you want to pay for the young or the old to be out of work? You aren't going to have a choice to not support anyone in a decent society. Which option looks better to you? LoisThat is not true. Jobs depend on demand. There are not a set number of jobs in the economy. It never serves an economy to make able bodied workers idle. Doing so decreases productivity. The more people we have working the more disposable income there is and the more consumer demand which leads to more jobs. Employed seniors spend more than those who live entirely on their fixed income from SS and savings leading to greater overall employment and jobs for the younger members of society.
It never serves an economy to make able bodied workers idle. Doing so decreases productivity.I think the world has changed because of machines. If machines can do the job more efficiently it is better if they do it. I don't think we've adjusted to this and are wrongly focusing too much on jobs, so we end up with people working too hard for very little money, unnecessarily doing jobs that either machines could do better or just don't add anything worthwhile to the economy.
It would--but keep in mind that every adjustment making the retirement age later means a certain number of young people will lose their opportunities to get jobs, learn the ropes and move up the hierarchy. There are only so many jobs to go around, even in a good economy. Jobs can't be created out of thin air. It's going to be either older people hanging onto their jobs to older and older ages or additional young people joining the workforce. You can't make room for young people at the bottom end without moving people out at the top end. What has to be decided are the following: Is it better to have a young workforce or an old one? If there must be people not working, is it better for the young or the old to be idle? Whichever group it is will need monetary help. Do you want to pay for the young or the old to be out of work? You aren't going to have a choice to not support anyone in a decent society. Which option looks better to you? LoisThat is not true. Jobs depend on demand. There are not a set number of jobs in the economy. It never serves an economy to make able bodied workers idle. Doing so decreases productivity. The more people we have working the more disposable income there is and the more consumer demand which leads to more jobs. Employed seniors spend more than those who live entirely on their fixed income from SS and savings leading to greater overall employment and jobs for the younger members of society. But you haven't addressed the problem of young people being idle. Young people without jobs are spending no more than seniors on fixed incomes. I don't think that seniors' spending us going to create many jobs. Seniors as a group tend to spend less than the young. They are less likely to be spending money on large purchases such as houses, furnishings, cars, schools, child care, clothing and entertainment. It's a poor choice to keep the older generation working while the younger generation sits idle, while expecting the older generation's income to support the economy. It simply can't work. . Lois
It would--but keep in mind that every adjustment making the retirement age later means a certain number of young people will lose their opportunities to get jobs, learn the ropes and move up the hierarchy. There are only so many jobs to go around, even in a good economy. Jobs can't be created out of thin air. It's going to be either older people hanging onto their jobs to older and older ages or additional young people joining the workforce. You can't make room for young people at the bottom end without moving people out at the top end. What has to be decided are the following: Is it better to have a young workforce or an old one? If there must be people not working, is it better for the young or the old to be idle? Whichever group it is will need monetary help. Do you want to pay for the young or the old to be out of work? You aren't going to have a choice to not support anyone in a decent society. Which option looks better to you? LoisThat is not true. Jobs depend on demand. There are not a set number of jobs in the economy. It never serves an economy to make able bodied workers idle. Doing so decreases productivity. The more people we have working the more disposable income there is and the more consumer demand which leads to more jobs. Employed seniors spend more than those who live entirely on their fixed income from SS and savings leading to greater overall employment and jobs for the younger members of society. But you haven't addressed the problem of young people being idle. Young people without jobs are spending no more than seniors on fixed incomes. . Lois Maybe we can change the educational system so that young peopel can get jobs more quickly. Here are some suprising facts about education in Switzerland, which ranked one of the best in world education. http://www.about.ch/education/index.html#CH_Edu_Berufslehre This is somewhat similar to medieval education.
The other side of that is by raising retirement age - one robs younger folks of getting their start.If that's a concern, then younger folks will have to pay more to support retired people. they can't have their cake and eat it, too. They'll have to decide what they want more--opportunity to get their start or keep their Social Security taxes low. Lois Fair enough
Yea seemed that back in younger days, there was so much ‘stuff’ that needed to get done, thus jobs were all over the place, just needed to chase what fitted you most, not easy, but the opportunities were all over.
Now there doesn’t seem to be that much left to be done.
And look at the society that’s left over, when it comes to understanding and appreciating this planet, and humanity’s passage through it, they are apathetic, it holds no interest beyond some superficial window dressing…
Think about it, the awareness of a vast majority of citizens is totally dictated by some ancient book, written by tribal fanatics of one type or other. The mentality of brute, short-sighted tribalism continues to be exalted by the great religions and peddled by the merchants of war, turned military industrial complex.
To fill in the emptiness of not being engaged with the real Earth… it’s demands and rhythms, we have media driven consumerism, obsessed with selling dreams and making money.
But, for what, no one can explain? To what end? Oh yea, get to heaven, is the best they got.
It’s all so bizarre. :blank:
Republicans, even after having been con’d into senselessly brutalizing an innocent people because US was pissed about 9/11 and the Bush’s hated Saddam anyways. Leaving behind a living hell, we barely acknowledge, and never thinking about what we done -( or how we screwed the entire political development of that region) - what hope can there be when nothing is ever learned?
Where do we go from here?
Particularly, when the society still believes their media fed consumerist fantasies are were it’s at.
And that real down to Earth, what’s happening to our biosphere issues, are some scientist’s practical joke, or sinister plot.
While all of our world’s business, political leaders, are still lost in the ancient Dream of Empire (tribalism grown up) with wars and possessing power being all they can see.
Where do we go from here. . . :down: