More DUmmy Dreams Of Idleness

[dandi]

...and ways to live off the public teat.

NNN0LHI  (1000+ posts)      Sun Sep-18-11 01:17 PM
Original message
I think we need kind of a retirement "amnesty" for people who are out of work and over 50
 Edited on Sun Sep-18-11 01:18 PM by NNN0LHI
I think any long term out of work person in that age bracket should be offered immediate SS and Medicare retirement benefits if that is their choice.

Let me tell you why I think this. I was once one of the long term employed. During the 1980's I was laid off over 6 years total. Most of the time we would get laid off for a year and then called back for a month or two and then get laid off again. But the longest continuous lay off I had was just short of 2 years. And I was really hurting financially by the time I got called back. Didn't really lose anything because I never worked long enough to ever really accumulate anything. Lot of my friends lost their houses and everything. And I will never forget that. It did something to me. My attitude completely changed after the lay off that lasted almost 2 years.

But I was young then. 30 or so. And I was able to snap out of it enough to slide into retirement. If we didn't have 30 and Out where I worked I don't know what I would have done? Only thing kept me going was the dream of retiring at 48.

But the problem I see is we still have long term unemployed who are much older than I was going through this same thing right now and they don't have any option like I had to retire. What are they going to do? Something is going to have to be done.

Does this make sense? And I pulled the age of 50 out of the air. So if you are 48 or 49 don't get mad at me for using it as an example.

Don

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1960856

If the Dumbasses spent have as much energy actually working or looking for work as they do finding ways to be lazy, worthless drags on society, we might not have the economic problems we now face.

Honeycombe8 (1000+ posts)        Sun Sep-18-11 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. I agree. A person in his 50's, long term unemployed, is not likely to ever find employment.
 It's possible, in some cases. But if you're 55, low skilled or in an occupation that has suffered a lot in the recession, you're probably not going to find another job. No one is going to hire a 55 year old as a trainee in a new field. No one is going to hire a 55 year old for anything, probably, if the employer provides insurance, because people in that age range statistically have many more health problems than younger people do.

I think it should be maybe age 55 and older. But I agree that something should be done.

It's a serious situation that is being ignored. It's being ignored because there is no solution, really. Hopefully, they have retirement savings that they can live on and buy health insurance for years until they qualify for Social Security and Medicare. If they don't, hopefully they have an employed spouse. If they don't have that, either, I can't imagine what they can do.

daleanime  (1000+ posts)        Sun Sep-18-11 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
28. No problem....
 remove the payroll limits, this would help with the income inequality and more then cover lowering the retirement age.

Imajika (1000+ posts)        Sun Sep-18-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Many would just quit working..
 If people can claim SS and Medicare benefits at age 50 for being unemployed, you'd have droves of people that just wouldn't work. Many of those that get laid off now and find other work just wouldn't bother searching for that new job, they'd just take the entitlements and be done with it. This plan would simply encourage people to retire at 50. Not all would, but more than enough to destroy the system.

Wait, you're making sense.

Safetykitten  (1000+ posts)      Sun Sep-18-11 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Oh dear, a new talking point. "Senior golf queens".

Translation: Stop making sense!

NNN0LHI  (1000+ posts)      Sun Sep-18-11 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Only the long term unemployed people in this age group would qualify
 I consider long term unemployed at being out of work a year or more. Someone who just recently quit their job would not qualify.

Don

Well, you DUmmies are experts at being "out of work for a year or more". Some of you brag about being out of work for 5-6 years or more, so it shouldn't be a problem for you to get qualified.

TBF  (1000+ posts)        Sun Sep-18-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
100. Maybe that's what should happen. This "system" only benefits the top 1%. **** them. nt

OmahaBlueDog  (1000+ posts)        Sun Sep-18-11 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
10. I think the reality is that people in this age range are going to need job reeducation

Safetykitten  (1000+ posts)      Sun Sep-18-11 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. ...and that would be doing what exactly? Other than saying "welcome to"...

SheilaT  (1000+ posts)      Sun Sep-18-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
68. Don't look now,
 but I'm over 60 and have been able to find work. Although from what I read here and elsewhere apparently I am the only person in this entire country over the age of 50 who has been hired by any company anywhere.

Well, apparently you are in great demand. Tell us your field so we can rush out...
 Edited on Sun Sep-18-11 03:23 PM by Safetykitten
and get that third undergraduate or master's degree.

Safetykitten  (1000+ posts)      Sun Sep-18-11 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. People do not need "mentorship" to stock shelves on the swing shift.
 IF and that's a big IF they COULD get the job.

Safetykitten is just a barrel of optimism, isn't he/she/it?

defendandprotect  (1000+ posts)        Sun Sep-18-11 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #43
126. Of course not -- and it is a good idea -- and a novel one -- !!

patrice  (1000+ posts)        Sun Sep-18-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Co-operatives + Co-housing. nt

   
 

Pigheaded (87 posts)      Sun Sep-18-11 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
63. Sign me up right now!!

Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!

glinda  (1000+ posts)      Sun Sep-18-11 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
110. Excellent idea.

BiggJawn (1000+ posts)        Sun Sep-18-11 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
119. Excellent idea, Don.
 Everything I've been reading (except from the AARP, who says 65 is the new 30) says that if you're in your 50's and you lose your job that your pretty much hosed.

 
 
 
 
 

 
 


 
 
 
   
 
 
 

[JohnnyReb]

So he was 30 and out at 48, huh. Sounds like he had a government with time off for rehab.

Laid off for 6 years during the 80's ??????????? Except for 81 and 82, those were the best years I ever had.

[FlaGator]

Do I read this right? Does she get laid off and then sit around waiting for the company to call her back to work? Apparently she would rather sit around doing nothing as opposed going out and finding another, possibly better, job.

[FiddyBeowulf]

Do I read this right? Does she get laid off and then sit around waiting for the company to call her back to work? Apparently she would rather sit around doing nothing as opposed going out and finding another, possibly better, job.

If they are in a union, I think so.

[Delmar]

Don would be the perfect choice as Obama's Secretary of Labor.  Get rid of Hilda Solis.  On NPR this morning Cokie Roberts--I think--was talking about the possibility of Obama firing and replacing a bunch of people.  It was an unintentionally hilarious segment about how it might help Obama to give his ineffective economic team the boot and start over with a new bunch of geniuses.  The only problem that they could see with that is that he's already cleaned house once, with the exception of Turbo Tax Timmy.

[GOBUCKS]

Do I read this right? Does she get laid off and then sit around waiting for the company to call her back to work? Apparently she would rather sit around doing nothing as opposed going out and finding another, possibly better, job.

Most union workers have been doing this for decades. The union contract includes a "SUB (Supplemental Unemployment Benefit) fund" that accumulates money from the company during profitable periods. When there is a layoff, the employee immediately files for unemployment. Then, he draws a check from the SUB fund, in addition to his unemployment compensation, such that the total he receives is a contractually agreed percentage, commonly 80%, of his income before the layoff.

That system adds a lot to overhead, but it usually works during good times like the Great Bush Prosperity or the Reagan Boom.
During democrat recessions, the SUB fund is sometimes depleted.

While receiving SUB pay, few laid off union workers will look for another job.

[Carl]

People really should wander over and wade through that thread,the idiocy and ignorance is simply staggering.

[SherryBaby]

People really should wander over and wade through that thread,the idiocy and ignorance is simply staggering.

Ugh..I did...made me queasy.