AP: Old people "are stealing jobs from young people."

Apparently, the author hasn't paid attention to the youth unemployment numbers over the last 5 years.

 

Perhaps if the Obama administration weren't so God awful at creating an environment in which jobs were being produced in abundance (Obama's primary concern as president, as he's claimed numerous times) we wouldn't have idiots at the AP pitting the young against the old in fighting over what few jobs are out there.

 

Tomorrow on MSNBC: Abortions at the 243rd trimester: Why they're GOOD for the economy!

 

Both sets of tax cuts were written by Congressional Democrats.

 

Taxcutter says:
Cut the regulations down to what they were in Ike's administration, and you got a deal.

 

It's by design. This President is either the dumbest, most negligent President we have ever had or he is doing this by design.

Pick your poison.

 

Apparently, a lot of people misunderstood the article, or only read the first sentence.

 

Maybe they do not want to and why should they if this is the case?

I still have a ways to go but have often thought I will never really retire completly.

I may retire from my career and take a pension and then take a part time job like be a wal mart greeter or whatever.

I've seen many who retire to sit on their butts and then die soon after. Others who stay active and continue to work in some capacity and seem to live longer.

 

Why can't they just join the ranks of the lazy Democrat base and live off welfare? Are you really asking this????

- - - Updated - - -

No, those are minimal compared to those taken to pay for the votes of the lazy.

 

WOW, you are uninformed. Drawing the maximum Social Security benefit still keeps them below the poverty level. Social Security has done nothing to elevate people above it.

 

SERIOUSLY? You really think all people who are old enough to retire have investments? In actuality, your argument hurts your position more than it helps. Because Obama has pandered to the rich investors, if people were allowed to invest their own funds instead of having the Govt gain 2% on it, they would be better able to retire!!!

 

Can't be. Over 8 million additional private sector jobs have been created since Jan 2010, and over all millions more additional jobs have been created under Obama than under Bush. In fact, Bush's job "creation" number would have been about negative 700,000 but for the million or so new Govt jobs created during his term.

Obama doesn't come close to comparing with the last Republican president as being dumbest or most negligent by that measure.

 

Of course not. But SERIOUSLY? You really think none of the people who are old enough to retire have investments?

With stocks up 150% from the recession low and over 100% since Obama took office, a lot of folks who couldn't or didn't want to retire when the Dow was at 6600 are now in much better shape with the Dow at 16500.

 

I thought all the old people were retiring, that's why the reduction in the workforce right????? lol

 

Since you're SO INFORMED, maybe you can tell us what the maximum SS benefit is, and how that keeps them below the poverty level.

Elderly poverty in the U.S. decreased dramatically during the twentieth century. Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent, and research has documented similarly steep declines dating back to at least 1939. While poverty was once far more prevalent among the elderly than among other age groups, today's elderly have a poverty rate similar to that of working-age adults and much lower than that of children.

Scial Security is often mentioned as a likely contributor to the decline in elderly poverty. Enacted in 1935, the Social Security system experienced rapid benefit growth in the post-WWII era. In fact, there is a striking association between the rise in Social Security expenditures per capita and the decline in elderly poverty, as Figure 1 illustrates (with both series scaled to fit on the same figure).

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html

There are some misinformed folks around here, for sure.

 

That's certainly one of the reasons.

One big reason the participation rate dropped involves long-run demographic trends that have little to do with the current economy. Baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, which means that there are fewer eligible American workers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-force-is-still-shrinking-rapidly-heres-why/

The declining labor force participation rate has been the topic of some debate. I have argued that the declining rate is the result of the beginning of the baby boomers retiring, while other have argued it's the result of the recent recession. The Chicago Fed has weighed in with a paper on the topic where they argue that about half of the decline is due to baby boomers retiring.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/baby...force-participation-rate-2012-2#ixzz2pee2tt1F

Baby boomers, the generation born between 1946 and 1964, started reaching the conventional retirement age, 65, last year. That would certainly have many of them leaving their jobs and heading toward the doors. It’s their exit from the labor force that could explain why the labor-force participation rate has fallen from 66% at the end of 2007 to near 63.9% today, a group of Barclays Capital economists argue in a new report.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambr...recession-lowering-labor-force-participation/

 

Most do not, the overwhelming majority do not!!!

 

Many do. And of course, more and more are hitting retirement age every year as the boomers move into retirement.

 

Try 7 to 12 million illegal immigrants...it helps your comments if you stick close to the facts.

Nobody in any age group takes jobs from anyone else...this is such political BS.

It is incumbent upon each individual to compete for the job they desire...win some lose some!

 

Why do you people always publish numbers starting in 2010? Was Obama not President in 2009? How many jobs were lost on his watch before it bottomed out and started to turn around? What? Not fair, because Obama inherited a recession from Bush? Yet the Obama-deniers have no problem saddling Bush with Clinton's recession for the first year when figuring his numbers.

Bottom line. At this point in their Presidencies, Bush' U-3 rate was a full 2 points lower than Obama's.

- - - Updated - - -

Which means more and more jobs should be opening up.

 

I know a number of business owners, and they tell me that they often prefer to hire men and women who are in their 50's and 60's because:

1. They actually come to work on time (*STUNNING*)!
2. They only call in sick if and when they really are sick (*AMAZING*)
3. They don't just decide to take a "personal day" on the morning of the day they take it (*UNBELIEVABLE*)
4. They don't have to take time away from work for problems with their children!
5. They had many years of quality education and experience, plus, the ability to work, and they have a real work ethic eekeyes:)
6. They don't fart around playing facebook, twitter, cruising the internet and all these other wastes of time during company work hours -- instead, THEY WORK!
7. They often prefer to work part-time, which fits in nicely with a company's ability to control payroll, benefits, etc.

Oh, and you may not believe this, but I've also heard this -- older people bother to shave and at least comb their hair, while many workers half their age look like they dress out of a dumpster, rarely shave, carefully cultivate a "look" of not ever combing their hair, and, are frequently splotched with tattoos and/or have pieces of metal stuck onto or into their heads.

 

If I was running HR I would hire old people over young people (assuming they aren't slow as snot on a birthday cake in January in Minnesota) all the time because its been my experience they are much better workers. Today's young people are really (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lazy compared to even people of my age and I thought my generation was supposed to be the spoiled one.

 

Without substantial investments!!!!!!!!!

 

I always prefer working with the older generations as I know they won't saddle me with extra work while the youngtards run around playing grabass all day and many are unfireable because they are quota hires. And I'm still relatively young but I wouldn't hire 90% of the people I've had to work with. Since I've been in the workforce(15yrs?) I've seen the bottom of the barrel fall completely out.

 

That's basically why teen unemployment is so high. I hired for 9 years but the business I ran was labor intensive. I didn't get a lot of older people....