Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Populism, Jan 4, 2016.
Please provide links to your sourced material.
I haven't read the article yet, but noticed the chart ...
It's interesting the the article focuses on the small increase in retired 20-Somethings, but not the larger changes of fewer people staying at home or disabled. Perhaps the rest of the article will explain their focus on that aspect.
Just one other question comes to mind ... how do they know a 20-Something is retired versus on an extended hiatus? I think most 20-Somethings who believe they are retired will turnaround and engage themselves in some endeavor in due time, once they realize how long life lasts and how short finances do.
Just a couple of thoughts.
My apologies for not linking the article.
Next time I'll link the article. So that you can tell us how you have an opinion on the article without reading it, after you have sourced it.
People often comment on threads without reading the source material.
Perhaps you'd rather I not take part at all ... and you can have a nice chat with yourself.
Perhaps some of us have time to post a few times a week.
Okay ... read the article ... and all of my previous comments still stand.
Plus, I'll add one more ...
Sounds like they need to raise wages.
Sounds like Janet Yellen agrees.
Sounds like more twenty somethings are in work than before. Good.
That's just what people self-report in surveys. They don't know if a person is really retired, on an extended hiatus, or just pissed off and giving a sarcastic answer. But the fact the number of retired 20-24 year olds randomly doubled is newsworthy, even if it only suggests that the data or common interpretation is flawed.
There's no puzzle to it. When you subsidize and incentivize laziness you get more of it. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
Well I'll tell you all something for nothing, being retired sure as hell beats working by a long way.
But you're not married anymore right.
It went from 1% to 2%, more likely just a statitics error than anything newsworthy (how many were asked, what was the actual question etc).
Please, go on. What incentive for laziness has this country supplied for 20 somethings?
Is it the mortgage payment (equivalent) we need to make for that piece of paper that says you got an education?
The incentives that are in his mind.
It seems to be a flawed category to begin with. What is a retired 20-24 year-old? How many actually have funds that will allow them to survive until they die 50-60 years in the future? Probably very, very few.
So I wouldn't call them retired. Unemployed, disaffected, unmotivated would probably be a better description.
But maybe I just quibbling too much over a definition. (And when has that ever happened in the past?)
No one forced anyone to go to college for a worthless degree vs. trade school or entering the workforce. What incentives has this country supplied for all not only 20 somethings? How about this? The "war on poverty" much like the "war on drugs" has been an abject failure.
You know, railing against a program that was ended nearly 30 years ago doesn't really show a strong grasp of the policies in place in this country....
As for your link, way to point out that wages have been suppressed for over a generation.
I would note that there are a fair number of jobs, several of which pay decent wages, available to those without he paper. I think we can only blame ourselves as a society for creating an atmosphere where many believe that only by getting a degree can one find work.
Suppressed by whom? If suppressed by anyone it's government and their overburden taxes imposed.
The "War On Poverty" started in the mid 1960s. In the years it was active, poverty decreased from over 22% by some ten percent. It has hovered between 11% and 15% since about 1980. Since 1980, poverty has not really decreased, and is, in fact, higher. The war on poverty hasn't really been active in those years.
Want fewer poor people? Stop this brand of winner-takes-all capitalism that is pervading America.
Really? So, even with an "overburden of taxes", American corporations are still profiting at their highest rate ever, by far, starting in the 80s. Corporate taxes have not changed drastically in those years, and, in fact, have gone down. So, you seem to be implying that even with reduced tax rates, and more and more loopholes allowing them to avoid those taxes, corporations are so overburdened by taxes, that they can only generate massive profit, and that's why wages haven't gone up along with profits and executive compensation??
What the ever-loving hell are you smoking?
I think you're quibbling just to quibble and missing the point. Call them disaffected, unmotivated or whatever you want, what's of note here is that those claiming such have doubled over the last 10 years. Why?
I told someone I was retired, and he drew back and started muttering about people getting government benefits. I had to explain that "retired" meant, I am living on accumulated savings, not government assistance. I have a feeling that "retired" has become a euphemism for unemployed.
I quibble because these questions interest me.
It would seem to me that ...
1. they have enough wealth to sustain themselves for the time being
2. they are still in school
3. they are on disability
4. they are still living with someone else (home, relatives, friends) and don't need as much money
5. they are living in poverty and don't mind
6. they are homeless
The chart indicates that over the last ten years that fewer are on disability or staying home.
You left out:
7. They lied.
And your #3 is already shown in the graph.
Here's the raw numbers from p. 3 of the report:
Age & Gender Number 2004 2014 Percent of total pop 2004 2014
Both genders, 16 years and over 70,521 87,419 31.3 35.0
Both genders, 16 to 19 years 8,419 10,759 51.5 64.7
Retired 33 34 0.2 0.2
Both genders, 20 to 24 years 4,326 6,026 21.4 27.3
Retired 48 132 0.2 0.6
So there were 48 20-24 year-olds in 2004 who claimed they were "Retired", and 132 in 2014. That's from a sample size of over 70k in 2004 and 87k in 2014.
At least as surprising is that 33 16-19 year-olds also claimed to be "Retired" in 2004, and 34 in 2014.
All this data is self-reported, so maybe it's not that surprising.
Here's the report:
Create a better way to fish, sell it on the open market and retire by the time you are 20-24...
I agree with Nightcap there seems to be some sort of insinuation that these people are somehow out of the workforce because of social assistance. Now that could be the case for some in the disabled category (but by no means certain), but to me the other two categories imply personal support (retirement) or family support (living at home).
The "suppression of wages" we have seen in the past few decades is likely more influenced from the supply of cheaper labour markets like Mexico, India, and China. Economists often refer to wages as "sticky" (as in the labour market is generally unwilling to experience wage decreases) thus the move to global wage equilibrium works via suppressed growth of domestic wages. Corporate tax burden may affect profit, but the primary method to shelter from that is to pass that on to consumers by raising prices. As the market adjusts to the new price that lowers demand and thus lowers the amount of labour required to meet demand and would put downward pressure on wages; however those labour pressures would be quite less than a company moving out of the domestic labour market.
There's a better table in here on pg3 of the pdf. The number of "retired" 20 to 24 year olds not working due to retirement represents 0.2% and 0.6% of the total population respectively... so I think it is very,very few!