A few things. One, at this point it's fairly obvious that the last person who should be talking about social issues and cultural debates is Cathy. I know she's smart about a lot of things, but the reflex to go 'actually the left was overreacting' to things that the Bulwark's JVL already deconstructed for being insane is kind of wild. Like, any sane person can probably agree that anything that isn't 'slavery was morally wrong on every level' has no business being taught to children. This isn't a Song of the South situation where they're trying to portray Reconstruction as a golden era, we're talking the literal era of slavery where men, women, and children were kept in bondage and sold like animals. There's no both sides here. If 'the left' is overreacting in the sense that they are saying 'we shouldn't both sides slavery' I think that's defensible. And it's more defensible for Harris, a literal black woman, to take some offense to people whitewashing her own ancestor's history!
But enough on that. Let's talk Hunter briefly. The Hunter Biden 'story' is that Hunter did a bad thing. Okay! But you know what else? The system is working! The president is not leaning on judges and officials to let him go! The system is literally working as intended. Do you think the Trump kids would be brought up on charges the same way under a GOP president? I don't. And so as far as I can tell, the story is 'the system is working as intended.'
As for our gerontocracy, this really is the core problem in our society. Not simply in politics either, it's everywhere, and a lot of this is baby boomers not wanting to move aside or plan for the future, the latter part could sum up their entire forty years in the spotlight since they powered Reagan to office on a plan of 'eh, we'll lower taxes for us and cut benefits and pay for it later or something.' At the moment, we have presidents, congressmen, and supreme court justices that are expected to make laws about everything from internet privacy to crypto to AI, and most of them cannot navigate a smartphone.
In the 90s, they laughed as their parents couldn't handle 'the computers' and that's now them. But it infects everything else too. For example, the reason participation in trades has declined is not that there is a lack of people to do those jobs, but because the older people who are retiring are not training new people because it's to expensive and bothersome to do so. I learned this firsthand from a family friend who's repaired elevators for his entire life; they'd love to have new people, but the companies that employ them would rather rely on aging talent than train new talent to replace them. The same was true for my brother in law's father, who was an electrician during his life.
One of the problems in our world is that people live too long now. That's not to say that living is bad, we're not talking a Logan's Run situation. I mean that our institutions and the pace of change do not adhere to our idea that age should be the signifier of wisdom. The main reason we have a problem with the Supreme Court, for example, is that justices live so long that you can lock in a majority for a lifetime by appointing someone in their thirties, who will then likely be in that position your entire natural life. The average length of time a justice serves has been extended to the point where we should really ask why we don't have both higher minimum age requirements and lower maximum age requirements. That's not a term limit idea; it's simply a matter that when it comes to law, you probably should be at least fifty, and no older than seventy, in order to have some idea what's going on.
And Congress has turned into a work program for people who should be retired. In no other industry would you expect people over sixty five to be active participants in the workforce, especially not when talking about modern questions. You wouldn't have asked someone who was seventy in the 40s how to build a plane better, so I don't know why we think that the ideal time for law making is for people whose golden years were thirty years prior.
McConnell is simply the most recent example. We've seen this a lot lately. RBG and Feinstein on the left come to mind. We simply cannot accept this notion that human beings are capable forever, when they are not.
You mention men not in the workforce, but perhaps the best way to get them into the workforce is not to make life harder for them, but to push older people out of the workforce so that the demand for labor is higher. The reality is, we're in this situation because we make retiring too hard, we make getting into jobs too hard, and we've allowed much of our nation to atrophy because the people in charge won't move aside and are choosing to die in their positions.
Speaking as someone who lost his grandmother a year ago and watched her slowly deteriorate mentally and physically over time, I can say that I would not trust someone in McConnell's condition to do his own taxes or live on his own, and yet we are all expected to be nice and not say what is clearly obvious, that the man should retire and we should not be pretending it is normal or ethical to allow him to keep serving. Ditto for people like Feinstein. At some point, allowing the facade to remain is elder abuse.
Well, based on my experience, pushing olds out of the workforce is already being done covertly. I was laid off at 57. Because the layoff occured as a result of a plant closing I was able to get retraining funded by the state. I spent a year in tech school training to be an electromechanical technician. This is a skill that guarantees a job anywhere in the country. There just aren't enough to go around.
Fast forward and I'm ready to look for a job. Two guys in my class had gotten jobs before they even finished, So I'm feeling pretty good.
Three weeks into a job hunt guided by a case worker (the state paid for my schooling so they were very invested in my returning to work ASAP) and not even a nibble. This goes on for a bit longer before I come up with a genius solution. I stop listing my college degree on my resume and on any applications I fill out. No college mention means no graduation date, which means no one can figure out my age. Boom. Suddenly I start getting inquiries and after a few awkward interviews where I can see the surprised looks after I walk in, I'm once again a productive member of society.
So don't despair. Just trust the process. Olds like me are being pushed out. If you want to send me a monthly check for about $500.00 or so I'll even retire early for you. Otherwise you'll have to wait three more years.
You are 100% correct in regards to aging beaureacrats. Previously, Supreme Court justices were appointed after many years in law and on the bench. Usually they were older. The people on the bench will be there until my children are old.
I agree that Hunter Bidrn is a loser and I feel sorry that he is his father's remaining son. Joe Biden has had to deal with a lot of tragedy.
I think Harris' views are not relevant because she black, since her mother is a wealthy educated woman from India and father is a wealthy educated Jamaican, not sure a descendant of slaves. But like everyone, she has a right to her opinion. And I agree that the purpose FL's education system is to train future racists or make public education in FL a relic of history.
[The reality is, we're in this situation because we make retiring too hard]
I think this is a very big part of it. Given declining benefits and longer life-spans, 'early' retirement is a gamble most can't afford to take. And I say that not because I think most should be able to retire at 62 or 65 or whatever, but because at the margins, fewer and fewer are able to, which clogs up the top of the labor market. We have a society where 69% retire by the age of 66. What if we didn't have billionaire space tourism but that number was 75%?
People need to quit thinking about work as an all or nothing thing. I "retired" early because corporate work had become exhausting--it was the "always on" where you had to respond to texts and emails at all hours. I found a 30 hour a week job at a local school and I have all of the school breaks and summer off so I have time to be "retired" and then I get bored and school starts again. The pay is crap but the schedule is great and the kids are amazing--it's so fun to work with teenagers.
People joke about having to be Wal Mart greeters instead of retiring, but there are a LOT of opportunities to do valuable work--and even flexible schedules--if you can afford to work for a modest wage.
Respect to your comment, but despite longer life cycles, its a pretty simple observation to note that many (most? ) folks that are fortunate enough to reach a retirement age of 65 or 66 years old are not as productive or adaptive as they were in their 40тАЩs or even their 50тАЩs. What to do with such folks (read: like ME!) who cannot afford to simply retire is the unanswered question that has become an imperative as so many folks reach retirement age and eligibility but simply cannot afford to stop working. So I guess thatтАЩs a Long way around to saying, You Are Sooooo Right!
Part of the reason Boomers aren't retiring is the move that pensions should be defined contribution, rather than defined benefit. Most people aren't able to save and invest properly to be able to retire. It's a crumby system, yet it's "your fault" when things don't work out. Meanwhile, the investor class makes bank.
Don't get me started on the lack of workplace training!
...rather than the older tradespeople. There are some prominent older heads of companies like Rupert Murdoch, who want to die in the saddle but most of the movers and shakers with any sense retired at Freedom 55 if they were smart.
"I need you to be personally responsible for this money we are investing for you piecemeal over a long period of time. We will not train you, but we will provide you unlimited access to highly technical documents. Go!"
I saw a study a few years ago where they looked at retirement investing. They compared two scenarios. In both scenarios, both investors invested the same amount of money over the same time period. Investments were a stock index fund and ( I think, it's been a while) a precious metals fund. One investor did everything "right" (selling at peaks, buying on troughs) and the other did everything "wrong." Well, right investor wound up with 10s of millions of dollars. The wrong investor wound up with 10s of thousands. You hear lots of " you should have saved more" talk regarding retirement. Well, luck in timing the market has more to do with success than your personal thrift ( don't tell Dave Ramsey).
About 35% of the workforce (Fed Reserve statistic) doesn't have enough disposable income to save anything for retirement. Or if they do manage to save, a financial emergency or a job loss happens and they tap into retirement funds. That is a LOT of people whose only retirement income will be Social Security.
That's why "timing the market" is a fool's game. Retirement investing should be, at a minimum, just a consistent investment in an index fund that you don't touch until it's time to use it.
Training workers is expensive. If you don't want that training to walk out the door, you have to treat/pay your staff well. I think I see the problem! Much cheaper to claim "talent shortage."
Shawn, your posts are always worth a read. Sometimes I wish I could like individual points. For example, today I would definitely give a thumbs up to this paragraph:
"In the 90s, they laughed as their parents couldn't handle 'the computers' and that's now them. But it infects everything else too. For example, the reason participation in trades has declined is not that there is a lack of people to do those jobs, but because the older people who are retiring are not training new people because it's to expensive and bothersome to do so. I learned this firsthand from a family friend who's repaired elevators for his entire life; they'd love to have new people, but the companies that employ them would rather rely on aging talent than train new talent to replace them. The same was true for my brother in law's father, who was an electrician during his life."
Of course I think there's a role for trade schools. But here's my experience: My son is being trained as he works by a homebuilder. If he does well and wants to, he might even take over the business some day, as he is the only employee. It's not a formal apprenticeship, but it kind of functions that way, and benefits them both. So I think it's an alternative path that could be used more. From the other side of the ledger, I was a physician before I retired. I didn't work in an academic environment, but I did allow students and residents to do rotations in my clinic occasionally. I didn't make any money for that, but saw it as a way to encourage young people to learn about and experience primary care practice. Oh, and I live in a building with a very old elevator. There's only one guy around who still knows how to fix it. I sure hope he's training someone.
I 100% agree with you that companies should be investing in training their own employees.
A few things. One, at this point it's fairly obvious that the last person who should be talking about social issues and cultural debates is Cathy. I know she's smart about a lot of things, but the reflex to go 'actually the left was overreacting' to things that the Bulwark's JVL already deconstructed for being insane is kind of wild. Like, any sane person can probably agree that anything that isn't 'slavery was morally wrong on every level' has no business being taught to children. This isn't a Song of the South situation where they're trying to portray Reconstruction as a golden era, we're talking the literal era of slavery where men, women, and children were kept in bondage and sold like animals. There's no both sides here. If 'the left' is overreacting in the sense that they are saying 'we shouldn't both sides slavery' I think that's defensible. And it's more defensible for Harris, a literal black woman, to take some offense to people whitewashing her own ancestor's history!
But enough on that. Let's talk Hunter briefly. The Hunter Biden 'story' is that Hunter did a bad thing. Okay! But you know what else? The system is working! The president is not leaning on judges and officials to let him go! The system is literally working as intended. Do you think the Trump kids would be brought up on charges the same way under a GOP president? I don't. And so as far as I can tell, the story is 'the system is working as intended.'
As for our gerontocracy, this really is the core problem in our society. Not simply in politics either, it's everywhere, and a lot of this is baby boomers not wanting to move aside or plan for the future, the latter part could sum up their entire forty years in the spotlight since they powered Reagan to office on a plan of 'eh, we'll lower taxes for us and cut benefits and pay for it later or something.' At the moment, we have presidents, congressmen, and supreme court justices that are expected to make laws about everything from internet privacy to crypto to AI, and most of them cannot navigate a smartphone.
In the 90s, they laughed as their parents couldn't handle 'the computers' and that's now them. But it infects everything else too. For example, the reason participation in trades has declined is not that there is a lack of people to do those jobs, but because the older people who are retiring are not training new people because it's to expensive and bothersome to do so. I learned this firsthand from a family friend who's repaired elevators for his entire life; they'd love to have new people, but the companies that employ them would rather rely on aging talent than train new talent to replace them. The same was true for my brother in law's father, who was an electrician during his life.
One of the problems in our world is that people live too long now. That's not to say that living is bad, we're not talking a Logan's Run situation. I mean that our institutions and the pace of change do not adhere to our idea that age should be the signifier of wisdom. The main reason we have a problem with the Supreme Court, for example, is that justices live so long that you can lock in a majority for a lifetime by appointing someone in their thirties, who will then likely be in that position your entire natural life. The average length of time a justice serves has been extended to the point where we should really ask why we don't have both higher minimum age requirements and lower maximum age requirements. That's not a term limit idea; it's simply a matter that when it comes to law, you probably should be at least fifty, and no older than seventy, in order to have some idea what's going on.
And Congress has turned into a work program for people who should be retired. In no other industry would you expect people over sixty five to be active participants in the workforce, especially not when talking about modern questions. You wouldn't have asked someone who was seventy in the 40s how to build a plane better, so I don't know why we think that the ideal time for law making is for people whose golden years were thirty years prior.
McConnell is simply the most recent example. We've seen this a lot lately. RBG and Feinstein on the left come to mind. We simply cannot accept this notion that human beings are capable forever, when they are not.
You mention men not in the workforce, but perhaps the best way to get them into the workforce is not to make life harder for them, but to push older people out of the workforce so that the demand for labor is higher. The reality is, we're in this situation because we make retiring too hard, we make getting into jobs too hard, and we've allowed much of our nation to atrophy because the people in charge won't move aside and are choosing to die in their positions.
Speaking as someone who lost his grandmother a year ago and watched her slowly deteriorate mentally and physically over time, I can say that I would not trust someone in McConnell's condition to do his own taxes or live on his own, and yet we are all expected to be nice and not say what is clearly obvious, that the man should retire and we should not be pretending it is normal or ethical to allow him to keep serving. Ditto for people like Feinstein. At some point, allowing the facade to remain is elder abuse.
Well, based on my experience, pushing olds out of the workforce is already being done covertly. I was laid off at 57. Because the layoff occured as a result of a plant closing I was able to get retraining funded by the state. I spent a year in tech school training to be an electromechanical technician. This is a skill that guarantees a job anywhere in the country. There just aren't enough to go around.
Fast forward and I'm ready to look for a job. Two guys in my class had gotten jobs before they even finished, So I'm feeling pretty good.
Three weeks into a job hunt guided by a case worker (the state paid for my schooling so they were very invested in my returning to work ASAP) and not even a nibble. This goes on for a bit longer before I come up with a genius solution. I stop listing my college degree on my resume and on any applications I fill out. No college mention means no graduation date, which means no one can figure out my age. Boom. Suddenly I start getting inquiries and after a few awkward interviews where I can see the surprised looks after I walk in, I'm once again a productive member of society.
So don't despair. Just trust the process. Olds like me are being pushed out. If you want to send me a monthly check for about $500.00 or so I'll even retire early for you. Otherwise you'll have to wait three more years.
You are 100% correct in regards to aging beaureacrats. Previously, Supreme Court justices were appointed after many years in law and on the bench. Usually they were older. The people on the bench will be there until my children are old.
I agree that Hunter Bidrn is a loser and I feel sorry that he is his father's remaining son. Joe Biden has had to deal with a lot of tragedy.
I think Harris' views are not relevant because she black, since her mother is a wealthy educated woman from India and father is a wealthy educated Jamaican, not sure a descendant of slaves. But like everyone, she has a right to her opinion. And I agree that the purpose FL's education system is to train future racists or make public education in FL a relic of history.
[The reality is, we're in this situation because we make retiring too hard]
I think this is a very big part of it. Given declining benefits and longer life-spans, 'early' retirement is a gamble most can't afford to take. And I say that not because I think most should be able to retire at 62 or 65 or whatever, but because at the margins, fewer and fewer are able to, which clogs up the top of the labor market. We have a society where 69% retire by the age of 66. What if we didn't have billionaire space tourism but that number was 75%?
People need to quit thinking about work as an all or nothing thing. I "retired" early because corporate work had become exhausting--it was the "always on" where you had to respond to texts and emails at all hours. I found a 30 hour a week job at a local school and I have all of the school breaks and summer off so I have time to be "retired" and then I get bored and school starts again. The pay is crap but the schedule is great and the kids are amazing--it's so fun to work with teenagers.
People joke about having to be Wal Mart greeters instead of retiring, but there are a LOT of opportunities to do valuable work--and even flexible schedules--if you can afford to work for a modest wage.
Big 'if' there at the end, but it is a valid point.
Respect to your comment, but despite longer life cycles, its a pretty simple observation to note that many (most? ) folks that are fortunate enough to reach a retirement age of 65 or 66 years old are not as productive or adaptive as they were in their 40тАЩs or even their 50тАЩs. What to do with such folks (read: like ME!) who cannot afford to simply retire is the unanswered question that has become an imperative as so many folks reach retirement age and eligibility but simply cannot afford to stop working. So I guess thatтАЩs a Long way around to saying, You Are Sooooo Right!
Part of the reason Boomers aren't retiring is the move that pensions should be defined contribution, rather than defined benefit. Most people aren't able to save and invest properly to be able to retire. It's a crumby system, yet it's "your fault" when things don't work out. Meanwhile, the investor class makes bank.
Don't get me started on the lack of workplace training!
Lack of workplace training is more likely the result of some thirty-something wundekind CFO rather
...rather than the older tradespeople. There are some prominent older heads of companies like Rupert Murdoch, who want to die in the saddle but most of the movers and shakers with any sense retired at Freedom 55 if they were smart.
Companies should implement paid internships and apprenticeships.
"I need you to be personally responsible for this money we are investing for you piecemeal over a long period of time. We will not train you, but we will provide you unlimited access to highly technical documents. Go!"
I saw a study a few years ago where they looked at retirement investing. They compared two scenarios. In both scenarios, both investors invested the same amount of money over the same time period. Investments were a stock index fund and ( I think, it's been a while) a precious metals fund. One investor did everything "right" (selling at peaks, buying on troughs) and the other did everything "wrong." Well, right investor wound up with 10s of millions of dollars. The wrong investor wound up with 10s of thousands. You hear lots of " you should have saved more" talk regarding retirement. Well, luck in timing the market has more to do with success than your personal thrift ( don't tell Dave Ramsey).
About 35% of the workforce (Fed Reserve statistic) doesn't have enough disposable income to save anything for retirement. Or if they do manage to save, a financial emergency or a job loss happens and they tap into retirement funds. That is a LOT of people whose only retirement income will be Social Security.
That's why "timing the market" is a fool's game. Retirement investing should be, at a minimum, just a consistent investment in an index fund that you don't touch until it's time to use it.
That sounds great in theory until.you get hit by a medical emergency in the family.
That's an argument for a public option/single-payer system, rather than against investing in index funds IMO.
Training workers is expensive. If you don't want that training to walk out the door, you have to treat/pay your staff well. I think I see the problem! Much cheaper to claim "talent shortage."
Or the need for imported workers because "Americans won't do these jobs".
Nobody wants to work!
Shawn, your posts are always worth a read. Sometimes I wish I could like individual points. For example, today I would definitely give a thumbs up to this paragraph:
"In the 90s, they laughed as their parents couldn't handle 'the computers' and that's now them. But it infects everything else too. For example, the reason participation in trades has declined is not that there is a lack of people to do those jobs, but because the older people who are retiring are not training new people because it's to expensive and bothersome to do so. I learned this firsthand from a family friend who's repaired elevators for his entire life; they'd love to have new people, but the companies that employ them would rather rely on aging talent than train new talent to replace them. The same was true for my brother in law's father, who was an electrician during his life."
Trade school is expensive. The one I went to will cost someone about $30,000 for roughly a year.
I'm already retirement age. Maybe next year. It depends on my mood.
Of course I think there's a role for trade schools. But here's my experience: My son is being trained as he works by a homebuilder. If he does well and wants to, he might even take over the business some day, as he is the only employee. It's not a formal apprenticeship, but it kind of functions that way, and benefits them both. So I think it's an alternative path that could be used more. From the other side of the ledger, I was a physician before I retired. I didn't work in an academic environment, but I did allow students and residents to do rotations in my clinic occasionally. I didn't make any money for that, but saw it as a way to encourage young people to learn about and experience primary care practice. Oh, and I live in a building with a very old elevator. There's only one guy around who still knows how to fix it. I sure hope he's training someone.
I 100% agree with you that companies should be investing in training their own employees.