Over the years, debate has waxed and waned over the effects of the minimum wage and/or immigration policy on employment, particularly teen/youth employment. When the issue flared up most recently, a couple of years ago, I posted a rebuttal to that argument here, my point being that it was – at least this time around – crappy demographics and a lousy economy that had older workers staying in – and re-entering the labor market to seek – jobs far longer than we’d seen previously:

What about demographics — an aging boomer population — and a crappy economy that has  the 55+ cohort postponing retirement and consequently crowding out the younger generation (parents keeping their own kids/grandkids out of the job market, as I put it a while back).  The data is there for all who choose to explore it.

A short while after that post appeared, BR got a request to reprint from the folks at Cengage Learning/Greenhaven Press, who asked if they could include the article in their academic Opposing Viewpoints series of books. I obviously consented to allow the piece to be reprinted, and the book was recently published (specific URL for the volume on Minimum Wage is here). I’m flattered that I’ve now had a piece published, a first for a me. I’m also very appreciative to BR – as he well knows – for his willingness to give me a little corner of his soapbox, and hope I provide some value-add to TBP readers. (My stipend for the piece went to a local humane society.)

That said, why not revisit the issue of youth employment and see where we now stand?

Here is how employment growth (or lack thereof) has evolved, by age cohort, since the beginning of the Great Recession:

(Source: St. Louis FRED, Series LNS12000012, LNS12000036, LNS12000089, LNS12000091, LNS12000093, LNS1202423)

And here’s a different look at the exact same data, an update of the chart I ran two years ago:

Very coincidentally, as I was working on this post, David Rosenberg commented on this very topic, including a variant of the chart immediately above. Rosie’s take on the situation (Breakfast with Dave, May 29, 2012):

Even if some of us dream about becoming a paid consultant in our golden years, the reality is the re-entry of boomers into the workforce is a case of having to, not wanting to. It is what is essential to retire with dignity, not some desirable lifestyle change. Employment for those 55 and up have risen to new all-time highs this cycle while everyone else is languishing nine million below the 2007 peak. [...] There are a few side effects from the bulge in employment for the 55-and-up segment of the population. One is that by not leaving the workforce as they have done in the past – going for early retirement – they have created a backlog of unemployment among the youth.

Precisely. With the benefit now of some hindsight – I made my original argument in real-time – I think it’s clear that it has been, in fact, demographics and a crappy economy that accounts, for the most part, for our youth unemployment problems. (Finally on this topic, Rosie notes that the older cohort “has not seen an erosion in its participation rate or in its employment-to-population ratios.”)

Shifting gears now to make sure I cover as much of the waterfront as I can, several unrelated tidbits:

I wish I had authored this brilliant piece by Mark Dow, which really resonated with me. As the old saying goes, “If the only tool you’ve got is a hammer…” Mr. Dow’s piece is spot-on in every regard.

With interest rates in many parts of the world hitting all-time record lows, I’d be remiss if I didn’t give a shout-out to the inflation hawks of the past few years. To those who foretold a spike in interest rates and hyper-inflation – Jerry Bowyer, Arthur Laffer, the Wall St. Journal, et. al., – here’s to you. An object lesson in putting ideology over analysis. (As an aside on bonds, rates, equities…well…this.)

There appears to be some tin foil hat commentary, to which I won’t link, to the effect that DOL is cooking the books because the weekly Unemployment Insurance Claims revisions are almost always higher in the hope of making the Obama economy look better than it is. The thinking appears to be:

  1. A better (lower) number is presented initially, then subsequently revised higher (in the dark of night) when no one is watching.
  2. If an initial 380K is followed by a subsequent 390K while the 380K is revised to, say, 395K, the latest 390K print looks like a decline (off the revised number).
  3. As one tin-hatter writes: “It’s getting ever more difficult to accept DOL’s ongoing underestimations, which now run to 60 of the 61 most recent weeks I’ve been able to track.”

A few comments:

  1. The string of almost-exclusively-up revisions dates back quite some time, and most certainly to the previous administration. So the DOL clearly must have been fudging for him, too.
  2. It’s a virtual certainty that the DOL does not massage the UI numbers for one simple reason: they don’t even produce the UI numbers. All they do is act as an aggregator for 53 areas (50 states plus D.C., Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands) that electronically submit their data twice weekly (an initial pass followed by a revision). Anyone who wants to could check the 53 separate inputs vs what the DOL reports out; they should sum to what the DOL releases. [NOTE: This would actually require doing a bit of legwork.]
  3. There are myriad reasons for the revisions, and almost all of them lead to a higher revised number. This was explained to me in painstaking detail by one of the folks running the program on a lengthy phone call that none of the conspiracy theorists apparently ever felt like making. Why get the facts when you can spread a rumor?
  4. In any event, the revisions are typically less than 1% up or down (look to be around 2,500 or so on around 370,000, or 0.7%), which should be acceptable to most.
  5. It’s likely the DOL will issue some explanatory commentary on the matter in the weeks to come. Hopefully that will put this idiocy to rest, but I won’t hold my breath on that front.

Finally, I highly recommend to all It’s Even Worse Than It Looks by Thomas Mann & Norman Ornstein, two long-time congressional scholars, on the roots and current status of our calamitous dysfunction in Washington. See their April WaPo op-ed piece here. You may not have heard of their new book because, sadly, as Greg Sargent points out, the duo are being totally ignored by the Sunday talk shows.

@TBPInvictus

 

 

Category: Contrary Indicators, Cycles, Data Analysis, Economy, Employment, Inflation, Really, really bad calls

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

35 Responses to “The Not So Golden Years, Revisited”

  1. [...] see: The Not So Golden Years, Revis­ited — Invic­tus — The Big Picture Share [...]

  2. RW says:

    Yes, the displacement of younger workers by older who cannot afford to retire in times of dearth is a crowding out that stands in stark contrast to the occasional monetary version that can only occur in times of plenty.

    When all you have is a hammer indeed.

    Dow’s piece was so clear and well argued that even a hardened supply-side ideologue like Laffer might take pause (before raising specious objections as why it couldn’t be true).

    But speaking of Laffer and the other inflationistas, don’t forget to add Niall Ferguson to the honor roll. It remains one of the strange wonders of the human universe that those who persistently get things terribly wrong are none-the-less still given maximal air time.

    That fact and the relative lack of air time Mann & Ornstein (and others who fail to stay on right-wing message) receive might lead to the logical assumption that main stream media including Sunday talk is rather thoroughly under conservative/corporatist control; this will not in the slightest deter those who insist otherwise of course.

  3. murrayv says:

    There is more to the demographics than has been recognized. The Boomers had the jobs, and so to a degree can cling to them. They also may be enough in need through lack of preparation for retirement to accept lower pay than might seem reasonable. But there is more.
    The Boomers were a 90+ million cohort of big spenders, who have now passed their peak spending years. GenX was an approximately 30% smaller cohort who came into the workforce while the much larger Boomer cohort was at peak spending, voila – low unemployment for them, aided by the dotcom and housing bubbles. Now it is the GenX entering their peak spending years, a much smaller cohort not as given to conspicuous consumption as their predecessors. And now the millenials, a 95 million cohort are entering the workforce with demand way down as Boomers cut back and the much smaller GenX cohort takes their place. Voila – high unemployment for them, with no bubble to help.
    As Mark Dow noted – you have to look at the context. I don’t think we have an accepted economic theory for these circumstances. MMT seems to be called for.

  4. Conan says:

    i think there are several factors going into this.. First off the Baby Boom Generation is not uniform, everyone is doing their own thing, at best there are many subsets..

    1) The economy is bad and better said the Baby Boomers lived for today and hoped for a bright and easy future. In particular many did not save for retirement and many got wiped out in the cyclicar bear market after investing well in the last bull market.

    2) Not only are people living longer, but they are living more active lives. Many do not want to retire and play golf or move to Florida. Baby Boomers are more active and engaged than previous retirees.

    3) Like it or not many times from Wal Mart or McDonalds up to more professional positions. Many employers like the work ethic and responsible behavior of the older generation. Especially as in this market they can be had for the same price many times as an inexperienced younger worker.

    4) Many people had children later in life and after paying for the university etc they are just now getting around to retirement planning.

    5) The reirement age for many is not 65 any longer. Many folks now are eligble for full reitirement at 67. 65 if born in 1937 or before, 66 up to 1954 and 67 from 1960 and beyond.

    So yes this is demografic, but it is most likely more complex than just this particular down turn from 2008 til now or this particular Presidential Election Cycle. Most likely this will have a while to play out as the last Babby Boomer turns 67 and eligable to reire with full benefits in the year 2031 and since this bear cycle is a debt cycle and not just routine adjustment in the business cycle, it most likely will take many years more to work it’s way out before we see good times again. Look at Japan, the Great Depression, read the book “This time it’s different”.

  5. PeterR says:

    Great post, thanks.

    Hopefully the Golden Years will not be further tarnished by the Asia/Europe market action overnight, and by the open here in the US on Monday.

    Fasten seat belts IMO.

  6. (My stipend for the piece went to a local humane society.)

    you’d have been better off making it conditional..

    If they started a Program like..

    http://search.yippy.com/search?query=puppies+for+prisoners&tb=sitesearch-all&v%3Aproject=clusty

  7. Conan says:

    Here is the quote from Mark Dow’s article sited here that struck me as being of the biggest impact. It is so true on so many levels….As Charles Darwin said, “It is not the strongest that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

    “Much of our body politic is stuck—along with the bulk of the baby boomers—in the 1980s, still trying to relive those old battles in the rear-view mirror. The US has changed. The world has changed. The problems have changed. The emerging world is rapidly plugging into the grid, hungrier and willing to work for less. We need to be pragmatic. Adjust and compete. Look around the globe and without preconceived notions and see what we can learn from others. Being stuck in the same old big government/small government debate keeps us from doing this. Sometimes supply-side policies are right and sometimes they’re not. Sometimes Keynesian polices are right, sometimes they’re not. Until we approach policies as tools in a toolkit and not as divine scriptures, we are going to be stuck in an ideological logjam, wasting precious time. Time to get off the ideological paradigm.”

  8. RW says:

    I found the quote Conan refers to quite striking as well but have been browsing some of Morris Berman’s work — well written but not a great idea if you are prone to depression — much of which raises the real question of whether America retains the ability to get off an ideological paradigm, particularly if that paradigm is useful to the powerful.

    How Bad Is It? by George Scialabba
    A review of Morris Berman‘s three-volume survey of America’s decline: The Twilight of American Culture (2000), Dark Ages America (2006), and Why America Failed (2011). Berman’s story is detailed and his argument complex yet also surprisingly simple: Now that the United States is now longer geographically expanding, the possessive individualism and acquisitiveness that characterized its early growth have been transformed into pernicious venality and oligarchy. An accelerating decline into a postmodern barbarism characterized by sanctioned ignorance, intense surveilance and bread-and-circus authoritarianism is inevitable.

  9. Joe Friday says:

    Finally, I highly recommend to all It’s Even Worse Than It Looks by Thomas Mann & Norman Ornstein, two long-time congressional scholars, on the roots and current status of our calamitous dysfunction in Washington. See their April WaPo op-ed piece here. You may not have heard of their new book because, sadly, as Greg Sargent points out, the duo are being totally ignored by the Sunday talk shows.

    That’s usually what happens when one speaks truth to power.

  10. Tom128 says:

    Here are some other facts to consider:

    Off shoring of jobs ( We are competing in a shrinking job market.)

    High cost of medical insurance (Try purchasing your own private insurance and then discuss again early retirement.)

    Close to ZIRP on fixed income investments. (Your retirement nest egg has been whacked!)

    The economy is treading water.

    And of course, you pay more taxes than most corporations and the one percent that have lopsided control of most of the wealth and the political system in this country.

  11. KentGeek says:

    It’s worth noting that Mann and Ornstein will be on the Daily Show Monday night (6/4)

    Invictus: Thanks for the heads-up; did not know that.

  12. Jojo says:

    Older people stay in jobs they have because they know that if they leave, it is very unlikely that they will get another. Sure there is rampant age discrimination in hiring in the USA but there is also a inexorable decline in available jobs due to automation and robotics (in addition to the factors mentioned by Tom128 above).

    There are just too few jobs for the available workforce and this trend will only worsen in the future.

    Which is why economists are now debating if 7% or even 8% unemployment is the going to be considered the new ‘full employment’ number.

  13. Robespierre says:

    So if the older workers are crowding out the next gens, the simple enough:
    Provide early retirement (say 60 year old) with full SS and Medicare benefits with stiff tax penalties tho those who try to double dip.

    I don’t buy for a second that people in their 60′s don’t want to retire. The reason they don’t retire is:
    Their nest egg (home) is not enough. Their house was their savings!
    Health benefits at an age where any sickness tips you over is very scary.
    Their 401K does not have enough to tie them over.

    Look at who is retiring:
    Teachers
    Policemen
    Firefighters

    All those have very good pension fro the public sector. I know a couple of high school teachers getting two pensions from 2 different states. My guess between the two they make about $120K a year and they are retired. Try to match that on the private sector with your 401K for the non %1 population.

    The problem is not that they don’t want to retire (they do just look at the public sector). The problem is that they can’t. My guess is many will die at the office…

    BTW the way republicans want this fix is by taking down public unions and reducing SS benefits. Talking about death panels.

  14. Conan says:

    Robespiere, let’s see what happens in Wisconsin…Days of our public service jobs getting the pay and benefits of the past maybe numbered…Many State and local governments are walking dead as they can not cover their commitments and they have limited ability to raise taxes or issue new bonds for these debts… GM is leading the way with the full assistance and cooperation of the Federal Government to show how to get out of these commitments…. My Mother is a retired teacher with a fully funded plan, every year they want to roll her pension into one that is not or in some way have access to this cash… Hopefully it won’t happen, but our politicians are experts spenders and creative in ways beyond belief!!

    So yes it is true with a high enough pension gaurentee almost anyone would like to retire, but unfortunately this option is being scaled back and not available to many and the trend is for even fewer…This is the trend that we have to survive in and for most retirees there most likely isn’t the luxery to wait for a new tend to be born…For the younger folks, you all need to plan to be self reliant, neither your employer nor the Governent is able or maybe even willing to be there for when you retire, especially if you are looking to maintain a middle class life style with insurance.

  15. scecman says:

    Invictus, I’m not very bright, so pls clarify: is the +55 job growth due to new jobs obtained or by remaining longer in existing job? ie, how does it count as job growth if someone remains in their existing job?
    thx

    Invictus: I suppose that as a matter of semantics we could debate whether or not “growth” is the appropriate term to use on my charts. However we got here – and I’m not sure the ultimate answer is quantifiable – every cohort but the 55+ has shrunk while that cohort is the only one that has grown. We also know that the emp-pop ratio for 55+ is the only one that’s rising – an indication that 55+ are seeking, and getting, work.

  16. Robespierre says:

    @Conan Says:
    June 3rd, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    “Robespiere, let’s see what happens in Wisconsin”

    What happens at the state level is irrelevant as to what can be done at the Federal government. While Wisconsin can’t print the Federal government can and should. Early full benefits via social security and medicare is a quick way to entice people to retire sooner. Particularly medicare health benefits. BTW self reliance? Don’t make me laugh. Find me a privet insurer that is willing to insure those 55 and older at a price they can afford and that will not drop them as soon as something catastrophic happens. How about some self reliance for the bankers?

  17. SFRob says:

    I have been bewildered at how little attention the Ornstein/Mann book has received. It is an amazing indictment of the brokeness of the governing institutions. After the buzz that their pre-publication Op-Ed produced, nothing. Not even on the more progressive programs. I guess I’ll stop being surprised by the ability of the powers that be to supress whatever they feel like but it still amazes me.

  18. MikeG says:

    It remains one of the strange wonders of the human universe that those who persistently get things terribly wrong are none-the-less still given maximal air time.

    Because they’re not there to accurately predict the future, their purpose is to propaganda-spin an alternate reality that suits their paymasters. I’ll make a wild guess that if a giant asteroid was heading for the earth, their prescription would be tax cuts and deregulation “to restore confidence”.

    At this point Laffer is useful only as a mouthpiece for ruinous Republican economic ideology, or as dark comedy. A monkey throwing darts has a better predictive record.

  19. drewburn says:

    Big topic. Huge. There are many issues here. I’m a boomer. Doing fine, not on Wall Street. Work at a small manufacturer in the Midwest. We are reasonably healthy. Hiring. Workforce is bifurcated. We hire at low/medium skill level. Hard to find reliable workers. The young at this level are very uncommitted, except students who will leave ASAP. Older workers are available, occasionally, though they have “issues,” health and otherwise.

    It’s interesting. Personally, I see the possibility of weak laborforce involvement, which is to say they will reenter the laborfoce only reluctantly and only when the payoff commits them. Many, many of these people have found a way to leave the laborforce and found a way to be comfortible. There are plenty of people who need jobs, but suspect they are further up in the skill pool. At the bottom, they seem to be adjusting to the times by staying out, somehow……..

  20. theexpertisin says:

    It appears that MikeG’s monkey qualifies as the Czar of Darts to the White House.

    No offense to the monkey.

  21. CitizenWhy says:

    I live off Social Security plus a very modest annuity.

    I live in an arts-saturated small city and attend many free or cheap plays, concerts, talks and discussions. I can walk to most. I also buy a monthly bus pass. My apartment is convenient to 5 bus lines. Two run late. I can walk downtown.

    I buy organic foods.

    I eat out a few times a week at a cafe or cheap gourmet organic food restaurant. With menus changing seasonally.

    I rent a moderate priced two-bedroom apartment with a large kitchen. It’s nicely painted, appointed, in a strange semi-industrial artsy area. Lots of privacy, nice back yard. Safe. Lots of night bicycle and foot traffic.

    Of course I cannot afford a car and wouldn’t want one although I am assigned two off-street free parking spaces. I also could not afford alcohol, smoking or drugs. No loss.

    How much you need depends. Trips abroad? Done that young, dirt cheap, adventuresome. Over with. So what.

    Don’t go to doctors.

    Maybe the new American Dream should be to live simply. You know, like people who are now boomers advocated in the 60′s.

  22. “…Early full benefits via social security and medicare is a quick way to entice people to retire sooner…”

    This for the same (?) Generation that has added U$D ~10 Trillion to the Federal Debt, Trillions more on the State, and Local, level–and, has Vastly undersaved for their ‘own’ “Retirement”..??

    it’s Odd, no? that looking, in Nature, for analogous Species, one, seemingly, only, finds “Locusts”..

    http://search.yippy.com/search?query=Locusts&tb=sitesearch-all&v%3Aproject=clusty

    maybe, They should have heeded Aesop’s message–found in..

    “In a field one summer’s day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart’s content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest….”

    http://www.umass.edu/aesop/content.php?n=0&i=1

    but, no..

    We get to ‘pay the Piper’ for their “..chirping and singing to its heart’s content..”, too..

    as seen, in, but, one example, by..

    “…Britain faces a £30bn bill to clean up rivers, streams and drinking water supplies contaminated by synthetic hormones from contraceptive pills. Drastic reductions in these chemicals, which have been linked to collapses in fish populations, are proposed in the latest European Union water framework directive.

    But the plan, which would involve upgrading the sewage network and significantly increasing household water bills, is controversial. Water and pharmaceutical companies dispute the science involved and argue the costs are prohibitive. By contrast, many environmental researchers say the proposal is sound. Ethinyl estradiol (EE2), the main active ingredient of contraceptive pills, can trigger a condition known as intersex in freshwater fish, which has caused significant drops in populations in many species – although no links have yet been made with human health. “That does not mean we will not find impacts in future,” said toxicologist Professor Richard Owen of Exeter University. “But do we want to wait until we see effects in humans, as we did with thalidomide and BSE, or do we act before harm is done?”

    Preventing EE2 from having environmental or health effects is difficult, however. “Ethinyl estradiol is a very potent chemical,” said Professor Susan Jobling of Brunel University. “It is designed to have effects in the human body at very low levels. That means it will also have a significant impact in the environment.”

    More than 2.5 million women take birth control pills in the UK. Their EE2 content is excreted and washed into sewage systems and rivers. Even at very low concentrations, this chemical has harmful effects on fish. Males suffer reduced sperm production, with severe effects on populations. In one recent trial, in a Canadian lake, researchers added EE2 until levels in the water reached five parts per trillion (ppt), a minute concentration. Yet fish populations suffered severe problems with one species, the fathead minnow, collapsing completely…”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill

    ~~~

    yet, the Howl goes up..”The Bankers were Bailed Out !”

    all of a Sudden, “Two Wrongs make a Right?” ??

  23. Rick Caird says:

    There is a lot of room from disagreement with the conclusions.

    First 55+ is a very wide range. Second, at least in the private sector, almost every 55-60 year old (and probably higher) is still employed. With the Boomers just reaching 66, I would expect the population in that range to be rapidly increasing and with it, the labor participation rate to increase. As Tom128 points out ZIRP is a killer. If someone has save $1 million, he expected to get $40 – 50K out of it. Now, it is closer to $15K and that is with a lot if interest rate risk. Consequently, savings that were expected to carry a retiree are no longer close to enough. Third, there is no indication if that 55+ group who are working are working full or part time.

    As far as the inflation/deflation argument goes, John Mauldin piece posted yesterday expects deflation and then inflation. Barry also posted yesterday (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/06/how-expensive-are-us-treasury-bonds/) that ended with this line:

    “Tom’s guess is ‘when the Fed’s inflation of the money supply turns into actual consumer price inflation.’”

    So, I wouldn’t be licking my chops over lack of inflation right now. That could come back to haunt you.

  24. “…If someone has save $1 million, he expected to get $40 – 50K out of it. Now, it is closer to $15K and that is with a lot if interest rate risk…”

    Is that not a _______ Crock?

    How many, really, couldn’t do..

    http://finviz.com/screener.ashx?v=111&f=fa_debteq_u0.7,fa_div_pos,fa_eps5years_pos,fa_estltgrowth_pos,fa_ltdebteq_u0.7,fa_netmargin_pos,fa_payoutratio_u70,fa_peg_low,fa_roi_pos,fa_sales5years_pos,sh_opt_optionshort,sh_price_u30&ft=2

    pick one, or three, or five..

    and “Do” some “Buy/Writes” (??)

    as ex.

    http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/content/us/en.html

    hmm..the June30Calls (not even 2 weeks–yes, there may be 26 of those, in a Year) are ‘Yielding’ ~1%

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/op?s=JCI+Options

    yet, you want to ‘B*tch’ about (ZIRP) ‘Interest-Rate’-Risk ??

    YGTBFKM.

  25. DeDude says:

    I remember back before the crisis looking at an article about how little retirement savings the boomers had. My reaction back then was that a lot of boomers would have to work until they died. Now a market crash later, with their houses having lost value, and under the devastation of ZIRP It must be a rather low percentage that have any ability to retire even if they have saved for retirement. And just in time the GOP is planning to cut social security so that the rich can retain their tax cuts.

  26. “…It remains one of the strange wonders of the human universe that those who persistently get things terribly wrong are none-the-less still given maximal air time…”

    Key..Maximal..

    RW,

    let it not, still, be a ~Wonder (if, it ever was..)

    http://search.yippy.com/search?query=presstitutes&tb=sitesearch-all&v%3Aproject=clusty

  27. RW says:

    This is rather tangential in one way albeit certainly not in another but the math of retirement would be a good deal more tractable if more Americans were simply better at math.

    The notion that all assets need to be income producing, high-quality bonds and a ZIRP environment is therefore ineluctably punitive in consequence ignores so many facets of retirement AND income investing as to frankly appear grotesque.

    But that aside, the math of retirement says this: if you can earn $1,000 a month from some, any other source, from a part-time job to social security, then that is approximately $300,000 less in principal that you need in your portfolio to meet the same annual income target (assuming the ‘standard’ 4% withdrawal rate).*

    *if you cannot see why this is quite trivially correct ($300,000 x 4% = $12,000) then rather clearly you are part of the problem.

  28. Tom128 says:

    My neighbor, who retired early along with his wife, paid $14k a year for private medical coverage until they reached the age of 65 and it was not a “Cadillac” policy. Unlike Apple Incorporated at a 9.8%, he is taxed well and above that rate.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

    As DeDude posted, “ZIRP devastation” is real among the fixed income folks. Don’t believe the talking heads who say differently.

  29. BennyProfane says:

    What’s sad is that, I’ll bet, at least 25% of the jobs Boomers get paid for could vanish tomorrow, and the companies they work for would survive just as well. I’m talking about you down there, looking for your stapler……..

  30. “…As DeDude posted, “ZIRP devastation” is real among the fixed income folks. Don’t believe the talking heads who say differently…”

    Sure, the Great Pretense, “I can ‘afford’ to be Passive..” (just, pick the *right ‘Money Manager’, and “All will be Well..”

    (do We, really, ~Need another ‘link’ to Kevin Bacon in “Animal House” (??))

    Isn’t ‘Passive’ the _______ Problem?

    maybe, you know, just, Maybe, those that have ‘Credits’ could be more “Judicious” ??

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/judicious

    Too much to Ask?

    really?

    can’t follow ‘the Bouncing Ball’? haven’t bothered to think about ‘the Life of a “Two-Dollar”-Bill (read: Logistics)’ ??

    too much like ‘Work’?

    please, Cry Us, not, a River..

    Learn to Swim.

  31. honeybadger says:

    And the topic no-one has mentioned. Historically, sustained unemployment above 20% has resulted in revolution. Again, historically, life expectancy was less than 50, so the relationship between and revolution is based on unemployment in the 20-40 yr old group. Current unemployment in this group is high. Uncomfortably high.

    Let’s just say it is high enough that the f*ing boomers might have more to worry about than the funding of their retirement plans.

  32. [...] The Not So Golden Years, Revisited Big Picture [...]

  33. [...] Demographics and a crappy economy account for our youth unemployment problem.  (Invictus) [...]

  34. AIG Chief Sees Retirement Age as High as 80 After Crisis
    June 4th, 2012

    You keep working, and we’ll keep getting bailouts and bonuses. Mmmkay?

    Via: Bloomberg:

    American International Group Inc. (AIG) Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche said Europe’s debt crisis shows governments worldwide must accept that people will have to work more years as life expectancies increase.

    “Retirement ages will have to move to 70, 80 years old,” Benmosche, who turned 68 last week, said during a weekend interview at his seaside villa in Dubrovnik, Croatia. “That would make pensions, medical services more affordable. They will keep people working longer and will take that burden off of the youth.” …
    http://cryptogon.com/?p=29791

    “Stay Passive my Friends..”

  35. Jojo says:

    @Mark E Hoffer quoted “Retirement ages will have to move to 70, 80 years old,” Benmosche, who turned 68 last week, said during a weekend interview at his seaside villa in Dubrovnik, Croatia. “That would make pensions, medical services more affordable. They will keep people working longer and will take that burden off of the youth.” …
    ————-
    So the older people will work longer and [I suppose] the younger people will hang out waiting for the older people to quit or retire before THEY can get their jobs? Because there aren’t enough new jobs being created for the people who need/want one. It’s like musical chairs. Some people are going to be left standing as jobs (chairs) continue to be removed form the economy.