Half of old Americans have no money saved

actually it will, in fact it's a must

 

Yes, just been reading about it.
https://www.ft.com/content/52ecab21-c90d-4ee7-be7f-612da5355c77

 

Anything more specific? Your link just lands on the title page.

 

That depends. In the old days, usually not. The company didn't set aside any special savings, they just assumed it was a big enough company that would still be there when the workers got old and then they would pay them out of their future profits. In the old days big companies tended be more stable and last a long time, and a larger percent of the workforce (especially men) used to work for big companies.

These days most companies realize that's not realistic and have set up savings plans, but many companies do not pay very much into these savings plan. For example, they might tell the employee that for every one dollar they put into the savings plan, the company will contribute 50 cents, and the savings plan will be limited to some certain amount that is not too big.

 

I don't think you're seeing the bigger picture.

You seem to be applying piecemeal logic without applying logic to the wider issue overall.

When prices are high in an economy because there's a shortage of something, throwing money at it isn't going to solve the problem.

 

I had one hell of a party...I was born without a cent and I damn sure can't take any when I die.So, I don't really care about it.

 

I know it's cruel, and I shouldn't wish for this, but part of me wants to see you suffer in one of those old people's homes for indigent seniors, to compel you to reevaluate your current attitudes.

 

Apologies, I didn't spot the pay wall. Here's the article in full.


President Joe Biden defended his economic record on Monday as US jobs data reveal a puzzling pair of facts: millions remain unemployed after losing work in the pandemic, but businesses say they can’t find enough people to hire.


The inability of companies to attract new workers has sparked a polarising debate over the possible causes, with Republicans and some business figures claiming that overly generous jobless benefits are discouraging people from getting a job. The chief culprit, they say, is the Biden administration’s extension of a $300 per week top-up of unemployment insurance.

In higher-paying states, combined benefits can equal up to $600 a week, the equivalent of nearly $16 per hour. That is more than twice the federal minimum wage.

The unexpected struggle to find workers threatens to derail what many economists and business owners had expected to be a robust economic recovery.

Speaking at the White House, Biden said his economic plan was “working” despite last month’s slowdown in job creation, in which businesses hired 266,000 new employees, far fewer than the 1m that economists had expected. He insisted there was not “much evidence” that the extension of unemployment insurance as part of his stimulus plan was discouraging work.


The idea that I need to go back to work and potentially put my family at risk and make one-third [the tips] I was making before is just a decision I probably wouldn’t make, if I was my staff Matt Glassman, owner of the Greyhound Bar & Grill “We need to stay focused on the real problems in front of us — beating this pandemic and creating jobs,” he said.

Business people say that the labour shortage is real in sectors including food service, transport and construction.

Franchise owners of the convenience store chain 7-Eleven begged the company not to force them to return to round-the-clock operations because they could not find anyone to work night shifts.

Managers at a short-staffed McDonald’s in Texas placed a sign on its drive-through menu asking for patience because “nobody wants to work any more”, making the restaurant famous on TikTok.

Breakfast cereal maker Post Holdings said a shortage of workers has caused severe production delays. On Monday, Donnie King, chief operating officer at Tyson Foods, the largest US meat processor, said “it’s been taking us about six days to do five days’ worth of work because of turnover and absenteeism” at its pork plants, which were among the worst-hit in the initial months of the pandemic.

The National Federation of Independent Business, a small business group, said that 42 per cent of small business owners say they cannot fill roles. Among them is Matt Glassman, who owns the Greyhound Bar & Grill in Los Angeles. Two weeks before reopening, Glassman scheduled 15 interviews to hire kitchen staff.

But a dozen candidates did not show up, he said. Of the three who did, one was “completely wrong for the job” and another quit on the first day, leaving him with only one hire. “We’ve done traditional stuff, we’ve done Craigslist, we’ve done [hiring website] Poached, culinary agencies, tried Instagram, I’ve tried talking to my staff, I’ve tried walking up and down the street,” Glassman said. “It hasn’t been successful.”

The increased risks of in person work during the Covid crisis has made many low-wage workers reconsider if their jobs are worth the pay, labour activists and economists say. For those with children, the persistent closures of some schools and other childcare facilities have made returning to work even more difficult. Recommended ExplainerCoronavirus economic impact Pandemic crisis: Global economic impact tracker “The idea that I need to go back to work and potentially put my family at risk and make one-third [the tips] I was making before is just a decision I probably wouldn’t make, if I was my staff,” Glassman said.

Others say that unemployment benefits have discouraged potential hires. Among the oilfields of the Permian Basin in west Texas, “there’s a lot of folks hiring and oil and gas activity is picking back up and they’re ready to hire”, said Wesley Burnett, economic director at the chamber of commerce in the city of Odessa. “But the federal programme they put in place has kind of knocked everybody back a little bit as far as they want to stay home instead of go to work.” Henry McMaster, Republican South Carolina governor, directed his state to stop paying the added federal benefits at the end of June, two months before Washington plans to stop funding them. “What was intended to be short-term financial assistance for the vulnerable and displaced during the height of the pandemic has turned into a dangerous federal entitlement, incentivising and paying workers to stay at home rather than encouraging them to return to the workplace,” McMaster said.


Liberal groups say there is a simple way to attract more workers: pay more. “Employers now are saying, ‘well, we can’t find people to fill these jobs’, but what they should really be saying is that ‘we can’t find people to fill these jobs at the wages that we are offering’,” said Melissa Boteach of the liberal National Women’s Law Center. “And so, you see that when you have demand for labour you should be increasing wages to increase supply.” Data from the US labour department suggests that some employers have started to do just that. Leisure and hospitality businesses raised wages in April, although earnings are still below their pre-Covid trend.

Recommended News in-depthUS employment Biden hopes to revive long march of women back into US workforce Others are going further. Uber launched its own $250m “stimulus” programme to lure in new drivers. The company said it had 22 per cent fewer drivers than it did this time last year even as demand from riders had grown, sending fares up. Fabio Sandri, the chief executive of the poultry processor Pilgrim’s Pride, told analysts that his company spent $40m to increase wages in the first quarter of the year. He also said they were continuing to invest in automation to rely less on workers. Many economists expect any labour shortage to fade, predicting that as Covid cases decline, schools reopen and extra unemployment benefits expire in September, hesitant workers will return. But some may never return to the work they were doing before the pandemic. Glassman said many members of his staff had fled California.

 

You definitely are pissed off that someone doesn't share your Schadenfreudian disposition.. Have you always been so nice to fellow humans or is Satan your choice of characters today?

 

.

British posters might find this news article interesting.

Britain’s best areas for older homeowners looking to downsize

https://www.propertyreporter.co.uk/...for-older-homeowners-looking-to-downsize.html

.

 

People who wish to live in high cost of living areas must be prepared to have the earning capability to achieve this. For those who earn $15/hour, they must commute from less expensive bedroom communities.

Last month in my area in Northern CA the median home price was $1,450,000. Those earning $15/hour in service jobs must commute 15-30 miles if they wish to work in this area. Even if less expensive housing was available, gasoline is $5/gallon and a typical meal is $20, and groceries have exorbitant prices. Those who cannot afford to live in this area are fools to try to live in this area! If my earning capacity was $15/hour I would get as far away from my area as possible...

 

What do you think the wages should be?

 

I can afford it but ran away anyway.

 

People need to make decisions that work for them. My guess is those who can only earn median wages yet try to live in high cost of living areas will always be left wanting! The math will never work. People cannot depend on government to solve these types of problems. I hate to continue using my area as an example but my community responded by building what they called 'affordable housing...they were $500K-$600K homes!!!! The ONLY way housing can possibly be provided less expensive is for the government to subsidize it or build their own non-profit housing...

 

True, because the corporations don't want smaller housing it is less profitable to them. I have always lived in rural areas that have been overdeveloped after twenty years so, I moved farther off into the wild, but worked in the big city for a wad of dough.

 

Since the vast majority of Americans over age 55 are White... maybe the cultural marxists' "brave new world" will be NY Gov Cuomo's final solution !

.

 

If it works for you this is what matters...

 

Not a problem at all, just the result of policy going back to the 1980s. Those whom couldn't read or perceive the greedy deregulations that helped only the rich did not prepare or join the party. You had a choice, step up, or go on the lam... lay around, do a 9-5 job and save no money. That was your choice.

They could easily tax the rich and businesses to pay for these people. Create a law that xxxx of above 55 MUST work for your company. All regulations that could easily be used. Yet, the billionaires makes all the rules now, not congress. People that think politicians make rules are foolish for believing so.
jeff Bezos pays billions to lobbyists, he wants results. I think they should all be taken and punsihed until the greed is rung out of them

 

That would be 1/5000 (maybe)... Ramsey use to be decent guy, now he is way to trumpified

 

I have been through my ups and downs too. Good education, yea I got a good high school education and decided after a little over a year of college I could do better out in the working world. I began saving when I was twenty years old. Regular no matter how small savings and investing. It started out small and after working until I was 67 have a very nice retirement savings account. I didn't indulge, I didn't buy things I could not afford, I stayed as far away from debt as I could and retired debt free owning a home and two cars. I lived within my means.

So when you say "we", must do something about people who did not save and invest who is the "we" and what obligation do I have to give them some of my wealth and savings and earnings?

 

There's plenty of jobs available for young people. We live far longer than we did when SS was established and can and do work longer so why should the age be stuck in 1930's mentality? Why should it be lowered in to ages where people are perfectly capable of working?

 

Democrats solution is to increase the minimum wage, free higher education and more money for the social programs, all paid by taxing the wealthy.
What is Republican solution?

 

That might not be the best solution to address this type of societal problem.

see this thread: Percent of Americans who actually have a college degree

Trump did want to address trade balance and immigration issues. No doubt they have a very huge economic impact.

 

Great. Another worthless study by a group with an agenda predicting Doom & Gloom that will never happen.

You'd think after failing for 30 years they'd take a hint.

 

As I said Democrats solution is to increase the minimum wage, free higher education and more money for the social programs, all paid by taxing the wealthy. Somehow you are silent on these solutions. What is your opinion?
Free higher education is a solution for our kids, not for the current adults. Higher education increases salaries and if 70% of US citizens will have higher education, we will have less adults without savings.

As for Trump – he did nothing to fix this problem. He increased number H2B visas by 15000 grabbing 76 for his hotels:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/20/16003254/trump-h2b-visa-program

After China invested a half billion dollars in a projects from he personally benefits he helped Chinese ZTE corporation, which did not help our trading balace:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/15/17355202/trump-zte-indonesia-lido-city

I agree – illegal immigration is a problem in this country and Democrats refuse to fix it.
As to exporting American jobs overseas, Republicans support outsourcing, here is a proof:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00249