People are being booted out of their jobs at 50

I'm watching CNN and they are talking about a study that shows if you are 50 and up you are very likely to get kicked out of your job and be replaced by a younger person who are capable of being available 24/7 as well as more accepting of cheaper salary. Besides that, if you are over 50 and got booted, it is almost impossible for you to find another job.During this time of skyrocketing healthcare cost, this lack of respect for our elders is putting an even greater strain on people that have been working all their lives and contributing to society.I don't mean to degrade the atrocities that the nazis committed, but I am certainly seeing signs of certain aspects that existed in nazi germany here. Profit, or how much labor time at the cheapest cost, you can pump out of people seems to be more important than the people themselves. People are being penalized for simply being older.CNN also said that there are laws in place to protect people over the age of 40 from being fired because of their age. However, companies have found loopholes that allow them to do exactly that.

The problem is not everybody have enough strength to do all the work demanded by corporate America that long. Oh sure, you can point out isolated cases of people having the energy after 60. But is that enough reason to penalize the condemn the rest of society? If you can't keep up, then you'd have to live in poverty, right?You are 18 and you are full of energy. I am 22 and I am full of energy. Does this mean the rest of the world should be full of energy?What an egocentric view of the humanity.Addressing the real issue, I know that democracy and privatization is a good thing, but we need to keep them contained. Corporations should realize that people are people, not disposable machines. Have a freaking heart!I swear, if I ever gain any real power, I'm going to go around and round up all the heartless people and put them in ghettos.

There is a difference between being able to live longer and having the energy to compete with the younger generation. Sure, if a person really tries he can sit in front of his computer until he's 70 or 75. But can you really say that a construction worker or a garbage man could have the strength to do those kinds of jobs beyond 60?Like I said, just because a few people could go on forever doesn't mean we should expect everyone to be able to do the same thing.My dad is a pianist and you can clearly see old age getting to him. He is now in his early 60's. He used to do one project after another all the time. He literally changed the shape of our house by himself. He once bought a very old grand piano, took it apart completely, refurbished it, changed many parts that were broken, put it together again, and gave it to a relative. He probably built more cabinets in our house than what we originally started out with. But now, he is limited to gardening. You can clearly tell that he no longer have the strength to do those stuff. He still plays for events, plays for churches, and teaches piano lessons.Coincidently, especially in the summer, he would start a project and then let me continue it. I am now his arms and legs to do these things that he wants to do.Strangely enough, my sister's father in law is 65 and he is more active than most teenagers I know. He teaches math in a college and work in a nursery (2 jobs), and he doesn't have to do these things either.Again, we shouldn't penalize the rest of society just because a few people could go on forever.

Just because I did not quote a certain section of your post doesn't mean I wasn't replying to it. Trying to save cyber space.I believe you said Then you went on to point out that your grandparents and you could go on well into your 90's.I'm sorry, but years of education have made me read a little beyond the literal words. If I'm not mistaken, you were at least implying that since it is realistic for you to go on into your 90's, it must be realistic for everyone to go into his 90's.Peace!

I was not implying that we should turn world corporations into social welfare organizations. I believe that there is a (you could say) happy medium between social welfare and heartless capitalism.

Then what do you suggest we do with the portion that do not or could not go on working in a competitive job market?

No, but it is a fact that the older you are the less chance you'll have at getting another job after getting booted out of your old one. No, I am not saying that. I am saying, however, that private organizations are more likely to hire fresh and young workers who can have the same skills but can work much longer for much lesser salary.I occasionally apply for jobs at places and there are always older applicants there. The thing is the younger ones are the ones that get hired most of the time. What on Earth are you talking about? If you go back and read all my posts, you will see that I never even implied that our elders have outlived their usefulness. What I have been saying, and apparently what you have been missing, is that there should be a happy medium somewhere where people are not hired strictly based on how cheap and how much they could work and not turn our country into one big social welfare organization.

This is why Percy said You keep missing the point, Rrhain. Probably not, but nevertheless they can work longer hours for less pay. You really think the people in charge care who can make a bigger splash? All they care about is who can work longer hours for lesser pay. In fact, I would argue that in today's economy 10 not-so-well-built but workable and cheap computers are prefered over 1 well-built and expensive computer. This is why everything is built in China nowadays.Don't believe me? Just open up your dell desktop and look at the individual parts.

I agree completely. You need to tell that to the current administration instead of us.Added by edit.Actually, I don't agree completely.I don't know about you, but I know with absolute certainty that it is almost impossible for my dad to relearn something new. If he suddenly looses his ability to play the piano through some accident, he will not be able to learn how to play the trombone or the trumpet. His other option is to go and apply for a job where anybody/everybody could do. In this case, he will be in direct competition with 100 young men who are willing to work twice as long for a fraction of the salary.This message has been edited by Troy, 05-09-2005 12:40 AM

Ok, how many times do I have to repeat myself? It doesn't matter if they are useless or not. It's hard for them to find another job, period. You kidding? And your point is? since when did I say they are better workers? If you reread my posts, my emphasis is and always have been that younger workers are cheaper to hire. According to my philosophy professor a long time ago, there has got to be some kind of communication breakdown somewhere. I don't have a clue where you got the idea that I disagreed with you on this one. I believe I said, and for the last time...

quote:

---

There is a difference between being able to live longer and having the energy to compete with the younger generation.

---

I don't know how this got translated to outliving one's usefulness. My point has always been that at least some members of society don't have the strength to go on working 40 hours a week. You seem to be saying something like "since some members of society can keep working until they die of old age, it should be the case that every member of society should be expected to do the same." And I absolutely do not remember ever saying we should have mandatory retirement. I am, however, opposed to keep moving the retirement age back and back and back and finally to "until death do you stop working."If you want to keep working when you are 80, I say go for it. Has it occured to you that it wasn't meant to be taken literally?

It IS relevant. I just showed you at least one case where a person is worn out at a relatively early age. This should at least be put into consideration when people want to move back the retirement age.

I agree to disagree. i agree to disagree. Like I said, if you are up to working the way you did when you were 30 at 60 or 70, I say go for it. Should this apply to everyone? I think not. Um... read that statement by me again. I was referring to the builders of the computers. That's why I added the line "everything is made in china..."We were talking about experience, and I was pointing out that 10 items made by inexperienced workers are preferred over 1 item made by experienced workers.I think the main problem here is miscommunication. You seem to think I believe in a lot of things I don't believe in.

Instead of focusing on the point I was trying to make, which was that someone as old as my dad shouldn't have to be expected to relearn something completely new like Rrhain implied, you nitpicked the hell out of my analogy/example. Forget the analogy. No, I am not. Rrhain said that older workers, if they are being replaced by younger ones, should be trained in some other professions. Like Scotty said in the episode Relics of TNG, "I'm not a raw cadet. I can't start all over."I am not saying that older workers absolutely cannot be retrained. I am saying that it shouldn't be a mandatory thing and that they shouldn't have to be penalized for it.

No, I did not! I am saying, and have always been saying, that they shouldn't be expected to work the same way they worked 40 years earlier. If some of them can, good for them. Because we were talking about moving back the retirement age later than 65, and I'm opposed to it. But in today's mechanized world, more skills and experience does not necessarily make it more preferable. I've been saying the same thing but somehow you have been missing my point. I have been saying that at least some older workers, due to age, don't have the energy to work long and cheap hours like the younger generations. But like I have been saying this whole damn time, if an 80 year old is able to work 80 hours a week, good for him. What I don't agree with is making it mandatory for the older workers to have to work just as hard, long, and cheap as the younger ones. Making out? I have been saying this whole time that there are at least some of them that are. Remember that this conversation sprung up because someone suggested that the retirement age should be pushed back more just because people are living longer. And my point have been that just because people are living longer doesn't mean they can jump through hoops. And since when did I say that we should assume that all of them should retire at 65? And the fact that there are those that can should not be held against those that can't. And I agree about the productive part.What I don't agree with is the last sentence there. It is not always the case that living beyond the retirement age equating to having the energy. Some people seem like they are dying but remain in that state for 20-30 years.And finally, Let me ask you something. Did you say, "Oh my god! They put an eagle on the moon?" when the crew of the apollo mission said, "the eagle has landed"?I believe I saidWhat I said was in response to Percy. Before that I was saying that employers should have a heart and not penalize people for turning 50. Percy implied that such a thing might make employers look more like social services rather than employers. Then, I made the statement in question saying that there has to be a happy medium where we can still keep the capitalist values and not kicking someone off the team because he turned 50. Somehow, you intepreted what I said as some kind of disagreement with you.

Reread my post again. I even literally said at one point that I just pointed out at least 1 example where a person grows ever more tired as his age keeps increasing. Somehow, you intepreted "at least" to "representative..."I even said that if you can work well into your 90's, good for you. Nowhere did I say all are useless in old age.You are very persistant at misintepreting my words, Rrhain. Perhaps because it was very late at night? And why did you think I pointed out those examples? The question is should my father and everyone else expected to work such long hours just because at least 1 person can do so? And part of the problem why elders live in poverty is that they are expected rather than given the option to work just as long, hard, and cheap as the younger generation. I'm trying to decide if I should requote my entire post. Haven't decided yet.