Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People are being booted out of their jobs at 50
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 16 of 81 (206070)
05-08-2005 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rrhain
05-08-2005 2:44 AM


Rrhain writes:
Troy writes:
quote:
Oh sure, you can point out isolated cases of people having the energy after 60.
Actually, most of them are. That is the reason why people are living longer: Better health care has resulted in people living longer and being more productive as they get older.
There's a reason few can play professional sports much beyond age 30. There's a reason world chess champions come from the ranks of the under 40 crowd and that Nobel prizes are awarded primarily for the accomplishments of 20 and 30-year olds. Energy, both mental and physical, declines with age. The physiological and intellectual changes are well documented. Better health care can only slow the inevitable. A healthy 70-year old is not a just a 20-year old with wrinkles.
Responding to this from Lam:
Lam writes:
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!
Though I've reached the age where I receive solicitations from AARP (it feels like death stalking me), I'm also an investor. I want the companies I invest in to be cold-hearted slaves to the bottom line, not social welfare organizations.
What's more, many workers are not professionals in corporations. As we push the retirement age back and increase the age when social security benefits fully kick in, is it really fair to ask plumbers and roofers and electricians to push back retirement from age 65 to 70 or whatever it finally becomes. Can anyone recall ever seeing a 65-year old roofer? How many sinks does anyone think a 65-year old can get under in a day?
One thing I've found as I get older and continue to play competitive tennis is that injuries, both my own and those of my playing partners, increase with age. A number of those I used to play with in my 30's and 40's are now playing golf, and they were forced into it by recurring injuries. Eventually the rate of injury exceeds the rate of recovery and you're forced to take up something else. Just recently one friend has been forced to hit with two hands off both sides because or recurring arm injuries, and another is forced to stand in one place on the court and have people hit to him because of severe osteoarthritis. Neither can play competitively anymore, of course, and my time will likely come, too. I've already had one hip replaced.
The point of this personal story and all the rest is that good health does not mean arresting the decline that comes with age. Look at a chart of maximum heart rate sometime. It's by age.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 2:44 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 05-08-2005 8:21 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 21 by coffee_addict, posted 05-08-2005 1:54 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 5:38 PM Percy has replied
 Message 30 by nator, posted 05-08-2005 9:00 PM Percy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 81 (206081)
05-08-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
05-08-2005 6:52 AM


quote:
I want the companies I invest in to be cold-hearted slaves to the bottom line, not social welfare organizations.
...and that's why people are getting kicked out of their jobs at 50, why there is little to no job security anymore, why benfits and training are minimal, and customer service is generally poor among most industries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 05-08-2005 6:52 AM Percy has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 18 of 81 (206089)
05-08-2005 9:12 AM


I guess I never realized til now just how lucky am to be involved in construction work.Even though I am nearly 39 for the ninth year running, because of having a firm understanding of how to best accomplish my task and set things up so that jobs run smoothly I have a huge advantage over younger people and I can normally work their ass into the ground even though they are more physically fit.It is especially true in my industry {waterproofing}because a lot of the new workers we get are from university students filling in with whatever work they can till their own field of specialty is available.
It is harsh to say but an awful lot of these workers are morons as comes to personal safety and ability to adapt to changing circumstances.They no doubt can run rings around me in their own fields but how long will it be till they are replaced by fresh young workers who do not have to "forget" a lot that they have learned in order to accomplish the latest system for computer language implemtation?
Thanks guys I feel really good now.

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 19 of 81 (206114)
05-08-2005 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rrhain
05-08-2005 2:44 AM


Rrhain writes:
Actually, most of them are. That is the reason why people are living longer: Better health care has resulted in people living longer and being more productive as they get older.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 2:44 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 5:51 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 20 of 81 (206118)
05-08-2005 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by StormWolfx2x
05-08-2005 3:26 AM


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
Storm writes:
at some point, people are going to have to work longer, I don't know what the average retiring age is, but lets say its 65. That was fine when many people only lived to be about 70-75, but as the average life span keeps pushing that? Is a 65 year old retiring age even realistic when people start living to be 90-100 years old?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by StormWolfx2x, posted 05-08-2005 3:26 AM StormWolfx2x has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 5:55 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 21 of 81 (206119)
05-08-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
05-08-2005 6:52 AM


Percy writes:
Though I've reached the age where I receive solicitations from AARP (it feels like death stalking me), I'm also an investor. I want the companies I invest in to be cold-hearted slaves to the bottom line, not social welfare organizations.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 05-08-2005 6:52 AM Percy has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 22 of 81 (206133)
05-08-2005 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
05-07-2005 7:46 PM


Re: I Know of What Lam Speaks
I can relate to what you are talking about, Percy. I have a union job at Safeway. I am 45 years old now and started in Grocery stores when I was 27--at Cub Foods. I worked my way "up" into a fulltime job with good benefits only to see the company face competition from Wal-Mart and cheaper labor (so they claim). If I were to work 40+ hours a week at Wal-Mart, I would barely earn what I now earn in 27 hours a week at Safeway.
I am facing health issues in my life and I simply cannot put in 40+ hours consistantly. The younger workers will happily do it and will accept the $8.00 an hour vs the $15.66 that I am earning.
I can understand the need to cut labor costs in order to compete. What I cannot understand is the fact that no CEOs ever take cuts in money. This needs to change. CEOs do not have a more important job than anyone else. Limit them to a max of ten million!
Were it not for the union, my job security would not exist.

"How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives."-- Anne Dillard
Every tool carries with it the spirit by which it had been created.
-- Werner Karl Heisenberg: (1901-1976) German physicist
I read the newspaper avidly. It is my one form of continuous fiction.
-- Aneurin Bevan: (1897-1960) Welsh politician

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 05-07-2005 7:46 PM Percy has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 23 of 81 (206196)
05-08-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by berberry
05-08-2005 3:59 AM


berberry responds to me:
quote:
quote:
In 2002, the life expectancy at birth was about 77 years. But if you were already 65, you had a life expectancy of another 18 years or 83. And if you were already 75, you had a life expectancy of another 11 years or 86.
Can you give an explanation of how expectancy is calculated for those who've already reached a certain age, such as 65 or 75? Does the calculation assume that such a person is in excellent health or only average health? Are your numbers for males or females, or at that age does it matter?
I pulled my numbers from the CDC at National Center for Health Statistics.
The second file has some information on how things are calculated. The short answer is that they are going off of past census data relating to births and deaths. With a longitudinal study, you take a look at how many people are around and how old they are.
To find out the probability of living to, say, age 80 given that you are already 25, you would divide the number of people who are 80 by the number of people who are 25. But note, that "number of people" is a generated number. The math looks at the trends of the data that we have and then generates a list of 100,000 people and indicates when they would eventually die.
There are no assumptions about the health of the individuals involved. It is simply looking to see if you are alive or not.
The numbers I gave are for the population as a whole. Race and sex have a bearing on expected lifespan. For example, in 2002 the life expectancy for white females was about 80, for white males and black females, it was 75, and for black males it was about 69.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by berberry, posted 05-08-2005 3:59 AM berberry has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 24 of 81 (206199)
05-08-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
05-08-2005 6:52 AM


Percy responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Actually, most of them are. That is the reason why people are living longer: Better health care has resulted in people living longer and being more productive as they get older.
There's a reason few can play professional sports much beyond age 30.
So if you cannot play professional sports beyond age 30, there is absolutely no job you can perform?
I understand that there are professions that can only be handled by those with certain physical skills which are more likely to be concentrated in the young.
But how many of those jobs would you find advertised in the Help Wanted section of the paper? People who are 40+ are not the physical weaklings you are making them out to be nor are the jobs that we have in this country primarily suited to those who are capable of performing physical labor.
quote:
There's a reason world chess champions come from the ranks of the under 40 crowd and that Nobel prizes are awarded primarily for the accomplishments of 20 and 30-year olds.
And how many jobs requires the ability to think 12 moves ahead in a chess game? Again, you don't see those advertised on Monster. While it is true that with the pace of technology, people are going to need to be continuously trained. We've seen the issues that programmers have with the introduction of new langauges and methodologies. But there is no reason to think that an older person can't learn the languages if trained to do so. The reason why the younger people seem to be such hotshots at it is because they have more time available to them to train how to get good at it.
I'm in a project management class right now. One of the examples given with regard to human resources had to deal with a company that was switching its accounting system over from one system architecture to another. There are a couple ways to do this: Hire outside people to build it or train the people who are already using it in how to build it.
You can see the issue here: If you bring in outsiders, they're going to ask the people who are there and using it what they do, how it should work, etc., but then those people are going to have no idea how the final product actually works...and thus will start to wonder how long they're going to remain employed.
Instead, they chose to train the people already there how to build the new system.
quote:
The physiological and intellectual changes are well documented.
But not nearly as drastic as you are making out. And the vast majority of jobs we have don't require Olympic athletes or Nobel Prize winners.
quote:
A healthy 70-year old is not a just a 20-year old with wrinkles.
Of course not.
But what makes you think the 70-year-old can't do the job? The job doesn't require him to run a 6 minute mile, lift 300 pounds over his head, or solve four questions on the current Putnam exam.
Our economy is becoming increasingly service-based. This makes for a much longer productive lifespan.
quote:
I want the companies I invest in to be cold-hearted slaves to the bottom line, not social welfare organizations.
Then you'll be poor. Why do you think there has been such financial difficulties for so many companies of late? Why do you think so many jobs are going overseas? Why do you think so many companies are setting up shop overseas?
In being "cold-hearted slaves to the bottom line," they leave or they collapse. No company can run that way. Who wants to work for a company that will toss you out the moment you appear to be maybe not performing?
Churn hurts.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 05-08-2005 6:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 05-08-2005 9:21 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 25 of 81 (206203)
05-08-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by coffee_addict
05-08-2005 1:46 PM


Troy responds to me:
quote:
There is a difference between being able to live longer and having the energy to compete with the younger generation.
I know, but you seem to have the same misconception that Percy has that the modern job market requires you to be of the most rare caliber in order to succeed.
quote:
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?
How many construction workers are there compared to service-sector workers? You keep leaping to the corner cases. Logical error of the excluded middle. Are you saying that someone who can't lift an 8x12 panel of sheetrock over his head and screw it in single-handed has absolutely no use in the job market?
quote:
Again, we shouldn't penalize the rest of society just because a few people could go on forever.
But we shouldn't let society starve just because you don't think they're useful anymore. Social Security is the most successful anti-poverty program ever. The poverty rate in 1966 for seniors was 30%. When LBJ expanded SSI in 66, the poverty rate for seniors plummeted to less than half of that by the mid-90s.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by coffee_addict, posted 05-08-2005 1:46 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by coffee_addict, posted 05-08-2005 9:34 PM Rrhain has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 81 (206205)
05-08-2005 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Asgara
05-07-2005 8:42 PM


Re: I Know of What Lam Speaks
Me too, but:
I think it depends a little on the {person\talents\situation}
After my previous job was 'outsourced' I was able to find new employment that is better than what I had before and in a better location for me (closer to my elderly parents and other family), and thus I am now {better off re long term goals) than I was two years ago (ignoring for now the debts incurred from keeping a kid in college in the interim).
It took a year of beating on doors in over 7 states with hat in hand. and I count myself lucky.
my brother has more technical training but it is also more specific and he is in his third year of unemployment after grant funding was cut off in his specialty (radio astronomy) and the training he has is anachronistic now, while the young 'turks' have more relevant skills.
outsourcing of jobs to countries that do not have the babyboom problem is a factor that counters your comforting thought on need for workers, but it can't apply to all jobs.
there is also a problem of megacorps exporting profits and importing wages.
I also worry about the quality of work available for the next generations.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Asgara, posted 05-07-2005 8:42 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 27 of 81 (206206)
05-08-2005 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by coffee_addict
05-08-2005 1:52 PM


Troy writes:
quote:
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.
No, not everyone. But a significant portion.
Remember, the average life expectancy is just that...an average. For white women, it's 80 years these days. In order for it to be that high, there needs to be a significant number of white women living longer than 80 years in order to balance out all the women who didn't live that long.
No, not everybody is going to make it to 90, but we're going to have a fair amount of people who do because so many almost make it there.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by coffee_addict, posted 05-08-2005 1:52 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2005 6:35 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 32 by coffee_addict, posted 05-08-2005 9:25 PM Rrhain has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 81 (206214)
05-08-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rrhain
05-08-2005 5:55 PM


just a note.
strictly speaking "life expectancy" stats have a problem.
the expectancy of a 50 year old getting to 80 is higher than it is for a 20 year old because they have already survived to 50.
the life expectancy of a 20 year old is also more than the general "life expectancy" statistic used because it is calculated from birth.
this is a major problem when comparing life expectancies of different cultures, where one could have very high infant mortality but subsequent better health than the other.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 5:55 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 7:06 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 29 of 81 (206229)
05-08-2005 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
05-08-2005 6:35 PM


RAZD responds to me:
quote:
the expectancy of a 50 year old getting to 80 is higher than it is for a 20 year old because they have already survived to 50.
Indeed and I said that in my first post. The longer you live, the more likely you are to live to see the next year. While a person at birth has a life expectancy of 77 these days, someone who is already 77 actually has an expected life span of another 10-20 years.
quote:
this is a major problem when comparing life expectancies of different cultures, where one could have very high infant mortality but subsequent better health than the other.
And this is true even in our own culture. If you look at the mortality rates, the first year is one of the most problematic. It wasn't until 1980 that the number of years you are expected to continue living given your current age steadily decreased from birth. Before that, you had a shorter life expectancy at birth than you did at 1 year.
At the turn of the century, life expectancy for a newborn was 49.24 years. For a 1-year-old, it was an additional 55.20 years.
And, of course, these are still averages. There were plenty of 70-year-olds wandering around in the 1900s.
Ah, statistics.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2005 6:35 PM RAZD has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 30 of 81 (206245)
05-08-2005 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
05-08-2005 6:52 AM


quote:
There's a reason few can play professional sports much beyond age 30. There's a reason world chess champions come from the ranks of the under 40 crowd and that Nobel prizes are awarded primarily for the accomplishments of 20 and 30-year olds. Energy, both mental and physical, declines with age. The physiological and intellectual changes are well documented. Better health care can only slow the inevitable. A healthy 70-year old is not a just a 20-year old with wrinkles.
You know, I thought I would point out that this just isn't usually the case in the equestrian world.
The best and brightest riders are generally in their thirties when they really start to win lots of important events or world championships and make their nation's olympic team.
Similarly, the sport horses themselves are usually at their best in their early to mid teens.
Most of the truly great riders, particularly in dressage, have been extremely competative well into their forties and fifties. The sports that have the jumping are a bit more dangerous so you don't see many fifty year olds doing that, but even then, it's fairly usual to see people in their 40's winning.
Believe me, professional riders are generally just as fit as anybody doing any other generalized sport.
Oh, and horse sports are the only one in which women and men compete on a completely equal basis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 05-08-2005 6:52 AM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024