Marcy Winograd: Put 1 Million Unemployed to Work By Lowering Retirement Age

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/49918

CA Congressional Candidate Marcy Winograd Offers New Jobs Proposal: Put 1 Million Unemployed to Work By Lowering Retirement Age
Submitted by Chip on Sat, 2010-02-06 13:11.

Congressional Candidate Marcy Winograd Offers New Jobs Proposal: Put a Million Unemployed to Work by Lowering Retirement Age | Press Release



Marina del Rey, CA, February 4, 2010 -- Marcy Winograd, Congressional Candidate in the 36th CD, announces her proposal for new jobs legislation, which would offer seniors incentives to retire early with social security benefits at age 60. "If we used stimulus money to provide scaled-back social security benefits to early retirees, their jobs would then be available to younger unemployed Americans," says Winograd, adding, "this would be the quickest and most effective way to put a million people to work. We need a shot in the arm to revive our economy, otherwise this recession, which threatens to develop into another Depression, could plague us for years."

Today, full social security benefits are paid for retirement at age 66, with early retirement permitted between age 62 and 66, at a proportionally scaled-back benefit level. Early retirees do not add to social security costs because they accept permanently scaled-back benefits. The majority of retirees accept this reduction of their benefits in order to retire at some point between age 62 and 66.

"It is reasonable to expect that a substantial number of workers would retire at age 60 or 61, if they were offered the same level of benefits that they would qualify for at age 62," says Winograd. "These extra early retirement benefits would be paid for out of stimulus funds already appropriated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act."

This incentive for early retirement could be offered for six months after Congressional enactment.

Census Bureau statistics suggest there are more than four million active workers who are between 60 and 62. Within the six month duration of the program, an additional 1 million will reach age 60, bringing the number eligible for this program to more than 5 million.

Experience with the present social security program suggests that it is likely that 20% of these 5 million workers would accept this temporary opportunity to retire early, opening a million jobs to those presently unemployed who would appreciate an opportunity to apply their skills.

Payments under this special early retirement program are estimated to average $1,000 per month. The direct cost of one million workers retiring an average of 15 months prior to regular social security eligibility would be $15,000 each, a total of $15 billion, a very low cost for opening one million jobs. By contrast, the Congressional Budget Office has projected the cost of tax incentives to business to encourage job creation at $55,000 per job.

An additional necessary incentive to acceptance of early retirement would be to extend existing provisions for health insurance for early retirees to those who accept the proposed special early retirement. The American Recovery and Retirement Act (ARRA) of 2009 provides a 65% subsidy for the cost of health insurance under COBRA, through a tax credit to employers for the cost of providing health insurance to employees who retire between 62 and 65. This lasts until they become eligible for Medicare at 65, with the retirees paying only 35% of the cost.

This same benefit should be offered to those who retiree between 60 and 62. The estimated cost of this health care benefit would add approximately $3 billion to the cost of the program, bringing the total cost of opening 1 million jobs thru earlier retirement to $18 billion.

"If we want to create more jobs now, rather than a year or two down the road, we need to think outside of the retirement box. People who are sixty, who have worked their entire lives, may be ready to retire early, to spend more time with their grandchildren or learn a new language. This Retire-Early-Give-Your-Job-to-Someone-Else legislation is a win-win proposal for all: the seniors, the unemployed, and the average American feeling the ripple effects of the economic downturn. I urge Congress to act on this proposal without delay."

To learn more about the Winograd For Congress campaign, visit:
http://www.WinogradForCongress.com
http://www.Facebook.com/WinogradforCongress
http://www.Twitter.com/MarcyWinograd
http://www.youtube.com/Winograd4Congress
http://www.flickr.com/photos/winograd4congress/
http://www.meetup.com/Winograd4Congress

Contact:
Michael Jay
Campaign Manager, Winograd for Congress
[e-mail]
Ph: [phone]

[jmowreader]

1. Put a million to work by throwing a million out of work?

People can't afford to retire. Why is anyone seeing this as a good thing?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. But they could afford to...

With the full Social Security benefit.

[frazzled]

10. Social security does not come near to equaling a salary

I think it's okay as an incentive, for those who can afford to retire or who have lost their jobs and decide that, rather than trying to re-enter the workforce, they would like to retire.

But the downside is that it starts to give the impression that a 60-year-old worker is "old"--and this filters down into the society and into the work environment. This is simply untrue, and discriminates against a valuable, energetic subset of workers. It will give companies more incentive to lay off an older worker, because it will be felt they can always fall back on their social security.

Sixty is the new forty. Sixty is smart and sexy. Let's not start lowering retirement age.

[tsuki]

17. For many, it is not the social security, it is the medicare that stops them.

Forget offering social security benefits, offer to let them buy into Medicare at 55.

[merh]

49. exactly.

Folks cannot afford to be with medical.

Or even better, do as Senator Kennedy advocated, and make medicare available for everyone.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Social Security plus my retirement would be a good income for me

I would jump on this in a heartbeat.

[FLDCVADem]

51. As would I!

I don't plan to wait until 66 for my full benefit as it is - I'm ready to jump at 62. But, I have military retiree medical to fall back on - I think this could only work if, at the very least, retirees become eligible for Medicare as soon as they start drawing Social Security, or at age 65, whichever comes first.

[virgogal]

30. Sixty is the new forty? Hogwash.

[shraby]

44. How old are you? At sixty if you've worked a job that

requires manual labor your body is ready to rest. Stuff starts going to hell and by age 65 the fun and games are pretty much over. Bite your tongue about "sixty is the new forty". That's simply not true.

[frazzled]

52. Manual laborers might wish to take this ...

Or, they might prefer to shift gears and work at a less strenuous job for five or more years after 60, to earn some more money and get the higher social security benefit. I think there's a fairly significant advantage to SS benefits the longer you can hang on before taking it.

My father (now 93) worked in heavy labor. He was part owner of a family auto-parts store, and ripped apart cars and dealt with heavy equipment. He had parts fly off and smash his collar bone, etc. all the time. He retired involuntarily, when the business had to be sold. He was probably around 60. But he didn't stop working. He had earned a degree many decades earlier in pharmacy and had maintained his license all those years with annual course updates. So he went out and got a job as a pharmacist--but he had lowest seniority. They'd make him work the night shift, and send him to small towns. Nonetheless, he did this until he was in his seventies. And it wasn't all that easy for him. He'd never even seen a computer before. And then he retired. He'd managed to save some more money, and receive a higher SS benefit.

I am about to turn 60. That is why I have to tell myself it is the new 40. Because that is what everyone tells me. And it's too depressing to think otherwise. I do not have a strenuous job, and I am self-employed (I am not the main breadwinner in my family). I hope I can continue to work as long as I continue to get projects, and as long as my mind doesn't turn feeble.

But I take you point about people who need to or choose to retire early. I think I made that point in my post.

[Donnachaidh]

14. bwahahahahahahahahahah -- uhh nooo they wouldn't

full social security benefit doesn't begin to cover basic living costs. Far from it -- those people would be applying for local aid to supplement their *early retirement*.

[Go2Peace]

26. Um, this is voluntary right? So the people that take it would be those that can afford to?

I don't get the problem here. 60 *used* to be a Social Security retirement age. Maybe we hurt ourselves by making people work longer.

In South Korea people retire in the mid 50s with full benefits in order to make room for the younger workers, because they feel it helps everyone. Maybe we are doing this the wrong way?

[jwirr]

4. I think they are suggesting that by lowering the age we can get onto

Social Security several years it would open jobs for those who would then retire.

[aquart]

38. Which is the opposite of what our government has been trying to do.

The longer a person works, the greater the benefits. Retire at 62 and get almost nothing.

[sufrommich]

33. I don't think she's advocating forced retirement. nt

[sufrommich]

34. Dupe. nt

[Skink]

2. With today's hourly reductions people could collect benefits and continue to work.

[NYC_SKP]

5. Why accept permanently scaled back social security payments, who can live on these?

Who can live on full social security?

Sure as hell not me.

Now if we all had a real retirement package and full health, it might be a reasonable idea.

A better idea: shortened work week to put more people to work with the same number of jobs, theoretically.

It's done in some industries, we did it in the carpenters' union in the early 80's.

[Tansy_Gold]

13. Obviously Ms. Winograd hasn't investigated the gap between

the cost of living and the level SS benefits.

The only way this would make a net difference is if people would give up jobs paying MORE than their reduced SS benefits and the people TAKING those jobs didn't get paid less.

No, Ms. Winograd, what's needed is plain, old-fashioned PROTECTIONISM, and yes, that's gonna mean lower profits for the investor class, and I know you just can't get your pointed little head around that concept.

I'm sorry if I insulted a perfectly progressive candidate, but if she doesn't understand that ALL these cockamamie proposals are just that -- cockamamie. They don't do anything to re-establish a self-contained, self-supporting, self-sustaining economy. Without manufacturing jobs, without making the goods we use, we can't have a healthy economy.


It's as simple as that. Do what all the other national economies do -- protect their industries. Yes, it's true that some of them protect the industries and the profits that flow to the wealthy, and those are primarily countries without labor protections. It ought to be a national disgrace that we allow our workers to starve so the elites of our country can live high on the misery of "their" workers. It ought to be, but not one single legislator or candidate seems to be saying that.

We need to create JOBS, Ms. Winograd, not "vacancies." If that's all you're concerned about, you're not smart enough to be an effective member of congress.



Tansy Gold

[NYC_SKP]

20. Yep. We were duped back in the 80's and 90's about the global economy. Well, some of us.

I don't know how they pulled it off, but corporatists seem to have convinced enough Democrats and blue collar workers that globalism was good for us that we let it happen.

Part of it was sold as a way to improve the lot of others in developing countries.

I knew better, and anyone familiar with working conditions for those in Asia, for example, making our clothes and products, would know better.

They'd rather be back to their agricultural lives, but fucked up prices on that end requires that they move to cities and leave babies with their parents.

It's just awful, and it's hurt us and it's hurt the overseas workers.

[Go2Peace]

27. This is VOLUNTARY. Nobody would be made to do it

So those with other funds will retire, those without would not.

[lolly]

32. Yes, and I think she's right

I'll bet a sizable number of people would volunteer.

Lots of 60-62 year olds have expenses go down--mortgages paid off, kids done with college. Some can sell large houses and move into smaller ones with fewer expenses.

I sure as heck would retire in 12 years if I could.

[enlightenment]

24. They do that in Europe as well.

People get three-month long vacations for a reason!

[WillyT]

47. If You Have Any Info/Links To That, I'd Truly Appreciate You Posting Them...

I've heard many stories about how other countries deal with workers and their time off and their retirement, but I've had paltry luck trying to find good sources.

When I was teaching years back, I met a teacher from Australia who told me that he got every fifth year off with pay! Now THAT sounds really interesting.

:shrug:

:hi:

[madrchsod]

6. i`d love to have medicare right now.

the cost would be made up by my wife not paying for me on her insurance. there`s a lot of brainpower that`s going to waste by just putting in time before ya retire.

[grytpype]

7. This doesn't create one job.

[Skidmore]

11. Bingo!

[Donnachaidh]

16. if anything, it puts MORE stress on the local governments

because those folks who retire early will also need AND qualify for food stamps, housing aid, etc. Talk about one DUMBASS suggestion. :eyes:

[lolly]

35. It's VOLUNTARY

If you still couldn't afford to retire, then you wouldn't.

Presumably, these would be people who have houses and have paid off mortgages (that would shift my living expenses down 2.5K/month right there).

If she could just get Medicare in there, I'm betting even more than her estimate would tell the boss to take the job and shove it.

[Donnachaidh]

42. and it's incredibly stupid.

People over 50 have a hard enough time looking for work when they HAVE to work. Now change a rule because some wanker decides it's okay for people to retire early -- it will make things exponentially harder for the older worker to FIND work.

What employer is going to hire someone who is potentially eligible for the minimal pension for SS, when they can hire some kid for LESS MONEY and for less costs (healthcare etc).

Yeah -- let's just make things that much harder for the older Americans. They.don't.count - to the younger generation. :puke:

[lolly]

45. Well, heaven forbid

We let people think that it's okay for people to retire early.

Make em work until they drop.

By this logic, the best thing we could do for older workers would be to move SS age UP--make em work till their 75 or 80 before they can collect any benefits. THEN people will start hiring older workers and treating them respectfully.

[leftstreet]

23. But, but, it's a Jobless Recovery!

See?

[AllentownJake]

8. Put 8 million back to work

pull out of GATT, Nafta, and revoke China's trade status than spend money building domestic energy supply.

Oh wait, that would upset the owners.

[DCBob]

9. Social Security would collapse... even if benefits are scaled back.

Its already strained.

[Go2Peace]

28. Don't buy the BS that Social Security is failing

All they have to do is remove the arbitrary cap on SS taxes on higher incomes and the system would be FLOODED with money.

[DCBob]

56. But until that happens SS is still at risk.

Actually, I believe the more likely fix is to raise the retirement age.

[Sanity Claws]

12. What are they going to live on?

Even if they got full social security benefits, they would not have enough to live on. Also, where would the money to pay for full benefits come from?

Horrible, horrible.

[Go2Peace]

29. This is voluntary... SS used to allow retirement at 58, I don't get all the excitement

[FLDCVADem]

54. From where are you getting this?

According to the Social Security site, the minimum age for full benefits was 65 until the law was changed in the 80s.

[Go2Peace]

57. 65 with full benefits. You used to be able to retire early with lower payments

[lolly]

37. People live on it now

As the article pointed out, plenty of 62-66 year olds take the reduced pay option. Are they all starving in the streets?

People are living on full social security benefits now--why do you think that it's possible at 66 but not at 61?

I think this is GREAT. Damn, every year earlier I can retire will probably add 2 years to my life.

Remember--VOLUNTARY. Nobody is forcing 60 year olds to clean out the office and live in poverty.

[Sanity Claws]

39. I don't see it as so rosy

Lots of people want to work past 60. Changing the retirement age will just give further incentive for employers not to hire older workers, including those in their 50s.

[lolly]

41. If they want to work past 60

Then they can still do it!

They can work till they're 70 or 100. Whatever.

People don't discriminate against older workers because they think they might retire soon. Heck, that's probably a plus. They would hire somebody who won't be around long enough to max out on the pay scale.

The discrimination against older workers is real (trust me, I know) and is one more reason I would love to get the flick out of the workforce.

[Blue_In_AK]

15. I certainly felt like I was doing the altruistic thing

by retiring last year and taking early SS. Besides, it's just so much more fun to sit around and bitch on DU all day. :) Retirement rocks.


ed. I should add that I am in the very enviable position of now being married to a man who retired with a fully-funded pension from the Marine Engineers Benefit Association when he was 47 (talk about LUCKY), and who also now gets social security. So unions rock, too.

[HereSince1628]

19. Seems to be in philosophical dissonance with anti-age discrimination laws

just sayin

[librechik]

21. put 3 million to work by passing Medicare for All

doctors, nurses, administrators, vendors, home caregivers untold others all needed in that new institution.

[doc03]

22. Wow I am ahead of my time, I was laid off a couple days

after my 61st birthday, I will be 62 in April, so I can say I retired early.

[blue neen]

25. The only problem is that we have not fully recovered what was lost in our 401k's.

That money is supposed to be for retirement, too.

My husband is 62, and I'm 54. Even if he was eligible for health insurance benefits for retirees, I would not be.

There's no way we could do this.

I give Marcy props for trying, though! At least she's coming up with ideas.

[lolly]

40. Then don't do it

It's voluntary.

It's not for you, but if the gal in the next office who is 61 can and wants to take advantage, then her job opens up for some 30 year old single woman with 1 kid whose unemployment is about to run out.

It's a win-win.

[cadmium]

31. I'll take it. nt

[EmeraldCityGrl]

36. Bad idea. We need to shelve the ponzi scheme mentality.

Rearranging the numbers does nothing for long term solutions.

[lolly]

43. Social Security is not a "Ponzi Scheme"

That's a talking point for people who want to end it altogether.

What they're talking about here is adjusting age qualification. This has already been done several time w/Social Security. As others have pointed out, it used to be around 60, then was bumped up more and more.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

46. No SS is not a ponzi scheme...

"Adjusting age qualification " is. You are left with the same number of jobs, you've just shuffled them around to
benefit a younger workforce. SS has never been adjusted down and I don't believe most sixty year olds (at least the
ones I know) would care to give up their gainful employment in these economic times.

edit to add: most corporations would use this as an opportunity to retire employees and I'd be willing to bet a
significant number of those jobs would not be filled with younger employees. The positions would be eliminated.

[xchrom]

48. Recommend -- this is a voluntary idea -- and people used

To retire at 58.

If you don't want to retire don't.
And with the aging population we do have
it maybe that some some age discrimination
litigation may happen to remind employers
you can't discriminate based on age.

[Sheepshank]

50. I personally know of 8 people who work for insurance only

They have put in 30+ years at the same organization. They qaulify for full retirement through the privitized system. They cannot live with the additional cost of private insurance. So they will work (in some cases) for an additional 8-10 years.

[roamer65]

53. Give us full-blown socialized medicine and many will retire.

[OhioBlue]

55. I think it is a really good idea.

We should start pushing the age back for SS. As it is, conventional thinking seems to be that we should just keep raising it. But for people like my dad that worked manual labor all his life - 60 is about 10 years past when he probably should have retired. He pushes through so many aches and pains...

For him, a scaled back SS payment with Medicare would be a godsend. He could supplement that income with his savings and by farming some of his land.

The voluntary options wouldn't be for everyone of course, but I do think it could benefit many in our society, in many ways.

[secondwind]

58. Didn't Dennis Kucinich suggest the same thing the other day? n/t