Quote:Plans to raise French retirement age from 60 to 62 prompt protests; British subway workers blast cuts

Paris -- French strikers disrupted trains and planes, hospitals and mail delivery Tuesday amid massive street protests over plans to raise the retirement age. Across the English Channel, London subway workers unhappy with staff cuts walked off the job.

The protests look like the prelude to a season of strikes in Europe, from Spain to the Czech Republic, as heavily indebted governments cut costs and chip away at some cherished but costly benefits that underpin the European good life -- a scaling-back process that has gained urgency with Greece's $140 billion bailout.

Very easy to 'distribute' hand-outs and entitlements, very difficult to taketh away.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100908/...-on-strike

Soon to come to a city near you!!

By the time you are 60 years old in Europe, you've accumulated probably 2 months of vacation per year exclusive public holidays.

So really, they are saying you have to work only 20 months more

I wish we'd lower the retirement age or urge companies to temporarily bump down the age/tenure requirements. Maybe that'd open up some positions for those younger and out of work. (just thinking out loud)

I'm worried about a gap of graduates (college and HS) who will get passed over for new grads once we finally get out of this mess. (mostly because I'm one of them)

(09-10-2010 09:38 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  I wish we'd lower the retirement age or urge companies to temporarily bump down the age/tenure requirements. Maybe that'd open up some positions for those younger and out of work. (just thinking out loud)

I'm worried about a gap of graduates (college and HS) who will get passed over for new grads once we finally get out of this mess. (mostly because I'm one of them)

Bad strategy, IMO. You don't get a healthy economy by reducing productivity.

(09-10-2010 09:38 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Maybe that'd open up some positions for those younger

Guess who's manager just committed to working another two years, instead of retiring?

Mine!

Seriously, since I am her groomed successor, this takes probably +$50,000 out of my pocket over those two years.

(09-10-2010 09:38 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  I wish we'd lower the retirement age or urge companies to temporarily bump down the age/tenure requirements. Maybe that'd open up some positions for those younger and out of work. (just thinking out loud)

I'm worried about a gap of graduates (college and HS) who will get passed over for new grads once we finally get out of this mess. (mostly because I'm one of them)

So who pays for the folks who 'retire'?

(09-10-2010 10:18 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  So who pays for the folks who 'retire'?

The same people who pay for 'em 2-5 years from now. Me and my peers and everyone after me. These retirees children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

(09-10-2010 09:59 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Bad strategy, IMO. You don't get a healthy economy by reducing productivity.

So, younger people are less productive than someone 60-67 yrs old? I don't have a family to take up time outside of work. I don't have little league games to go to, I don't have to leave work early to get my kid to the doctor. I don't have to go get my prostate checked and miss work, nor do I have 40 years of creative entrenchment to battle around. Give me 6 months and I'll be out performing any 50+ year-old person. Personally after 6 months I feel I'd be outperforming 95% of those in my field, no matter the age, but especially a 50+ year-old. Call me cocky and ignorant, disrespectful, but that is one thing I'm confident of.

I currently feel the pros outweigh the cons. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

(09-10-2010 12:28 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 10:18 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  So who pays for the folks who 'retire'?

The same people who pay for 'em 2-5 years from now. Me and my peers and everyone after me. These retirees children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

(09-10-2010 09:59 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Bad strategy, IMO. You don't get a healthy economy by reducing productivity.

So, younger people are less productive than someone 60-67 yrs old? I don't have a family to take up time outside of work. I don't have little league games to go to, I don't have to leave work early to get my kid to the doctor. I don't have to go get my prostate checked and miss work, nor do I have 40 years of creative entrenchment to battle around. Give me 6 months and I'll be out performing any 50+ year-old person. Personally after 6 months I feel I'd be outperforming 95% of those in my field, no matter the age, but especially a 50+ year-old. Call me cocky and ignorant, disrespectful, but that is one thing I'm confident of.

I currently feel the pros outweigh the cons. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

I'm not proposing an either/or solution. I am saying that everybody needs to be productive. That may mean working at low pay for some time, and it may mean lowering the pay of those already on the job.

But, these tweaks have been tried and not worked well.

(09-10-2010 12:36 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  That may mean working at low pay for some time, and it may mean lowering the pay of those already on the job.

Doesn't pushing these older folks towards retirement and hiring younger people amount to the same thing? Get rid of the $75k and pay someone $30 - $40k to do their job? Heck, pay two people $30k to take up the slack.

(09-10-2010 01:24 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 12:36 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  That may mean working at low pay for some time, and it may mean lowering the pay of those already on the job.

Doesn't pushing these older folks towards retirement and hiring younger people amount to the same thing? Get rid of the $75k and pay someone $30 - $40k to do their job? Heck, pay two people $30k to take up the slack.

So you'd have a guy or two making $30k with each of them contributing to possibly tens of years of retirement pay for a guy (if he was a government or union worker) whose retirement pay might be based off the 3 hjighest paid years he worked? The guy who retired might be making a $60k a year pension. How does that work.....

(09-10-2010 10:11 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 09:38 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Maybe that'd open up some positions for those younger

Guess who's manager just committed to working another two years, instead of retiring?

Mine!

Seriously, since I am her groomed successor, this takes probably +$50,000 out of my pocket over those two years.

What if she decides to do more after the 24 months. Postpone retirement for say 3-6 years.

(09-10-2010 09:38 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 01:24 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Doesn't pushing these older folks towards retirement and hiring younger people amount to the same thing? Get rid of the $75k and pay someone $30 - $40k to do their job? Heck, pay two people $30k to take up the slack.

So you'd have a guy or two making $30k with each of them contributing to possibly tens of years of retirement pay for a guy (if he was a government or union worker) whose retirement pay might be based off the 3 hjighest paid years he worked? The guy who retired might be making a $60k a year pension. How does that work.....

Sounds like that problem exists (to an extent) whether you push the guy towards retirement or not.

(09-12-2010 06:26 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 10:11 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 09:38 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Maybe that'd open up some positions for those younger

Guess who's manager just committed to working another two years, instead of retiring?

Mine!

Seriously, since I am her groomed successor, this takes probably +$50,000 out of my pocket over those two years.

What if she decides to do more after the 24 months. Postpone retirement for say 3-6 years.

Stange you may ask. I interviewed for another company on Friday!

(09-12-2010 06:13 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-12-2010 06:26 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 10:11 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 09:38 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Maybe that'd open up some positions for those younger

Guess who's manager just committed to working another two years, instead of retiring?

Mine!

Seriously, since I am her groomed successor, this takes probably +$50,000 out of my pocket over those two years.

What if she decides to do more after the 24 months. Postpone retirement for say 3-6 years.

Stange you may ask. I interviewed for another company on Friday!

Been there, Done that.