Job Growth-Boomers and Older

[imoldernu]

The article surprised me. Somehow, I felt that new, added jobs, would go to younger persons, with businesses looking ahead, and being able to absorb the lower pay scale.

This article indicates precisely the opposite.

when broken down by age group, the total October increase shows that of the new jobs, 10.7% went to those aged 16-19 (source), 11.6% went to those aged 20-24 (source), a tiny 9.8% went to the prime agr group: 25-54 (source), and a massive 67.8% went to America's baby boomers: those aged 55 and over (source), and who refuse to leave the workforce and make way for others.

Chart Of The Day: America's Geriatric Work F(a)rce | ZeroHedge

The chart:

 

[MichaelB]

Zero Hedge? Another source of cool and objective reasoning, focused on the data. (Not). They are referring to the household survey. Not really something that lends itself to month-to-month comparisons.

So, if there are a similar number of people in the 50-55 and 15-20 age brackets, all of the people in the older bracket continue working while 1/3 or 1/2 of the younger ones go to college, it might appear that all the jobs are going to the older folks. Another way to look at that would be that as they move from one age bracket to another a higher % of older folks are employed. Has nothing to do with job creation but it does give us useful data on the labor force and those employed.

 

[Amethyst]

"those aged 55 and over (source), and who [-]refuse[/-] can't afford to leave the workforce and make way for others."

 

[ratto]

One possible explanation is that the boomers are already pretty much beaten up. So it's easier for them to catch up quickly. They have a better understanding to do whatever it takes to support their children and grandchildren. I'm wondering what percentage out of those 67.8% (boomers) has their adult children (plus their family if married) moved back to stay with them?

 

[HFWR]

Likely the boomers were a large percentage of the jobs lost during the Great Recession, so it doesn't seem that unusual that, as things pick up, many are returning to work. Guess that doesn't make for a sensational headline, though...

 

[rescueme]

"a massive 67.8% went to America's baby boomers: those aged 55 and over"

Sorry, but the BB age span is from age 48-66 (born in 1946 through 1964), and not "over" (untill age 105? ). Those boomers in their late 40's are still in their prime earning years, IMHO.

On that measurement, it would probably make the BB "impact" even greater, but let's try to show the facts (just a rant against the author of the article).

Almost presented like a political commercial - a conclusion based upon partial facts ...

 

[W2R]

Sorry, but the BB age span is from age 48-66 (born in 1948 through 1964), and not "over" (untill age 105? ). Those boomers in their late 40's are still in their prime earning years, IMHO.

Good point, but as one of those born in 1948 I would like to point out that I am 64, not 66! Let's not rush things.... I feel old enough already!

 

[rescueme]

Good point, but as one of those born in 1948 I would like to point out that I am 64, not 66! Let's not rush things.... I feel old enough already!

Sorry, it should have been 1946.

Like you, I was born in 1948 (birthday is in two months, and I have my Medicare card in my wallet, ready to go ).

Just credit it to "age induced confusion "...

 

[W2R]

Sorry, it should have been 1946.

Like you, I was born in 1948 (birthday is in two months, and I have my Medicare card in my wallet, ready to go ).

Just credit it to "age induced confusion "...

I doubt it!

My birthday is not until June, so I guess I am supposed to register at the Medicare website in March or something. I do want to get Medicare and Part B set up in time for my 65th birthday and to have that card in my wallet just like you.

 

[rescueme]

My birthday is not until June, so I guess I am supposed to register at the Medicare website in March or something.

Yes.

I registered three months (to the day) for Medicare on their site. It took about 2.5 weeks to get my card which will be effective on the 1st of the month I turn 65 (January).

DW will be filing late February for her May 1 startup.

Still awaiting the Part B "bill" since I won't be taking SS till age 70 (DW will not be taking hers till FRA age of 66, so she will also get a bill - of which I will pay, as normal ).

Since the part B rates have yet to be published, I'll expect a quarterly bill sometime in December.

Our respective medigap plans (including drug - part D, under the separate billing) will be paid by my former employer - of course with my contribution).

Overall, our healthcare premium costs will be greatly reduced in 2013.

 

[W2R]

Yes.

I registered three months (to the day) for Medicare on their site. It took about 2.5 weeks to get my card which will be effective on the 1st of the month I turn 65 (January).

This is quite a relief for me to read, since my routine doctor appointment will be sometime in June, the same month as my birthday. Sounds like Medicare will be in place.

DW will be filing late February for her May 1 startup.

Still awaiting the Part B "bill" since I won't be taking SS till age 70 (DW will not be taking hers till FRA age of 66, so she will also get a bill - of which I will pay, as normal ).

Since the part B rates have yet to be published, I'll expect a quarterly bill sometime in December.

I am still undecided but will probably continue to delay claiming SS as well. From what I have read, I can arrange an automatic deduction from my checking account for that which would be my preferred method of payment so that I don't have to do anything but keep money in that account. Once I get that set up, I'll feel quite victorious over the bureaucracy.

Our respective medigap plans (including drug - part D, under the separate billing) will be paid by my former employer - of course with my contribution).

Overall, our healthcare premium costs will be greatly reduced in 2013.

Same here, except that I have to continue paying the same healthcare premiums plus Part B, so I will be paying a little more. I have no complaints, though, since I only pay about $185/month right now.

Sorry if I unintentionally hijacked the thread, folks, but rescueme's post is very interesting and useful to me personally.

On the topic of boomer job growth, I seriously doubt it. Age discrimination lives and thrives and I see it anecdotally when my fellow "oldies" try to apply for jobs and time and again the jobs go to younger people. Personally I was glad to turn my job over to someone younger, though, because since 2009 I am DONE.

 

[Free To Canoe]

"those aged 55 and over (source), and who [-]refuse[/-] can't afford to leave the workforce and make way for others."

I am not surprised for many reasons. Listing just one.

I remember when I was young, I used to resent that the older ones would not move on. Now that I have moved on, I pity those that desperately cling on to their roles due to emotional need.

Hey, ER already and give a young person a break!

 

[NW-Bound]

But aren't most of the newly created jobs part-time positions, which do not pay any retirement, medical, sick leave or vacation benefits?

Perhaps older workers not needing the benefits or resigned to do without are willing to take these part-time jobs, while the younger people are holding out waiting for something better?

 

[Walt34]

"those aged 55 and over (source), and who [-]refuse[/-] can't afford to leave the workforce and make way for others."

There certainly are a large number of those. One BIL is still living paycheck-to-paycheck and is up to his eyeballs in debt. His wife, who I've often called Spendarina, talks of retiring to Sarasota, FL and the life she thinks they'll be living there.

DW and I think that unless they hit the lottery they'll be living in a trailer. Or a tent.

 

[MichaelB]

"those aged 55 and over (source), and who [-]refuse[/-] can't afford to leave the workforce and make way for others."

I agree with your edit, but even in the best of times, 55 was not the average age for retirement. As Rescueme points out, it is also does not include all boomers. The Zero Hedge article doesn't really seem to be based at all on the data in the employment report.

 

[imoldernu]

But aren't most of the newly created jobs part-time positions, which do not pay any retirement, medical, sick leave or vacation benefits?

Perhaps older workers not needing the benefits or resigned to do without are willing to take these part-time jobs, while the younger people are holding out waiting for something better?
__________________

That's the way I read it.

Going back to the original article, what I took from it was the comment on "the Chairman's genocidal savings policy" ZIRP, which changed the plans for the middle income seniors.

Since I are one, (a middle income senior) my direct experience is with those of my own age group (65 to 85) who are retired. Many... who had retired, expecting to keep up with inflation through their limited savings, and a continued moderate increase in their home value... are now facing near zero savings rates, and a declining value of their single largest asset... the home.

Among households headed by someone age 65 or older, median net worth decreased by $25,762, from $195,890 in 2005 to $170,128 in 2010 ...

Retiree Net Worth Declines - US News and World Report

(note that this is median net worth... not average)

As an aside to this, the middle income retiree, is less likely to invest limited capital in other than low risk instruments, with lower return.

It's pretty easy to see that the hidden inflation rate will overcome the plans of these retirees. The prudent thing to do is to go back to work.

With Medicare as a back up, and no required payout for medical or retirement plans, this "new" less expensive labor pool is easily recognized by employers.

The term "genocidal savings policy" is very interesting.

 

[MichaelB]

Going back to the original article, what I took from it was the comment on "the Chairman's genocidal interest rates" ZIRP, which changed the plans for the middle income seniors.

As an aside to this, the middle income retiree, is less likely to invest limited capital in other than low risk instruments, with lower return.

It's pretty easy to see that the hidden inflation rate will overcome the plans of these retirees. The prudent thing to do is to go back to work.

With Medicare as a back up, and no required payout for medical or retirement plans, this "new" less expensive labor pool is easily recognized by employers.

The term "genocidal interest rates" is very interesting.

Genocidal interest and hidden inflation rates? You forgot Global Warming and Soylent Green.

The Zero Hedge article is entirely substance free. The BLS (Labor Dept) data is rich in content and lends itself to good, deep and meaningful analysis. You will not find that at ZH.

 

[youbet]

I remember when I was young, I used to resent that the older ones would not move on. Now that I have moved on, I pity those that desperately cling on to their roles due to emotional need.

But how do you feel about those that desperately cling on to their roles due to financial need? You know, those that need to work until FRA?

 

[urn2bfree]

That's the way I read it.

Going back to the original article, what I took from it was the comment on "the Chairman's genocidal savings policy" ZIRP, which changed the plans for the middle income seniors.

Since I are one, (a middle income senior) my direct experience is with those of my own age group (65 to 85) who are retired. Many... who had retired, expecting to keep up with inflation through their limited savings, and a continued moderate increase in their home value... are now facing near zero savings rates, and a declining value of their single largest asset... the home.

Retiree Net Worth Declines - US News and World Report

(note that this is median net worth... not average)

As an aside to this, the middle income retiree, is less likely to invest limited capital in other than low risk instruments, with lower return.

It's pretty easy to see that the hidden inflation rate will overcome the plans of these retirees. The prudent thing to do is to go back to work.

With Medicare as a back up, and no required payout for medical or retirement plans, this "new" less expensive labor pool is easily recognized by employers.

The term "genocidal savings policy" is very interesting.

Let me see if I understand-

People who are retired, ie who have no income except what they take out of their savings- are worth less as time goes on after the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression?

And if you count your home as part of your net worth( a dubious calculation at best) --after an historic run up in home "values" the value of that asset has declined from that historic, (artificial?) peak?

Should this be surprising to anyone? Or worthy of a headline?

 

[imoldernu]

Genocidal interest and hidden inflation rates? You forgot Global Warming and Soylent Green.

The Zero Hedge article is entirely substance free. The BLS (Labor Dept) data is rich in content and lends itself to good, deep and meaningful analysis. You will not find that at ZH.

Let me see if I understand-

People who are retired, ie who have no income except what they take out of their savings- are worth less as time goes on after the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression?

And if you count your home as part of your net worth( a dubious calculation at best) --after an historic run up in home "values" the value of that asset has declined from that historic, (artificial?) peak?

Should this be surprising to anyone? Or worthy of a headline?

Y'all win... I lose....

Maybe some day we can revisit why interest rates are so low, and we have such low inflation. For now, we'll chalk it up to conspiracy nutcases like me.

Oh... and by the way... many of my friends do count their houses as part of their net worth. That's the problem with having "poor" friends.

 

[MichaelB]

Y'all win... I lose....

Maybe some day we can revisit why interest rates are so low, and we have such low inflation. For now, we'll chalk it up to conspiracy nutcases like me.

Well, the original thread topic asked if new jobs were going to boomers or youngsters. A interesting topic, seniors working (and spending) is often discussed here. BLS and Census publish lots of data that are relevant to this subject.

Interest and inflation rates are a different topic, and you have to admit that terms like "genocidal" and "hidden" aren't the mainstay of informed, rational discussion.