You're making the case that some types of work cannot be done effectively by older workers, and that because of this workers should be able to get their SS early. I'm saying three things in response:
-- When people set upon a career path (or blunder into one) they know the conditions under which they'll be working. If the career path is short, that's simply part of the deal.
I can testify from personal experience that this is not always the case. I fell into land surveying out of sheer desperation. I had been underemployed and job hunting for two years at that point, and I would have accepted literally any job that was legal. I had never worked out of doors before, and had no idea beforehand what was involved or whether I would be able to do it even over the short term. The possible length of the career path (except in the sense that a City job was considered more secure than the private sector) didn't even come onto my radar screen.
-- If a worker enters into a trade with a more restricted pool of those capable of doing the work (whether it is pole dancing or hard physical labor) he will receive higher pay than if the pool of eligible workers were broader. No, it;s not the only factor, but it is a factor. With fewer workers capable of doing the work, pay is higher than it would otherwise be (because of lawful discrimination). The young buck benefits from this, he shouldn't demand recompense later when he's too old to do it.
If this is the case, why do laborers make such low pay? I contend the limiting factor is the skill, more than the physical strenuousness of the job. High skill + high physical stress=high pay. High skill + low physical stress=high pay. Low skill + high physical stress=low pay.
-- SS shouldn't be used as surrogate unemployment insurance.
I am not suggesting SS as unemployment insurance. If that were the case I would not have included the over-50 qualification.
(snip) it's not that bad of an idea. I just don't see how, when we are living longer and staying healthier, and at the same time SS is in financial trouble it makes sense to encourage people to quit work earlier and to thereby stop paying into SS earlier. There's no fixed pool of jobs out there --industry makes more of them all the time, and they'll create still more of them when the cost of labor goes down. The main thing that causes the cost of labor to go down is having more people looking for work. Trying to "spread the work around" (by reducing the number of workers or the amount they work--as France did with their famous reduced work week) is the path to misery and very low national economic growth.
You are misstating what I have proposed. My idea would add no additional financial stress to SS because the suggested payment would be actuarially equivalent to what that person is already due to receive. It does not encourage people to quit voluntarily; if they did so they would not be eligible for unemployment insurance and hence could not meet the qualifications for "emergency retirement". I agree that there is no fixed pool of jobs, but disagree that jobs will be automatically created when wages are forced down. If there is no demand for the product of that labor, it won't be produced, and if it is not produced, no jobs will be created no matter how cheaply people are willing to work. It will not reduce contributions into SS because it would only be available to people who are already unemployed, so they aren't contributing to the system anyway.
What's my fix? Gradually raise the retirement age so that a person at FRA can expect to get about 12 years of payments (which is where we started in the 30's). Keep the option for reduced payouts starting a few years earlier. (snip)
My proposal applies only to older workers who have been unable to find new jobs. The older they get and the longer they have been out of work, the less likely it is that they will find a job comparable to the one they had, and I would guess, the less likely they will be able to find a job that pays enough to live on, or perhaps, find any job at all. Your proposal does not address the issue of age discrimination, the third strand of the Gordian Knot, in fact by moving retirement age ahead it increases the number of years that a worker is vulnerable to it.
Here's a thought experiment. Let's take a hypothetical worker who has been laid off at age 50 and (after a period of unsuccessful job hunting) has exhausted his unemployment benefits.
My proposal: Eligible for SS; benefit is actuarially equivalent to what would have been paid at FRA. No additional cost to the SS system for benefits paid to this worker. Worker able to turn to self-employment, part time or lower-wage work which does not fully replace the income from the previous job by itself, but does do so when combined with emergency retirement. Probably creates less payment input to SS and Federal income tax than would have been the case prior to job loss, but more than if the lower paying job had not been accepted. (This assumes that people who work and receive SS at the same pay SS tax. Is that correct? If there are disincentives to work in the treatment of earnings additional to SS, the proposal would need to be tweaked to remove them.) Not eligible for welfare, possibly eligible for social services such as food stamps, health care subsidies etc.
Your proposal: Not eligible for SS for until 10-15 years after job loss, depending on how much the retirement ages are moved ahead. Not eligible for unemployment benefits (they've been used up) and little likelihood of future eligibility since no job offers have been made. May turn to black market/cash economy for income. In either case, provides zero input to SS, creates zero federal income tax revenue, and is probably eligible for welfare and other social services.
Unless I've missed something in your proposal, ISTM that this unemployed worker will create less revenue coming into the system and more expenses in the form of welfare and social services than if allowed early access to SS benefits which are going to be paid anyway.
I'm off to put in a spot of "strenuous physical work" in the parental backyard—cool and rainy spring means the weeds have gotten a big head start this year. 
We'll see whether or not that's a type of work that can be done effectively by this "older worker". 
