Posted on 06/19/2024 12:46:13 AM PDT by Cronos
In the coming years, the retirement-age population will balloon to its largest size yet, drawing down Social Security funds, overwhelming retirement homes, and leaving a labor shortage in its wake.
Larry Fink, the 71-year-old CEO of the asset-management behemoth BlackRock, offered a two-part solution to the looming retirement crisis in his annual March letter to shareholders. In order to avoid economic catastrophe, he argued, people should save more money and work longer. "What if the government and the private sector treated 60-plus year-olds as late-career workers with much to offer rather than people who should retire?" Fink wrote. The current Social Security retirement age is 67, but most Americans depart the workforce earlier than that. If more people kept working into their late 60s and 70s, the impending crisis would soften.
The problem is that his plan overlooks a few key realities. For one, many older people cannot work because of a disability or because they need to care for someone else with a disability. The second is that those who are willing and able to work are often unwanted. Despite a legal ban on discriminating against people 40 and older in the workplace, it's still common.
Instead of making it easier for Americans to save for retirement and work as long (or as short) as they want, Fink is setting up a catch-22: The economy needs aging Americans to work longer, but many companies simply don't want them.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Quite true.
Too bad, they tend to show up on time, work, and can pass drug tests.
victim of age discrimination??
blackrock is concerned!!
A HUGE key is to radically slash H1Bs, secure the border and deport illegal aliens by the millions.
And then be sure to tariff the crap out of anything that we should be producing here....anything that detracts from national security if not produced here.
That will leave companies no choice but to hire qualified Americans to meet their needs.
That’s right.
I don’t know why companies would be adverse to better, literate, employees with some character and integrity, and real life experience instead of an entitled whining millennials.
My guess:
They know we old-timers won’t put up with their woke BS and . Instead we would look for results, not HR checklists.
Hey Larry, some of us have other things to do, don’t want to work until death, have the resources to walk now and want those maxed out SS checks at 70 as promised. Find your slaves elsewhere.
And some older workers have heard all the corporate buzzwords and blather before, so they don't buy into management's sloganeering, rendering them "difficult."
This is true. I like working, it’s good for the mind. Interacting with others helps keep one fresh and current, However, there is a decided prejudice against older people.
Flippin’ burgers for 15 bucks an hour... now that’s what I’m talkin’ about!
True. I’m 69. Retired two months ago but just came back part time to train the new guy who will take over my position. He is in his mid 50’s. The two ladies who still work under my supervision in that dept are 81 and 74. They are also part time. They do excellent work, put in the hours and have great attitudes. Meanwhile, our main office is dealing with at least one 20-something who is close to getting fired because he comes in late everyday. To be fair, we have a 20 year old who is a hard worker who has an excellent work ethic but she will be graduating from college and will be moving on. Seems to be the way of the world these days!
I am in my 60s. Below is my [brutally honest] pro/con list for hiring older workers.
Pro:
— Generally good work habits (well above average)
— Often more conscientious and disciplined
— Lots of life and professional experience
— Tend to work smarter, not necessarily harder
Con:
— Probably more physical limitations, especially as time goes on. Perhaps mental limitations too, especially memory issues (I can personally vouch for this). May also be slower or more reluctant to learn new practices. Overall, likely less adaptable to change than younger workers.
— Less willingness to put up with BS and propaganda
— May be tension with younger workers, or even customers, especially over moral, political or woke BS (like pronouns). Behaviors that are innocent or routine to us may be misinterpreted or distorted (by those who dislike us).
— Perception exists that they could retire at any moment. This is not entirely wrong and could be due to a sudden-onset health issue (vs. intentions). The downside is that this limits consideration for potential promotions or salary increases.
Personal note - I am in a good financial position and could retire at any time. I am still working, but more to keep fit/busy and not for the money. There is also a sense of obligation. However, there are days when I just feel sick of the BS and feel like I’ve had enough. I am one unacceptable policy change away from quitting. This is especially true post-Covid.
Second personal note - I have also thought about quitting and doing something completely different that I always wanted to try (like sales). But I know that doing so would be a huge increase in work and a drastically lower compensation, which is a definite deterrent.
But we are being told we need to retire and sell our homes so the young ones won’t go homeless and jobless (or some such nonsense)...
A quadriplegic, deaf, blind Boomer is far more qualified for most jobs then most college grads now.
Age discrimination is real. And so is the fact that Gen Z is also largely unwanted - too many unqualified, too many unwilling to work once hired. So the sweet spot for employers is a shrinking pool of people neither too old or too young - it’s not sustainable.
“They know we old-timers won’t put up with their woke BS”
I believe you’re correct. That was my biggest problem before I retired in 2008 — the PC crap. If not for that, I could’ve held out longer. (And I was in H.R.; we INVENTED woke.))
“Tend to work smarter, not necessarily harder”
Also tend to BE smarter, having been educated when education was actual education. Pre dumbing-down.
For the past few years, businesses have been trying to fill in the spots left open during the great resignation. They want to pay a salary of a 22 year old recent grad, but they need 20 years of experience to do the job. I was lucky to find a company that values the experience.
From what I’ve seen over dozens of interviews, the HR people are clueless women in their late 20’s (which is bad enough) buried under reams of meaningless corporate directives, local, state, and federal regulations. Their job is to actually be fluent in the legalese and to insulate the company against litigation when they fire under-performing employees that are women or minorities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.