My Mate's Solution To Boost Employment...

[ken_ichikawa]

Well, that is obvious ageism.

The funny thing about ageism is that its proponents are ever heading towards being in the very group that they discriminate against.

There have, I believe, been one or two Science Fiction films about young people who come to power and enact laws for involuntary euthanasia for all who reach a certain age. Time flies and then that same group find themselves targetted by the very laws that they brought in, which is the fun part.

Bit like Muslim groups who lobbied labour to introduce the religious hatered law, which they did thinking it would afford them protection , at which a bunch of Muslim blokes say something regarded as inappropriate and are prosecuted by the very law which they thought would protect them...

Or the anti Rohipnol law to protect women , and the first person prosecuted was a woman who spiked the drinks of rich men and emptied their houses and wallets while they were knocked out..

[tomwatkins]

One big difference between living here in the US as opposed to growing up in the UK is the US attitude to "senior citizens". Main reason is that the ACCP is a powerful voice here (for people over 55 like me). They are a political force hence the continual healthcare debate, Medicaid etc. Nothing to do with respect or fairness-you have to pander to them rightly or wrongly or you don't get elected. Same as the gun-owners and other right wing nut jobs-they are organised. Just an observation but relevent. It's the reason that WallyMart have so many OAP "greeters"-it's a political statement and good for Wallymart business, not because they are nice people with a social conscience.

[Pindar]

I can see the point of reducing the retirement age and, I think it might have worked 30 years ago. Unfortunately since then I don't believe the young have the same skills base to replace the older workers in like-for-like roles. For it to work, the young would need to either serve apprenticeships or acquire the requisite skills through work, training, higher education or some combination of these. It would also require the older generation to spontaneously lower their standard of living expectations and to desire less than 3 holidays a year, a new conservatory and a new 5 series.

[50%deposit]

Nobody has broken the trend, we get older and die.

Happy Valentine's Day!

why is there a peak of people dying at 42?

the good news is that far fewer people die between 70-100 which is a good omen.

Edited February 15, 2009 by 50%deposit

[helenreed]

Lowering the pensionable age legally is one thing but reality indicates that if you are looking for work and are over the age of 45 (even 40) you are unlikely to find employment anyway. For many people who have recently lost or are about to lose their jobs the chances of finding another, let alone at the same position or salary are virtually nil. Government would be wasting their time to bring in such legislation as it is already being done for them by employers who either want younger staff who they assume will work for less money or middle management who don't want to employ anyone with better work experience than themselves. With the job situation as it is things will only get even worse for this age bracket and the cliched '50 somethings with spare cash for holidays and conservatories' will become just a distant memory. Of course this will impact on the younger population whereby parents will not be able to 'help out' at all, even allowing their kids to move back home as by then they will have either become repossessed, already rented out the rooms to lodgers who can actually pay in cash or downsized so their is no room at the inn and certainly no cash handouts. This is turn will make it even more difficult for the younger crowd was there will be less work around generally, if at all.

The government may find that many of these retraining and apprenticeship schemes that they are offering are going to be filled by the grey(er) brigade who are perhaps a bit more realistic about the current and future situation. Although the chances of a 55 year old former mortgage advisor newly qualified as a car mechanic finding work is laughable because it just is not going to happen. So yet another complete waste of taxpayers money.

[AffordableHousing]

The no. years of NI contributions required is going down though. So, anyone with over 30 years NI contributions (i.e.paid ther 'stamp') will get a full state pension (at the moment it's 44 years for men and 39 years for women).

(NOTE: I have a nice stash from selling a house some time ago, and don't need to work for 20 odd years. if at all)

Let the Monkeys do the work, that's what I say!!

The NI place in Newcastle wrote to me last week telling me that would I like to pay for the 2007-2008 year of NI contribution

costing 360 odd quid.

And that I had 27 years contributions and that you needed 30 to get a FULL pension.

They also gave an example as to if you were only to work 2 years in your life time you would get 2/30ths of a full pension.

Some people don't understand that you DON'T HAVE to work the full 30 years to get a pension.

You do if you want 30/30ths of a pension, but every full year of contributions counts for 1/30th.

A pension is a poxy amount anyway.

Well that means I'm on for 27/30ths of a full pension even now, and still have over 20 years of 'working age' till retirement.

They said that I DIDN'T HAVE to pay the £360, and hinted that it was likely that in the next 20 years, I could well end up paying the odd 3 years of NI contributions and that to pay last years contributions could and may be an unneccessary expence.

That was nice of them.

And they are right.

There is no need to pay approx 50 years of NI contributions when, NOW, you only need to pay 30 years.

Or any fraction of that.

(This excludes passing on your pension to a widow, that is still 44 years for men at least)

The point is, when a full pension is £93.

In todays money I'd get £83.

So to get that extra £10 a week, If I paid the 3 x £360 now and over the next 2 years that would be about £1080.

So it would take 108 weeks of pension to break even.

Meaning I'd have to live till 70 to break even on the extra 3 years NI contribution payments.

It would take even longer, cause if that figure was invested now, say in a 3% savings bond, the compound interest over 20 odd years would be quite a bit.

ONE FIFTH of people in Britain don't even make it to 60 years of age.

Some people worry too much about pensions.

begining

DOOM AND GLOOM.

DOOM AND GLOOM.

DOOM AND GLOOM.

The way things are going to go over the next ten years a lot of people are just going to live day by day.

It may be the only way they can endure it all.

The prospect of another month, another year of the drudgery of life we will be going through in the 2010's will be too much for many.

TEN YEARS OF HARDSHIP AND DEPRIVATION, many will wish they were living in the 1930's. the good old days of the first Depression.

The idea of some poxy pension, years beyond all the c**p and hardship they will then be putting up with, neck deep in all the dispair of an entire Nation, and the prospect of an even WORSE standard of living,

AND the conditions may not even improve much at all.

To get through it all will be an acheivement in itself.

A long hard slog that we'll definately know all about by the years end.

People won't worry about pensions, housing, unemployment or even employment come to that,

they will worry about getting through that day and dreading the next day they have to get through.

end of

DOOM AND GLOOM.

DOOM AND GLOOM.

DOOM AND GLOOM.

(The sign of quality doom and gloom!!)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[amethyst]

I can see the point of reducing the retirement age and, I think it might have worked 30 years ago. Unfortunately since then I don't believe the young have the same skills base to replace the older workers in like-for-like roles. For it to work, the young would need to either serve apprenticeships or acquire the requisite skills through work, training, higher education or some combination of these. It would also require the older generation to spontaneously lower their standard of living expectations and to desire less than 3 holidays a year, a new conservatory and a new 5 series.

Excuse me for saying so, but you are living in cloud-cuckoo land if you think 'the older generation' has three holidays p.a., 'a new 5 series' (whatever that is), etc. I know many people over 55, such as my parents and my grandparents, and none of them lives this sort of lifestyle. Most have been prudent savers all their lives and have not indulged in the excesses of 'the younger generations', with their 'must-have', 'I'm worth it' attitudes.

I do agree that the young have an inadequate skills base these days – the ones who have gone to university, for example, to get degrees in the 'useless' subjects such as media studies, are totally unprepared for the world of work. Moreover, many of them do not believe they should start at the bottom, like the 'older generation' did, but that they should launch straight into a £50k p.a. job. A great legacy for our country...

Edited February 15, 2009 by amethyst

[tomwatkins]

I can see the point of reducing the retirement age and, I think it might have worked 30 years ago. Unfortunately since then I don't believe the young have the same skills base to replace the older workers in like-for-like roles. For it to work, the young would need to either serve apprenticeships or acquire the requisite skills through work, training, higher education or some combination of these. It would also require the older generation to spontaneously lower their standard of living expectations and to desire less than 3 holidays a year, a new conservatory and a new 5 series.

[laurejon]

There is a huge problem here.

If you were to remove anyone from the workforce age 35 upwards, then you would be left with a group of sickly workers.

Most have ADHT, Asthma, Learning Difficulties, Psycological and emotional problems, are unable to concentrate for more than five minutes before announcing they are bored, "And this is a sh1t Job anyway".

They are incapable of finding their way to interviews, incapable of holding a conversation that doesnt include some kind of expletives in ever other word, they are married to their mobile phones, are unable to make decisions, unable to answer a phone, unable to communicate at a business level, unable to feed themselves, unable to wash and clean their teeth without Mummy watching over them, and when faced with problems pull their hoody over their heads and go into a daze.

If anyone is seriously suggesting that the elder generations retire early and put their faith in the cretins New Labour have turned out from our state schools, they need to have their heads examined.

[amethyst]

Lowering the pensionable age legally is one thing but reality indicates that if you are looking for work and are over the age of 45 (even 40) you are unlikely to find employment anyway. For many people who have recently lost or are about to lose their jobs the chances of finding another, let alone at the same position or salary are virtually nil. Government would be wasting their time to bring in such legislation as it is already being done for them by employers who either want younger staff who they assume will work for less money or middle management who don't want to employ anyone with better work experience than themselves. With the job situation as it is things will only get even worse for this age bracket and the cliched '50 somethings with spare cash for holidays and conservatories' will become just a distant memory. Of course this will impact on the younger population whereby parents will not be able to 'help out' at all, even allowing their kids to move back home as by then they will have either become repossessed, already rented out the rooms to lodgers who can actually pay in cash or downsized so their is no room at the inn and certainly no cash handouts. This is turn will make it even more difficult for the younger crowd was there will be less work around generally, if at all.

The government may find that many of these retraining and apprenticeship schemes that they are offering are going to be filled by the grey(er) brigade who are perhaps a bit more realistic about the current and future situation. Although the chances of a 55 year old former mortgage advisor newly qualified as a car mechanic finding work is laughable because it just is not going to happen. So yet another complete waste of taxpayers money.

Well, something is going to have to be done about the situation. You cannot have most over 50s trying to exist on taxpayers' money, when they are more than capable of being (and want to be) useful and productive citizens for another 25–30 years.

Unfortunately, even those who have saved and been prudent have now realized this will be of little benefit to them – unless they are bankers or other financeers who have stashed away their ill-gotten loot. I'm afraid work is going to have to be created in this country, and less will need to be farmed out to the developing world (or even the developed world elsewhere).

[amethyst]

There is a huge problem here.

If you were to remove anyone from the workforce age 35 upwards, then you would be left with a group of sickly workers.

Most have ADHT, Asthma, Learning Difficulties, Psycological and emotional problems, are unable to concentrate for more than five minutes before announcing they are bored, "And this is a sh1t Job anyway".

They are incapable of finding their way to interviews, incapable of holding a conversation that doesnt include some kind of expletives in ever other word, they are married to their mobile phones, are unable to make decisions, unable to answer a phone, unable to communicate at a business level, unable to feed themselves, unable to wash and clean their teeth without Mummy watching over them, and when faced with problems pull their hoody over their heads and go into a daze.

If anyone is seriously suggesting that the elder generations retire early and put their faith in the cretins New Labour have turned out from our state schools, they need to have their heads examined.

So very true in many instances!

[laurejon]

Well, something is going to have to be done about the situation. You cannot have most over 50s trying to exist on taxpayers' money, when they are more than capable of being (and want to be) useful and productive citizens for another 25–30 years.

Unfortunately, even those who have saved and been prudent have now realized this will be of little benefit to them – unless they are bankers or other financeers who have stashed away their ill-gotten loot. I'm afraid work is going to have to be created in this country, and less will need to be farmed out to the developing world (or even the developed world elsewhere).

Agreed.

In my view if we are to let foreign workers into the UK, then we should be running their nations for them, own their business's and their Governments.

The reason behind my views are simple, if a nation is incapable of providing a stable economy, a stable society, such that their citizens all leave to work elsewhere, then the nations they arrive at should have a say in the Government and Institutions of the nations they left. If this was not the case, then every rogue nation could simply fail, export the workers to the UK, and live happily ever after at British Taxpayers expense.

[Pindar]

Excuse me for saying so, but you are living in cloud-cuckoo land if you think 'the older generation' has three holidays p.a., 'a new 5 series' (whatever that is), etc. I know many people over 55, such as my parents and my grandparents, and none of them lives this sort of lifestyle. Most have been prudent savers all their lives and have not indulged in the excesses of 'the younger generations', with their 'must-have', 'I'm worth it' attitudes.

Well induling in crass generalisations is almost expected on here. It felt good for a few minutes. That way I can blame all the problems in my life on somebody else.

BTW, a 5 series is a BMW 5 series - my uncle has one and he is a boomer, retired schoolteacher, like his wife. They have a detached house in a nice area with a huge garden, go on 3 holidays a year, have property in Spain etc.

I do agree that the young have an inadequate skills base these days – the ones who have gone to university, for example, to get degrees in the 'useless' subjects such as media studies, are totally unprepared for the world of work. Moreover, many of them do not believe they should start at the bottom, like the 'older generation' did, but that they should launch straight into a £50k p.a. job. A great legacy for our country...

I think apprenticeships should make a comeback, so too should technical universities or "polytechnics" offering technical degrees, diplomas and other hands-on qualifications.

If we are to compete with the cheap economies we either have to have a unique selling point for our skills (probably not going to happen) or we must lower our own cost of living to match that of the cheaper countries (by far the preferable option).

[John51]

The NI place in Newcastle wrote to me last week telling me that would I like to pay for the 2007-2008 year of NI contribution

costing 360 odd quid.

And that I had 27 years contributions and that you needed 30 to get a FULL pension.

Why don't you sign on for a NI credit? That's what most of the early retired do.

[MSWHPC]

renaming from "unemployed" to "retired" changes nothing.

we don't need more superficial solutions, rebranding, renaming, re-this re-that and re-the-other.

[winkie]

BTW, a 5 series is a BMW 5 series - my uncle has one and he is a boomer, retired schoolteacher, like his wife. They have a detached house in a nice area with a huge garden, go on 3 holidays a year, have property in Spain etc.

Tax payers should be paying for quality education for our children, not quality pension perks for those who should look after their own futures not at the tax payers expense.

I think apprenticeships should make a comeback, so too should technical universities or "polytechnics" offering technical degrees, diplomas and other hands-on qualifications.

Apprenticeships are one real way forward, will create real jobs for real skills that people will need and pay for.

If we are to compete with the cheap economies we either have to have a unique selling point for our skills (probably not going to happen) or we must lower our own cost of living to match that of the cheaper countries (by far the preferable option).

Yes, they will catch up with us and we will have to fall to a lower level to create a balance.

[Pindar]

Tax payers should be paying for quality education for our children, not quality pension perks for those who should look after their own futures not at the tax payers expense.

You mean like councillors and government officials? The last days of communism were marked by such corruption - party officials enjoyed a charmed life at the expense of the proles. Look what happened to communism.

Public education has been a joke in most western countries for a few decades now. The middle classes who can afford it send their children to private schools who in turn, go on to reasonable universities. The labour government has tried to undo the benefits of private education, dumbing it down alongside state schools with their "national curriculum".

The elite can be drafted in from other countries now we have the EU which lets other countries' taxpayers bear the cost of good education. Look at how the city employed thousands of French workers to man the money-making machines during the boom.

[deflation]

Why don't you sign on for a NI credit? That's what most of the early retired do.

At present, you have to be between 60 and 65 to get this, I suppose recognising that it's difficult to get a new job at 60+. If this continues (not sure if it will), then you only need 25 years NI payments before the age of 60, then 5 years NI credit to get full state pension?

[winkie]

You mean like councillors and government officials? The last days of communism were marked by such corruption - party officials enjoyed a charmed life at the expense of the proles. Look what happened to communism.

Public education has been a joke in most western countries for a few decades now. The middle classes who can afford it send their children to private schools who in turn, go on to reasonable universities. The labour government has tried to undo the benefits of private education, dumbing it down alongside state schools with their "national curriculum".

The elite can be drafted in from other countries now we have the EU which lets other countries' taxpayers bear the cost of good education. Look at how the city employed thousands of French workers to man the money-making machines during the boom.

This is why things have got to change, the working population paying pensions for many that can spend more years in retirement than working is not affordable and not sustainable...simple really.

[council dweller]

(NOTE: I have a nice stash from selling a house some time ago, and don't need to work for 20 odd years. if at all)

Let the Monkeys do the work, that's what I say!!

The NI place in Newcastle wrote to me last week telling me that would I like to pay for the 2007-2008 year of NI contribution

costing 360 odd quid.

And that I had 27 years contributions and that you needed 30 to get a FULL pension.

They also gave an example as to if you were only to work 2 years in your life time you would get 2/30ths of a full pension.

Some people don't understand that you DON'T HAVE to work the full 30 years to get a pension.

You do if you want 30/30ths of a pension, but every full year of contributions counts for 1/30th.

A pension is a poxy amount anyway.

Well that means I'm on for 27/30ths of a full pension even now, and still have over 20 years of 'working age' till retirement.

They said that I DIDN'T HAVE to pay the £360, and hinted that it was likely that in the next 20 years, I could well end up paying the odd 3 years of NI contributions and that to pay last years contributions could and may be an unneccessary expence.

That was nice of them.

And they are right.

There is no need to pay approx 50 years of NI contributions when, NOW, you only need to pay 30 years.

Or any fraction of that.

(This excludes passing on your pension to a widow, that is still 44 years for men at least)

The point is, when a full pension is £93.

In todays money I'd get £83.

So to get that extra £10 a week, If I paid the 3 x £360 now and over the next 2 years that would be about £1080.

So it would take 108 weeks of pension to break even.

Meaning I'd have to live till 70 to break even on the extra 3 years NI contribution payments.

It would take even longer, cause if that figure was invested now, say in a 3% savings bond, the compound interest over 20 odd years would be quite a bit.

ONE FIFTH of people in Britain don't even make it to 60 years of age.

Some people worry too much about pensions.

begining

DOOM AND GLOOM.

DOOM AND GLOOM.

DOOM AND GLOOM.

The way things are going to go over the next ten years a lot of people are just going to live day by day.

It may be the only way they can endure it all.

The prospect of another month, another year of the drudgery of life we will be going through in the 2010's will be too much for many.

TEN YEARS OF HARDSHIP AND DEPRIVATION, many will wish they were living in the 1930's. the good old days of the first Depression.

The idea of some poxy pension, years beyond all the c**p and hardship they will then be putting up with, neck deep in all the dispair of an entire Nation, and the prospect of an even WORSE standard of living,

AND the conditions may not even improve much at all.

To get through it all will be an acheivement in itself.

A long hard slog that we'll definately know all about by the years end.

People won't worry about pensions, housing, unemployment or even employment come to that,

they will worry about getting through that day and dreading the next day they have to get through.

end of

DOOM AND GLOOM.

DOOM AND GLOOM.

DOOM AND GLOOM.

(The sign of quality doom and gloom!!)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very good post. I totally agree.

Edited February 15, 2009 by council dweller

[amethyst]

This is why things have got to change, the working population paying pensions for many that can spend more years in retirement than working is not affordable and not sustainable...simple really.

Agreed. However, attitudes to older people within the workplace have to change from the blatant discrimination there is now, to enable them to have productive futures. And as so well put by lauriejohn (I think), jobs need to be given first to the indigenous population, not farmed out to other countries who cannot provide their citizens with adequate employment. (The latter course may have worked in the past, in Clown's 'boom economy' , but it will not work now, in what promises to be a massive economic breakdown.) We'd also end up with a much more balanced society.

Incidentally, many 'older people' did try to secure their own futures by prudently setting aside money and not being part of the 'spend it now on borrowed money' culture. Look where it got the majority of them. :angry:

[winkie]

Agreed. However, attitudes to older people within the workplace have to change from the blatant discrimination there is now, to enable them to have productive futures. And as so well put by lauriejohn (I think), jobs need to be given first to the indigenous population, not farmed out to other countries who cannot provide their citizens with adequate employment. (The latter course may have worked in the past, in Clown's 'boom economy' , but it will not work now, in what promises to be a massive economic breakdown.) We'd also end up with a much more balanced society.

Incidentally, many 'older people' did try to secure their own futures by prudently setting aside money and not being part of the 'spend it now on borrowed money' culture. Look where it got the majority of them. :angry:

You need to speak to the FSA about that...all we can have is hope that the prudent will not be ripped off by the unregulated and greedy in the future.

[threetimesdead]

In order to fund re-establishing the link with average earnings it's going the other way:

For women it will rise gradually from age 60 to 65 from 2010 to 2020, making it equal to that of men. So from 6 April 2020, the State Pension age for both men and women will be 65.

The State Pension age for both men and women is then set to increase from 65 to 68 between 2024 and 2046, with each change phased in over two consecutive years in each decade.

Women born since 1950 will now not receive their pension till after 60.

The no. years of NI contributions required is going down though. So, anyone with over 30 years NI contributions (i.e.paid ther 'stamp') will get a full state pension (at the moment it's 44 years for men and 39 years for women).

All those calculations about increasing the tax revenues through raising the retirement age were made on on big optimistic assumption of a nearly full employment.

What you are missing in the OP is that there are only 2 options now - pay unemployed benefits or a state pension.

The latter is by far better option from taxpayers point of v iew

[laurejon]

All those calculations about increasing the tax revenues through raising the retirement age were made on on big optimistic assumption of a nearly full employment.

What you are missing in the OP is that there are only 2 options now - pay unemployed benefits or a state pension.

The latter is by far better option from taxpayers point of v iew

Wrong, we have 2 million unemployed, and 3 million foreign workers, the solution is to get British Wokers off the dole which is costing the taxpayer a fortune, and get them back to work, which is what contrary to what the Labour party say, is what they want.

In my lifetime I have met very few people who do not wish to work, and those I have met who do not wish to work would most likely have been commited to a mental institution in years gone by.

The UK imports far more that it exports, in addition the UK Government hands out taxpayers cash in handouts to what Labour believe are the poor and needy overseas.

It is very easy to be generous with other people's money, and it clearly shows that a party that thinks its OK to pay expenses of 100k a year, from hard working Taxpayers taxes, for a second home allowance, when the home is a sisters room, is a clear sign Labour have no regard to the British Public and protect their own skins, and cash, whilst being cavalier with ours.

[threetimesdead]

Wrong, we have 2 million unemployed, and 3 million foreign workers, the solution is to get British Wokers off the dole which is costing the taxpayer a fortune, and get them back to work, which is what contrary to what the Labour party say, is what they want.

In my lifetime I have met very few people who do not wish to work, and those I have met who do not wish to work would most likely have been commited to a mental institution in years gone by.

The UK imports far more that it exports, in addition the UK Government hands out taxpayers cash in handouts to what Labour believe are the poor and needy overseas.

It is very easy to be generous with other people's money, and it clearly shows that a party that thinks its OK to pay expenses of 100k a year, from hard working Taxpayers taxes, for a second home allowance, when the home is a sisters room, is a clear sign Labour have no regard to the British Public and protect their own skins, and cash, whilst being cavalier with ours.

Foreign workers are leaving

Number of brits unemployed goingg up,

Brits aged 50 and over do NOT, CANNOT physically and will NOT compete for the jobs that foreigners do in this country

Your point is totally invalid

Edited February 15, 2009 by threetimesdead