Who here is collecting retirement social security??

[HenryBHough]

What's the Democrat plan?

Independents plan.
Republicans scheme.
Democrats connive.

Or is that....collude?

 

[Picaro]

Good question, Unfortunately I cannot answer that one since I'm looking forward to paying into Social Security throughout my entire career and then getting royally fucked (as in SORRY PAL, MONEY IS ALL GONE) when it comes time to collect.

You believe this because you are too young to believe you ever will get old. This is normal. In your thoughts age sixty-five is something that happens to other people.

I apologize for the discouraging news but unless something happens to take you out in advance of it you will one day reach your sixty-fifth birthday. If you're lucky you might even collect for fifteen years, like me, and possibly even longer, like I'm doing. And you will collect a hell of a lot more than you contributed.

And it will be here sooner than you think.

And it will be much sooner when they start hitting the age where job discrimination against anybody over 35 kicks in as well; good luck with that in their dream economy where few jobs last longer than 3 years, if they're lucky, and it takes them months to find another, and longer and longer the older they get. Suddenly that '401K' scam looks like the joke it is when they have to start raiding it to pay mortgages or buy food and the penalties are added on top of all those income taxes they think they avoided.

 

[MikeK]

So should the FEDS mandate that we get a living wage also?
If everyone is getting 15 bucks an hour, where does that leave us retirees?

Good question, Unfortunately I cannot answer that one since I'm looking forward to paying into Social Security throughout my entire career and then getting royally fucked (as in SORRY PAL, MONEY IS ALL GONE) when it comes time to collect.

========
You have been drinking the Foxaide for way too long.

Social Security is NOT bankrupt.

If they simply move the earnings cap from 125K to 250K ( which will not affect most people ) SS will remain solvent to the next century.

As it is SS has a balance of 1.8 trillion dollars which is good until something like 2034.

Absolutely right, Willie.

They also have the option of legally imposing a progressive means test. The way I understand it some recipients, depending on net worth and other income, wouldn't be affected at all. Reductions in monthly allotment would begin around ten to twenty dollars and go all the way to zero payout for the really rich who have absolutely no need for an allotment. My understanding based on my situation is I would be hit with a $15 reduction.

They also have the option of extending eligibility age even more, which, when you think about it, is only fair. Because average life expectancy when Social Security began, around eighty years ago, was significantly shorter than it is today due to advances in medicine and technology.

That works out to old farts like me outliving the established norm and creating a problem. I should not have been eligible until age 70. (But human nature being what it is I'm not complaining.)

 

[Picaro]

It's not just one item you idiot
You do realize the cost of everything produced by low wage labor will increase don't you?

Obvious projection here, and you know you've lost, and that's because you don't know what the hell you're talking about, just repeating dumb ass bullshit you've read somewhere. Nobody is even making the arguments you're making strawmen for, moron.

It's easy to use the cost of one item if you assume as you do that every other expense other than labor will stay constant FYI they won't

The cost of the paper used to wrap a burger will rise, the cost of cups and straws will rise, the cost of napkins and paper bags will rise etc etc

Do you know why they will rise? Because all those items have labor costs built into their prices

Idiot.

 

[Picaro]

So should the FEDS mandate that we get a living wage also?
If everyone is getting 15 bucks an hour, where does that leave us retirees?

Good question, Unfortunately I cannot answer that one since I'm looking forward to paying into Social Security throughout my entire career and then getting royally fucked (as in SORRY PAL, MONEY IS ALL GONE) when it comes time to collect.

========
You have been drinking the Foxaide for way too long.

Social Security is NOT bankrupt.

If they simply move the earnings cap from 125K to 250K ( which will not affect most people ) SS will remain solvent to the next century.

As it is SS has a balance of 1.8 trillion dollars which is good until something like 2034.

Absolutely right, Willie.

They also have the option of legally imposing a progressive means test. The way I understand it some recipients, depending on net worth and other income, wouldn't be affected at all. Reductions in monthly allotment would begin around ten to twenty dollars and go all the way to zero payout for the really rich who have absolutely no need for an allotment. My understanding is based on my situation I would be hit with a $15 reduction.

They also have the option of extending eligibility age even more, which, when you think about it, is only fair. Because average life expectancy when Social Security began, around eighty years ago, was significantly shorter than it is today due to advances in medicine and technology.

That works out to old farts like me outliving the established norm and creating a problem. I should not have been eligible until age 70. (But human nature being what it is I'm not complaining.)

Some careers should be allowed to start drawing it earlier, like construction workers and the like. Some can be put off until later, like desk jobs and sales people, whatever.

 

[Tom Horn]

Well tom, I don't know if your avatar would approve of your language and attitude but you apparently didn't understand my post. My point was that when people were losing their jobs and their means of support, Grama was complaining about not getting a cola raise after decades of her living off of other people's contributions to ss. Gramas guaranteed income for so many years actually made her oblivious tot the suffering of others, as is th case with so many entitlements. It becomes about getting mine and the hell with anyone else, which unfortunately seems to be the American way anymore.

Now I haven't gotten a penny of ss yet. Not even any of the amount I have paid in. So I am a hypocrite because what?

My "language and attitude"? There's nothing hard to understand about your posts...they both say the same thing; you detest your mother-in-law. She paid in while "people were losing their jobs and suffering" yet you begrudge her getting her money when the time came. There is nothing about SS that's an entitlement. It was a forced investment the government was wise to set up for people who spend what they earn without thinking about the future. You should be embarrassed to accept your own SS checks after your insults to your mother-in-law and others who are simply collecting after holding up their end of the bargain.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Good question, Unfortunately I cannot answer that one since I'm looking forward to paying into Social Security throughout my entire career and then getting royally fucked (as in SORRY PAL, MONEY IS ALL GONE) when it comes time to collect.

You believe this because you are too young to believe you ever will get old. This is normal. In your thoughts age sixty-five is something that happens to other people.

I apologize for the discouraging news but unless something happens to take you out in advance of it you will one day reach your sixty-fifth birthday. If you're lucky you might even collect for fifteen years, like me, and possibly even longer, like I'm doing. And you will collect a hell of a lot more than you contributed.

And it will be here sooner than you think.

Stop being such a condescending dick everyone knows they are going to get old and die one day

The question is do you want the government taking your money and denying you the chance of actually having some wealth to live on and leave to your family or do you want the forced poverty that is social security

 

[Wilbur Right]

People will just buy less and in a consumer economy you think that is a good thing right?

FYI the prices of high end stuff won't be as effected it's the lower cost stuff that will see the most price increases and who gets hurt the most when low cost goods get more expensive?

You so funny.
Most of the clothing, appliances and other durable goods are MADE outside of this country. By labor that is paid less than MW now.

How in the fuck is a modest increase in wages for service sector jobs (which is what you say and I agree) fast food or cutting grass, mopping floors, etc how are those jobs going to effect the costs of items that have already been produced by cheaper labor out of our country?

Shop a Dollar store and find all the made in the USA items. That's where MW workers are shopping. It they get a raise, it'll be alright


Look at it this way. When all the illegals are gone, scarcity of labor is going to FORCE an increase in MW earnings. At least that is what the illegal haters say.

So just think, illegals gone replaced by un motivated, no experienced, untrained labor that you have to pay more money to for less productivity. Will that be good for the economy?

Either way. MW is going up.

Why not pay the legal MW American workers a little more so they can have someone with less than them and live a little better life?
And use illegals to get better labor for a cheaper price to do the jobs the low skilled American didn't want anyway?
To an illegal, our MW is good money and they work accordingly.
A MW American worker ain't worth much in my experience.
And if they are worth something they do not stay at MW long.

Those MW Americans that quickly get moved up in wages don't seem to be hurting the economy..and according to you they should be causing all prices to rise. But it hasn't. Why?

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's not just one item you idiot
You do realize the cost of everything produced by low wage labor will increase don't you?

Obvious projection here, and you know you've lost, and that's because you don't know what the hell you're talking about, just repeating dumb ass bullshit you've read somewhere. Nobody is even making the arguments you're making strawmen for, moron.

It's easy to use the cost of one item if you assume as you do that every other expense other than labor will stay constant FYI they won't

The cost of the paper used to wrap a burger will rise, the cost of cups and straws will rise, the cost of napkins and paper bags will rise etc etc

Do you know why they will rise? Because all those items have labor costs built into their prices

Idiot.

Sorry I haven't lost anything

When everything on the supply chain costs more then everything you buy will cost more you can't hold all related costs constant and say one item will only cost a little more because of labor costs alone

You are using one company's labor costs increase and applying them to one item

Since you've never run a business you don't seem to know that when the cost of all your supplies go up because the labor costs of all your vendors go up that you can't only factor in your increased labor costs into any price increases but you have to also add in the increased costs of all your supplies involved in running your business

Whenever labor costs rise prices will rise it doesn't matter what the business is

 

[Skull Pilot]

People will just buy less and in a consumer economy you think that is a good thing right?

FYI the prices of high end stuff won't be as effected it's the lower cost stuff that will see the most price increases and who gets hurt the most when low cost goods get more expensive?

You so funny.
Most of the clothing, appliances and other durable goods are MADE outside of this country. By labor that is paid less than MW now.

How in the fuck is a modest increase in wages for service sector jobs (which is what you say and I agree) fast food or cutting grass, mopping floors, etc how are those jobs going to effect the costs of items that have already been produced by cheaper labor out of our country?

Shop a Dollar store and find all the made in the USA items. That's where MW workers are shopping. It they get a raise, it'll be alright


Look at it this way. When all the illegals are gone, scarcity of labor is going to FORCE an increase in MW earnings. At least that is what the illegal haters say.

So just think, illegals gone replaced by un motivated, no experienced, untrained labor that you have to pay more money to for less productivity. Will that be good for the economy?

Either way. MW is going up.

Why not pay the legal MW American workers a little more so they can have someone with less than them and live a little better life?
And use illegals to get better labor for a cheaper price to do the jobs the low skilled American didn't want anyway?
To an illegal, our MW is good money and they work accordingly.
A MW American worker ain't worth much in my experience.
And if they are worth something they do not stay at MW long.

Those MW Americans that quickly get moved up in wages don't seem to be hurting the economy..and according to you they should be causing all prices to rise. But it hasn't. Why?

Wow yo don't know anything about imports do you?

Tell me how do you think those imported products get onto the racks at a store? Magic?

People have to unpack them, separate orders, repack the orders for shipment to different buyers, load the orders onto trucks to be shipped to businesses that bought them then those businesses have to ship them from their warehouses out to their branches then they have to be unloaded at each branch and put on the shelves, etc

When you have to pay all the people involved in that supply chain more just to move the items off of a boat and onto the shelves of a store then you have to charge more for those items

It might help you if you actually learned about supply chains and all the labor involved

 

[Wilbur Right]

Occupational Employment Statistics


Subscribe
to the OES Update



Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2015
43-5071 Shipping, Receiving, and Traffic Clerks
Verify and maintain records on incoming and outgoing shipments. Prepare items for shipment. Duties include assembling, addressing, stamping, and shipping merchandise or material; receiving, unpacking, verifying and recording incoming merchandise or material; and arranging for the transportation of products. Excludes "Stock Clerks and Order Fillers" (43-5081) and "Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers, Recordkeeping" (43-5111).



National estimates for this occupation
Industry profile for this occupation
Geographic profile for this occupation


National estimates for this occupation: Top
Employment estimate and mean wage estimates for this occupation:

Employment (1) Employment
RSE (3) Mean hourly
wage Mean annual
wage (2) Wage RSE (3)
674,820 0.7 % $15.55 $32,350 0.2 %
Percentile wage estimates for this occupation:

Percentile 10% 25% 50%
(Median) 75% 90%
Hourly Wage $9.73 $11.78 $14.64 $18.40 $22.89
Annual Wage (2) $20,230 $24,500 $30,450 $38,270 $47,610




Where are those MW shipping/receiving jobs? Give it up dude. You're full of shit.

 

[Political Junky]

You mean the trust fund that is littered with IOU's?

Then you're giving up your Social Security?

 

[Political Junky]

Typical government dupe who doesn't like to do math

Tell me what would the money taken from you for the slush fund that is Social Security have been worth if you were able to keep it in your own private account?

Hint A hell of a lot more than the pittance you will be allowed to collect from the government

I've been collecting Social Security for the past fifteen years. I've already collected a lot more than I contributed before retiring and I will continue to collect until the day I die -- which, according to my doctor, won't be any time soon.

I will venture to guess you are under age 40, which means you are under the common impression that you never will grow old, which in turn means you don't believe you ever will collect from Social Security and therefore are hostile toward it and are vulnerable to right-wing propaganda. But take my word for it, unless you piss someone off enough to take you out, you will grow old. You will reach age 65. When you do you will start seeing these nice deposits in your checking account on the First of every month. Then you will look back and realize how full of shit Limbaugh and Hannity are.

The fact is that if you had that money in an account that you and not the government controlled you would have had much more to live on and would probably have money left to leave to your family.

I did the math for you but you don't seem to want to comment on that

And FYI I am older than 40 I just know that had I had control over my money I would have a hell of a lot more to live on in retirement

Social Security denies you the chance to be truly financially independent

I agree that the rate of return would be much higher if employees had the option to put the money into private accounts. . But the fact is most people do not have the discipline to save any money Especially low income workers. For them it's forced retirement insurance. Is it perfect? Hell no.

I see it as a back up to my own savings plan. I've been investing towards my own retirement since my 20's.

If invested in Wall Street, most seniors would have lost those private savings in the Bush crash.

 

[Picaro]

Typical government dupe who doesn't like to do math

Tell me what would the money taken from you for the slush fund that is Social Security have been worth if you were able to keep it in your own private account?

Hint A hell of a lot more than the pittance you will be allowed to collect from the government

I've been collecting Social Security for the past fifteen years. I've already collected a lot more than I contributed before retiring and I will continue to collect until the day I die -- which, according to my doctor, won't be any time soon.

I will venture to guess you are under age 40, which means you are under the common impression that you never will grow old, which in turn means you don't believe you ever will collect from Social Security and therefore are hostile toward it and are vulnerable to right-wing propaganda. But take my word for it, unless you piss someone off enough to take you out, you will grow old. You will reach age 65. When you do you will start seeing these nice deposits in your checking account on the First of every month. Then you will look back and realize how full of shit Limbaugh and Hannity are.

The fact is that if you had that money in an account that you and not the government controlled you would have had much more to live on and would probably have money left to leave to your family.

I did the math for you but you don't seem to want to comment on that

And FYI I am older than 40 I just know that had I had control over my money I would have a hell of a lot more to live on in retirement

Social Security denies you the chance to be truly financially independent

I agree that the rate of return would be much higher if employees had the option to put the money into private accounts. . But the fact is most people do not have the discipline to save any money Especially low income workers. For them it's forced retirement insurance. Is it perfect? Hell no.

I see it as a back up to my own savings plan. I've been investing towards my own retirement since my 20's.

If invested in Wall Street, most seniors would have lost those private savings in the Bush crash.

And whatever gains were made in the last couple of years will be wiped out in the downturn next year, after the elections are over, and fuel prices go back up along with everything else and wages continue to stagnate along with real job growth. The morons are trying to start up yet another housing bubble, as if that idiocy actually worked in the past; they're not bright enough to think of anything else, which is why both Parties' bases are in open revolt.

 

[Political Junky]

By the time I retire, I fully expect that SS will have utterly collapsed into insolvency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you keep voting Republican, that's a very strong possibility.

What's the Democrat plan?

We can start by lifting the cap.

Doesn't sound like a plan to fix it.

It's guaranteed to fix it.

 

[HenryBHough]

Several years ago I became convinced that inflation would grind away the retirement savings and/or there would be some kind of "means testing" for Social Security payouts.

That in mind, I set out to piss away the whole piggy bank on travel. I'm doing well at the travel but travel costs have come down in relative terms and it's taking a lot more work than I had planned. Right now I have three (3, liberals) trips in various stages of planning and, damn it, they don't cost nearly enough.

 

[Picaro]

Sorry I haven't lost anything

Sure you did, and the rest of your post here only reinforces the fact that you don't know a thing about what you're repeating here. You know squat about supply chain costs or anything else. It's obvious you've never run a business that has one. And you're still repeating some strawman segue nobody is arguing against as well. you're just a droning astro-turfer repeating gibberish 'talking points' you think are real arguments when they're just tropes.

Here's the rubbish being peddled here:

Mickey D's raises minimum wage by $7.50 an hour. This means your egg mcmuffin goes up $7.50 or some other outrageously idiotic amount, cuz like, it takes one employee for each order, and it takes them an hour per order n stuff ...

Next, the burger and fries wrappers are all individually hand painted!!! Yes!!! And it takes an hour for each of those, too!!! Add another $15.000 to the 'supply chain costs!!!! Then, cuz like, the truck drivers delivering the stuff only deliver one item at a time, add another $7.50!!! Yes!!! And the guys who make the patties at the meat plant also add another $7.50!!!! They only make one patty at a time in an hour!!!

OMG OMG OMG EGG MCMUFFIENS ARE GONNA NOW COST LIKE FRIGGIN $89 BUCKS, Doooodes!!!!! OMG OMG OMG

I.e., just another bullshit psycho claim with zero basis in reality.

So yeah, you lost a long time ago, and have zero hope of selling the gibberish to anybody over the age of 4.

 

[Shrimpbox]

You really have to wonder if dems are flooding even the message boards with picaro types and their brain dead, personal attack, diarrhea of the keyboard tactics to suppress any rational debate. Thugs of the Internet.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Typical government dupe who doesn't like to do math

Tell me what would the money taken from you for the slush fund that is Social Security have been worth if you were able to keep it in your own private account?

Hint A hell of a lot more than the pittance you will be allowed to collect from the government

I've been collecting Social Security for the past fifteen years. I've already collected a lot more than I contributed before retiring and I will continue to collect until the day I die -- which, according to my doctor, won't be any time soon.

I will venture to guess you are under age 40, which means you are under the common impression that you never will grow old, which in turn means you don't believe you ever will collect from Social Security and therefore are hostile toward it and are vulnerable to right-wing propaganda. But take my word for it, unless you piss someone off enough to take you out, you will grow old. You will reach age 65. When you do you will start seeing these nice deposits in your checking account on the First of every month. Then you will look back and realize how full of shit Limbaugh and Hannity are.

The fact is that if you had that money in an account that you and not the government controlled you would have had much more to live on and would probably have money left to leave to your family.

I did the math for you but you don't seem to want to comment on that

And FYI I am older than 40 I just know that had I had control over my money I would have a hell of a lot more to live on in retirement

Social Security denies you the chance to be truly financially independent

I agree that the rate of return would be much higher if employees had the option to put the money into private accounts. . But the fact is most people do not have the discipline to save any money Especially low income workers. For them it's forced retirement insurance. Is it perfect? Hell no.

I see it as a back up to my own savings plan. I've been investing towards my own retirement since my 20's.

If invested in Wall Street, most seniors would have lost those private savings in the Bush crash.

You don't seem to realize that you only lose in the market if you sell at a loss
And once in retirement you shouldn't have all your money in equities

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry I haven't lost anything

Sure you did, and the rest of your post here only reinforces the fact that you don't know a thing about what you're repeating here. You know squat about supply chain costs or anything else. It's obvious you've never run a business that has one. And you're still repeating some strawman segue nobody is arguing against as well. you're just a droning astro-turfer repeating gibberish 'talking points' you think are real arguments when they're just tropes.

Here's the rubbish being peddled here:

Mickey D's raises minimum wage by $7.50 an hour. This means your egg mcmuffin goes up $7.50 or some other outrageously idiotic amount, cuz like, it takes one employee for each order, and it takes them an hour per order n stuff ...

Next, the burger and fries wrappers are all individually hand painted!!! Yes!!! And it takes an hour for each of those, too!!! Add another $15.000 to the 'supply chain costs!!!! Then, cuz like, the truck drivers delivering the stuff only deliver one item at a time, add another $7.50!!! Yes!!! And the guys who make the patties at the meat plant also add another $7.50!!!! They only make one patty at a time in an hour!!!

OMG OMG OMG EGG MCMUFFIENS ARE GONNA NOW COST LIKE FRIGGIN $89 BUCKS, Doooodes!!!!! OMG OMG OMG

I.e., just another bullshit psycho claim with zero basis in reality.

So yeah, you lost a long time ago, and have zero hope of selling the gibberish to anybody over the age of 4.

I never said by how much any price would rise because it's impossible to calculate since all the variables aren't known

You are using only one variable so you are wrong of course
And why are you fixated on McDonalds when in reality the costs of many more products and services will rise

So when you're paying more for everything you consume and all services you use tell me what good is that raise?
And you conveniently ignore the fact that the purchasing power of those already making 15 an hour will decrease because they will not get raises and all their costs will rise

It'a a lot more involved than the price of a hamburger but you can't seem to understand that