[re-post of corrente blog from 10-26-10]
Raising the retirement age to a whopping 70 is more than a twinkle in the eyes of Obama and his Gucci-loafered-Austerian-Commission-sadists from both sides of the aisle. They are about to stick it once again to all of us, but particularly to struggling low-income older women in physical jobs!
It just keeps on getting uglier and uglier. Sharon Johnson in this article in womensenews spells out how exceptionally cruel it is to the plight of women.
Nice reward working so hard all your life to have these sociopathic millionaire bastards steal your taxpaying money to reward fraudsters and then add insult to injury by moving your retirement goal post to 70 and making your hard-earned benefits (to some the ONLY benefits for a life of struggle) belated and unlivable.
According to Ellen Bruce, past president of OWL (Older Women’s League) 1 in 4 older women depends on Social Security for 90 percent of her income. Women have overwhelmingly far fewer assets than men when they retire.
Sharon Johnson writes:
The battle over Social Security age limits can be personified as Conservative Republican Alan Simpson versus Ellen A. Bruce, immediate past president of the Washington-based Older Women's League, known as OWL. Simpson, a former senator of Wyoming and now co-chair of President Barack Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, recently sent OWL a letter calling Social Security "a milk cow with 310 million tits" that warrants changes because Americans are living longer.
To ensure the solvency of Social Security--which is facing a modest long-term fiscal shortfall--the bipartisan, 14-member fiscal commission is expected to recommend on Dec. 1 a gradual increase in the eligibility for full benefits from age 66 to 70.
Ms. Johnson quotes Cindy Hounsell, president of the Washington-based Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement, known as WISER:
"This proposal is the latest attack on the fraying safety net, ... Social Security is a lifeline for older women, because it has becoming increasingly difficult for the average woman to accumulate sufficient assets for retirement, let alone women in low-paying, physically demanding jobs that don't provide pensions."
WISER has accumulated the statistics: Nearly two-thirds of working women earn less than $30,000 a year, which makes it difficult to save. Almost half of these low-paying jobs do not provide retirement plans or 401k plans.
Johnson reports:
In 1983, Congress became concerned about the impact of longer life spans on Social Security reserves and increased the age for full benefits from 65 when Social Security was established in 1935 to 66 today to 67 in 2022.
The added two-year waiting period--to 67 from 65--will reduce benefits for the average retiree by 13 percent, a loss of more than $28,000 over the course of a typical retirement, projected the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that studies the labor force, federal budget, deficit and other issues.
Pushing the full-retirement age to 70 would cut benefits another 19 percent, a total of $63,573.
To get the same amount of benefits a worker receives today, a future retiree will have to work an extra year for every year the retirement age is increased, which is impossible for many women in physically demanding jobs, says Hounsell of WISER.
"Unlike women in white-collar jobs who went to college, maids, retail clerks, waitresses and nurses' aides started working in their late teens and early 20s," she said. "By their mid-50s, they are worn out from standing eight hours a day, moving patients and carrying heavy trays. Many have developed crushing back pain and other health problems."
In 2009, nearly 35 percent of workers age 58 and older held physically demanding jobs, according to an August analysis by the Washington-based nonprofit Center for Economic Policy and Research.
Hye Jin Rho, author of the report, warned that women would be harder hit than men by a higher retirement age because the gender gap increases with age. He found that about 32 percent of women 58 and older held physically demanding jobs compared to 37 percent of men in the same age group.
But when Rho analyzed the distribution of physically demanding jobs at either end of the retirement-age spectrum, he found more men doing heavy lifting earlier and more women stuck with that type of work later.
He found about 37 percent of women in the oldest age group--70 and over--were cleaning houses, stocking shelves and waitressing compared to about 30 percent of women in the youngest age group--58 to 61.
For men those figures were the other way around: About 35 percent of men over 70 were loading trucks, constructing buildings and standing eight hours a day in the kitchens of restaurants versus 38 percent of men between ages 58 to 61.
"Older women are highly motivated to keep working because their financial situation becomes more precarious as they age," said Katherine Klotzburger, founder and president of the Silver Century Foundation in Princeton, N.J., which seeks to change the personal and cultural experience of aging. "Many widows are left with little income because they have lost their husband's pensions or the couple's assets were depleted paying for care during their husband's last illness. Many older women also are supporting their parents or grandchildren."
Proponents of raising the retirement age contend that workers in physically demanding jobs can work longer if they assume less strenuous positions. "But this is rarely the case," said Bruce, of OWL, who is director of the Gerontology Institute at University of Massachusetts Boston. "For workers in physically demanding jobs, finding new positions is often impossible because they work in industries or geographical areas where jobs are disappearing. As a result, they are forced to retire in their late 50s and early 60s and struggle to survive on reduced Social Security benefits for two decades."
Social Security benefits are modest, even if one works to age 66. The average retiree's benefit is $13,800 annually, less than working full time at a job paying minimum wage.
Women on average receive $2,000 less, because they were paid lower salaries during their working years and left the labor force for several years to raise children or care for elderly relatives.
Sharon Johnson on the upcoming retirement age fight participants:
Although this situation will reverse beginning in 2012 and the program will be solvent until 2037, prominent Democrats like Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff under President Clinton and co-chair of the fiscal commission, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland joined House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio in calling for an increase in the retirement age.
The proposal will face serious opposition in Congress. In the House, 104 representatives sent a letter to Obama, written by Democratic Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, John Conyers of Michigan and Dan Maffei of New York, urging him to reject any proposals to cut Social Security benefits.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent of Vermont, and 11 Democratic colleagues introduced a resolution in the Senate Sept. 30 opposing increases in the retirement age and other proposals the deficit commission might recommend.
"The Social Security system, which has run surpluses for a quarter century, is America's most successful and reliable retirement program," Sanders wrote. "The Social Security Trust Fund has a $2.6 trillion surplus that is projected to grow to more than $4 trillion by the year 2023. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until the year 2039. It will not be bankrupt."
So, President Obama, Captain of the USS Titanic and his patriarchal and clearly misogynistic anti-social crew want to throw older women out of the lifeboats into the icy waters first. Who cares that women and all of us have worked hard for that money and our retirements!
We must rally to stop this pack of wannabe and fast-becoming feudal overlords!!!!
[repost from correntewire & sacramento for democracy 10/26/2010]
--------------
So, President Obama, Captain of the USS Titanic and his patriarchal and clearly misogynistic anti-social crew want to throw older women out of the lifeboats into the icy waters first. Who cares that women and all of us have worked hard for that money and our retirements!
We must rally to stop this pack of wannabe and fast-becoming feudal overlords!!!!
Libby…you really have to think this through more carefully.
Are you actually suggesting that dumping Obama and replacing him with a Republican who undoubtedly will be a darling of the tea party…will improve rather than make this problem even worse?
If you do…continue to argue the way you are. But while you are pointing out a real and horrible problem…your approach to a solution is horrendous. Sorry, but you really have to think this through more carefully.
We must rally to stop this pack of wannabe and fast-becoming feudal overlords!!!!
Libby…you really have to think this through more carefully.
Are you actually suggesting that dumping Obama and replacing him with a Republican who undoubtedly will be a darling of the tea party…will improve rather than make this problem even worse?
If you do…continue to argue the way you are. But while you are pointing out a real and horrible problem…your approach to a solution is horrendous. Sorry, but you really have to think this through more carefully.
Young Libby has learned more in her young years, than You will ever hope to know, idiot.
Think? When did you learn to do that,frank?
-R-
Think? When did you learn to do that,frank?
-R-
If you can keep this where it belongs, as part of the class war we're ALL engaged in, instead of allocating it to some mythical gender war, I'd back your play all the way.
Sure there is an element of "working women over a certain age fare worse than some others" about this but it takes some fine work with the figures to really make that the focal point of the proposed legislation.
I'd bet that, if one wished to do so, one could "fine tune" the numbers to focus on veterans, or for beer drinkers, or for people who shave their armpits, or any other large group within our society.
You play THEIR GAME when you fracture us into "special segments", such as older women. They sit up there with silly smirks on their bovine faces, laughing at how easy it is to divide and conquer us idiot proles.
Every man, woman and child is under attack now. Men and women are being forced back to third-world levels of income and social security. Teenagers are being forced out into the labour force by a lack of affordable higher education and even young children are forced into schools that are ill equipped and under-funded; their very teachers are so overburdened because of cutbacks in education funding that it is next to impossible for them to do an effective job of teaching even the basics.
ᴼᴥƪ
.
Sure there is an element of "working women over a certain age fare worse than some others" about this but it takes some fine work with the figures to really make that the focal point of the proposed legislation.
I'd bet that, if one wished to do so, one could "fine tune" the numbers to focus on veterans, or for beer drinkers, or for people who shave their armpits, or any other large group within our society.
You play THEIR GAME when you fracture us into "special segments", such as older women. They sit up there with silly smirks on their bovine faces, laughing at how easy it is to divide and conquer us idiot proles.
Every man, woman and child is under attack now. Men and women are being forced back to third-world levels of income and social security. Teenagers are being forced out into the labour force by a lack of affordable higher education and even young children are forced into schools that are ill equipped and under-funded; their very teachers are so overburdened because of cutbacks in education funding that it is next to impossible for them to do an effective job of teaching even the basics.
ᴼᴥƪ
.
No comments:
Post a Comment