Okay, you're a presidential - advisory. What advice would you give to create jobs, and get the broken economy back on track?
Here's an idea: Instead of all the baby boomers working until they drop dead, or making them work longer then the current SS retirement age, how about find a way to allow older workers to either retire or be fazed out - as needed. Let's say everyone at 60, or over. If you haven't made by then will you ever make it? If you have made it, then you probably have enough to quit working. Look at each and allot them a decent retirement situation based on their lifelong (thus far) achievements and current requirements. Not a level that is necessarily desired, but at least adequate (the Social Security concept). I know, it's socialistic - yes it is and the Capitalist would have to be on board - perhaps like Canberra did with a stock ownership plan that distributed the wealth a lot better. Of course that depends on company performance, but if you look at CEO bonuses (even for badly performing companies) and outrageous salaries for some individuals (despite their talents or success), money can probably be found (taken if not gifted, in some case instead of prosecuting, or giving to the wolves).
Okay so some people will have to vacation in Appalachia instead of the Alps - more money stays here, meaning more jobs here. Others needing/wanting something to do can work as volunteers - perhaps reducing size of government payrolls (of course that will lose jobs in the public sector). Some will deserve nothing but a hovel and enough for meals.
By opening the positions held by the old fuddy-duddies, the next echelon of middle-aged workers move up and new workers are hired - of course at lower/startup wages. A lot of experience is lost, you say? Yes, but that can be overcome with the phase-in time for hand-holding and just plain fumbling through it - can service be much worse than it is? In some cases new/good ideas will win out over "we've always done it that way".
What do you think?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A Place for Barnowski Family Chatter
25 comments:
Okay, easy for someone who retired at 50 and seems to be happy with the life he's made himself to say! While I don't have any major aspirations to obtain any more "stuff" (in fact I'm starting to think about down sizing) I would like to accumulate a bit more in my 401K to allow me to retire comfortably. What does that mean? Well, being able to buy a new car when I need to and take vacations when I want to. I have no problem if those vacations are driving the country - it's something I've always wanted to do. Most of the exotic places I want to go are places I'll be going in the next few years (Hawaii this year and Alaska in 2011 hopefully) or I've already been to (Grand Canyon, France, Canada). As far as bringing in the new crop of workers at a lower salary - good luck! College graduates (pretty much all that gets hired these days) are demanding high salaries and who can blame them? They invested 4 years of their lives and their parents (or their own) money for an education and they expect to be compensated for that. Gone are the days when a high school graduate can get their foot in the door and rise up the ladder. I was lucky enough to start my career (job) that way before it was so important to have the piece of paper. I agree that a persons place in the hierarchy should be based on their skills and abilities and their contributions to society even if that contribution is simply that their not "sucking off the government teat" as our loving brother John would say. If you're only skill is cleaning toilets you should be glad to do it with a smile on your face. I'm sick of people complaining about the work they have to do (I'm talking about people I work with) as if they should have any choice in the matter! Okay, that's my soap box.
Interesting concept. Let's make the age 53, then I can leave my job when I want to instead of having to stay.
Who would be responsible for determining what someone "deserves"?
The phase-in time could involve job-sharing, so the younger person could be mentored while the older person doesn't all of a sudden feel useless or as if he's lost his identity.
No offense to Dave Lynn, but I believe there are way too many government jobs. I cringe whenever I hear that the best places to look for a job (or at least most secure) are health care and the government. Sometimes I wonder if people realize that they are paying for all of these wonderful jobs, but I guess we pay for most jobs through our spending habits. But, at least those are optional.
OK...I'm rambling.
Tina
No offense taken Tina. After 26years with the State, I'm use to it & actually agree with you. It just so happens that Governor Rell will be making her dreaded budget proposal speech tommorrow around Noon and we're all waiting to hear exactly what she means by needing to "shrink government". I assume of course this means she intends to cut a host of various state programs and probably lay-off some or possibly many state workers. I really don't think she means all CT state workers will be put on a diet. Still joking while I can as it may be a while before I can laugh about my HR job again anytime in the near future.
BTW: If anyone has an extra boxes of tissue, please send as I'll most likey need plenty for what lies ahead. But I'm not complaining, as I was well aware this was part of the job going into it.
Take care & thanks for listening. Dave (aka: the hatchet man, but really not a bad guy)
The State of CT should cut out all those stupid social services jobs. DCF is absolutely useless, not to mention corrupt, why dont they make cuts there. They don't serve their purpose.
And Aunt Patty, were you referring to me? Who complains 36/8 about my job? Yes I hate it and I let everyone know. Although, I am incredibly grateful to have a job at this time. They have done layoffs at my office, actually one of my closer co-workers, whose responsibility then got half thrust onto me which is why I have been hating my job more lately.
And someone tell me whose ass Obama is pulling 5 million jobs out of? Sorry Im at work, I'm in a bad mood lol.
Uncle Mike, you made an interestin point (if I remember right) you said transition the workforce, get the younger people in and lett people now retire early. But what would they live off of? Gov has no money to pay their benefits? But I though that was an interesting idea.
Dave - I'm sorry to hear you will have to go through the rough patch, but hope you come through okay, i.e. the last pink slip isn't your own :-(
Sounds like nobody is happy with their jobs right now, even though I know we are all grateful to have them. Is it the winter blues, or the general state of the union/world?
Tina
I hate my job
The only thing that is good are the people I work with. They are great.
I am planning on doing something else. I just have a few goals to meet first.
I thought everyone else liked their job?
I do not like the state of the world right now. Or the winter
I got nothing constructive to say on the matter, but I do like reading everyone else's diatribes. I like my job even though it is slow right now. I guess Mike likes his job since he is always at it.(No sour grapes) He has always said "we" could never retire, and I think he's right. As long as we have a job we may want to keep it. I do agree with Deanna that Mike's idea sounds okay, but not sure how it would work in practice.
Anyway, that's it. Maybe when we are all 80-90 we can retire into some seaside shanty or something.
Thanks for these initial comments. I'm somewhat suprised (and maybe it's waiting in the wings) that someone didn't say - "that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard." I thinks it is myself - in some ways - as it doesn't really create jobs, just moves people around, and wouldn't produce additional tax revenue. Yes, paying for this would be problematically. Bill Gates giving away billions to his and Melinda's foundation is a start (but isn't that just wealth distribution of a different sort).
My intented "victims" of early retirement would primarily be directed towards those with means to retire, yet hang on due to a need for more, power, inability to let go, or some need of belonging. Get over it, adapt! Does Derek Jeter need to work anymore, until he's washed up, when a $1M per year player would do?
What I haven't seen in anybody's comments are your ideas? What's your advice to the president?
Aunt Patty, I'll go to Alaska with you.
That's all I have to say, because honestly, I didn't read all that.
Oh I was just thinking about sports people today. Honestly...oh sorry $20 million a year (minus endorsements)isnt enough for you? Fine, we'll go find a great college player who Im sure would be glad to PLAY A GAME for living for even $100k-$200k a year, because it would beat sitting at a dek 40-70 hours a week making 1/4 of that amount. Jeez. So if the $20million a year isn't doing it for you, then we'll let you go and you can try your luck elsewhere. They make me so mad lol
Mike, that was the stupidest thing I ever heard. Just kidding. My thoughts (be they as they may), I think that any "business" can be streamlined by eliminated dead wood, incompetants, figure heads, etc. However, when an area is downsized that usually means that fewer people are then required to do more work and more time on the job. While I understand that in this day and age anyone who has a job should be happy to have it. But I can't help thinking that this would damage a persons "quality of life" I know that sounds naive, but in the great scheme of life, shouldn't that be what's important (within reason). What's that old saying "Live to work, not work to live".
Annie and/or Dave: AMEN to that!
Tina
Mike - you are right, I don't really have any ideas for "job creation". There is certainly a lot that needs to be done regarding the country's infrastructure, from roads and bridges to national parks. I like the idea of encouraging "greeen" technology, as well as building more nuclear power plants with recycling capabilities, like they have in Europe.
Of course, the real problem now seems to be that nobody wants to spend money (except me and Dave), so every company that offers a product or service has to cut back on employees, which means fewer people spending money. It's a vicious cycle.
My father-in-law suggested that maybe some of the super-rich should give more of their money to the government to help with the bailout. I pointed out that he was advocating socialism: take from the rich and spread it around.
There have been good points made about how much money people really need. I mean, once you have your first 20 million, how much more can you use? However, in the case of a baseball player, what will you do with the rest of your life if you step aside at the age of 35 because you have all the money you need? I suppose do a lot of volunteer work or something.
Again, it's that whole "quality of life" thing.
By the way, can you believe Obama wants executives to live on only $500,000 per year? How will they survive?
Tina
That was my comment, Teen. I didn't put my name on if originally cause someone might this it was ignorant and then I could blame it someone else (who?)
Annie
Well, a keen idea form Mike. Certainly appreciated. Sorry for hopping so late. I'm leaning more and more to the "Logan's Run" approach. Remember, I'd be among the first to go, so you can't say I'm selfish.
OK: ideas. Aside from Logan's Run, how about setting up a charitable trust that would match people of means with deserving working-class families? Have a one-to-one relationship (even if it might be anonymous), where the rich people support the poor.
Reclaim the ill-got billions from financial crooks. There must be a way to finger the bad apples and simply confiscate their excess profits.
Severely prosecute anyone caught in fraudulent activity, be it a welfare queen or a Wall Street banker. Severely!
Flush the prisons and fill them up again, without country club perks. (Have you heard about the CT prisoner on a hunger strike? His lawyers say the state is acting unlawfully to force-feed him. Hell, let him die! But, know what? The prison shrinks that such a suicide would upset the other prisoners. Oh, I feel sooooo bad for them. Off them if they aren't happy.)
Stop crowing about our wonderful "Democracy" when it is really a socialist state already (no judgment either way intended). Having benefited form a safety net (unemployment), I appreciate government being there for some situations. But, we seem (collectively) to have come to expect government to do everything for us. Stop it already!
Put the stimulus dollars to work doing real projects, like the stuff they built to raise us out of the Depression. (I know,Tina already said the same thing.)
Enough for now. Seinfeld is on.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere.
Removing nonviolent criminals from prison would be something I'd advocate, to reduce prison population and cost. Make white-collar criminals (fraud and political) pay for there own incarceration in probationary terms.
Gov Rell has proposed $7.5M for CCC like state jobs - about 200 according to this mornings news report. The State Unions are complaining; "no benes, no Health Care, probably minimum wage, etc." I calculate about a $35K/yr average - a little better than minimum wage. Okay let's just cut 200 Union jobs, and not hire anybody - that would probably save the $7.5M, plus. Have volunteers - see original post - do the job for free.
Jeter can play, if he'd like but at reduced salary, or nothing (but here's the Union (Socialists)again), increase the team rosters to 30 and pay them through reductions in "stars" salaries.
That's about 150 new jobs in MLB, plus the ripple effect down to the minors.
1. Stop giving away benefits and/or services to ILLEGAL aliens. What about illegal does our government not understand?
2. Get criminals off death row. Shouldn't a death sentence mean just that. Sure, people can say that you have to have an appeals process cause some people could be innocent. I say if they were found guilty and sentenced, have at it. (Although I might think differently if it was someone I loved who really was innocent.)
In response to John's suggestion to set up a relationship with poor people to rich people isn't that what servitude does? If you can clean, cook, garden or whatever then why not go to work for a rich family that will house and feed you?
Dean, if you want to go to Alaska I'll keep you in mind but you should start saving some money. I'm not gonna pay for it all! It'll probably be a cruise out of Vancouver with a land tour of some type (probably train). You might be in school or working so think about that.
Good point Patty (about servitude). However, I meant for this one-to-one charitable giving to be just that: charity. Like the ads that exhort you to adopt an poor third-world kid for only $5 a day. The rich family would simply donate some amount of money (I'm thinking significant amounts, such as $40K) to a deserving family. That family would essentially be able to live a middle class life, send their kids to school, etc. This plan would not help millions, but it would make a real difference to specific people; people who are really trying but just haven't been able to make it, for legitimate reasons. By the same token, if this family starts to treat their new-found largesse as an entitlement, pull the plug! they must continue to earn it and ultimately they wouldn't need it ideally). If the donor wants to have a relationship with his adopted family s/he could, but it is not necessary.
I have to echo something Tina said - sounds a bit too socialist to me. Of course, I've often said things that lean that way myself. Share the wealth, etc. However, I also believe that you must earn your keep unless you're so handicapped (physically or mentally) that you simply can't. How many of you think that crazy woman in California who just had octuplets (to add to her 6 kids) will end up on some sort of state aid? Then again, if she gets paid for being an idiot on TV or they make a movie about her she'll probably end up rich! Gaahh!!
This is where I balance being a socialist, a republican, and a nazi:
Help those who need help, but only until they can take care of themselves.
Everyone must take personal responsibility for their life. If you have children, raise them correctly and they will be responsible for themselves. Get married and stay married. (I know full well that one party or another doesn't always have a say in this. People should not get married frivolously, nor have children without really thinking it through.)
If you want to have ten kids, have them. Then shut up about it and don't ask for government assistance. (If your church wants to support you, let them. Oh, and let's start taxing churches!)
Ditto if you have a severely handicapped child. In this day and age, you can find out in advance if the baby will be born with serious problems. If you chose to go through with it because this is God's gift... then you and God can handle it.
Finally, for the really messed up people: send them to heaven.
Amen Uncle John
Maybe it's time to put this Post to bed, as it's turned into a forum for pet peeves and blame instead a source of solutions. Sort of special interests in reverse. Thus endeth the lesson.
John, I hate to tell you you are not a socialist. If you were you would expect the government to take care of everybody!
You're right... I'm not. But I have those leanings. In an ideal world (one in which everyone was whole, happy, healthy, and conscientious) I think socialism is a good idea; with the stress on "idea." How it would actually work is beyond me. As it is, we collectively think too highly of the democratic ideal. Human nature precludes pure democracy from working any better than pure socialism. Get rid of people and any system would work just fine!
Post a Comment