[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

So you want to make it more of a transfer the wealth system? There is a better word for that but right now do not remember it.

There should be a reasonable relationship between what you put in and what you get out of it.

There are two problems:

1) productivity increases replacing low level jobs means that the contributions must come from higher income positions. The issue is LOTS of low level contributing positions lost versus 2 ->10x the management pay structure which is wittled down more slowly, leaving 2-10x salaried mgmt with a cap of 25% of salary or less of salary contributions

2) Management salaries are going up faster than labor. At one global company at which I previously worked, VPs and global staff got inflation increases (merit increases) 2x the worker bees, middle mgmt and below. . I was/am still ****ed with the Jack Welsh wannabe CEO

3) sr mgmt gets added incentives and bonuses which the masses don't. That's fine, but if you are going to bankrupt the workers social security because sr management marginally contributes with huge salary differentials, and who makes the decisions to replace workers with automation. .

then they can contribute at our rates, or they are just sucking the entire system dry and it will collapse due to greed and inequality. . see NY City where Deblasio and his grifter wife can't account for $850m of the public's money

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

There are two problems:

1) productivity increases replacing low level jobs means that the contributions must come from higher income positions. The issue is LOTS of low level contributing positions lost versus 10x the management structure, which is wittled down more slowly, leaving 10x salaried mgmt with a cap of 25% of salary or less.

2) Management salaries are going up higher than labor. At one global company at which I previously worked, VPS and global staff got inflation increases (merit increases) 2x the worker bees, middle mgmt and below. . where I worked. .

3) sr mgmt gets added incentives and bonuses which the masses don't. That's fine, but if you are going to bankrupt the workers social security because sr management marginally contributes, and who makes the decisions to replace workers with automation. .

then they can contribute at our rates

Top management I believe is a very small percentage of the workforce. Once upon a time I stopped paying SS after 11 months or so.

The problem is lots of people under the level of senior management would be paying more into the system and getting nothing more back.

Either way the system needs to be fixed to keep it solvent.

[forebubba]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Too much of the potential workforce of today just are not interested in working to be paid.

Far too many make out as well or better by not going to work.
Too many programs offering far much money for doing nothing in return.

I have heard it too many times.....why should I go to work when I can make as much staying home.

Progress will not be made in employees availability until we as a society get back to NEEDING A JOB to survive!!

_________________________________________________

Really? How do they do that so I can stay home too

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Whitley

Where do you live? This happened to me three times in all of my years. Two by police and one store owner in Puerto Rico when I was on vacation at Cerromar. Do you know many poc?

I grew up in a diverse town, which was a suburb of a diverse city, which is in a diverse state. My neighborhood was mostly white, but the school I attended was a mix of everything. In my high school courtyard we had clusters of everything, and we all mostly got along. But we saw the bigotry every day. A guy I dated (who is black) was arrested after a white guy mouthed off to him - and he defended himself (verbally), and the white guy punched him. The white guy was arrested and released. My friend was arrested and detained overnight. Even though my friend was the victim and never laid a hand on the white guy.

A supervisor at a store I worked with was a States-born Puerto Rican. A few times when someone wanted to talk to the manager about something, she'd come over - and they would say "no the OTHER manager" or "you're not a supervisor" or some other equally insulting verbiage. It didn't happen often but it did happen.

I used to live in the Boston area, and hung out with "street people" - some homeless, some squatting in tenements and abandoned buildings, it was a whole sub-culture of folks. Huge variety of "types" of people. The brown-skinned ones got the worst of the insults. They all got their share of it, but the brown-skinned ones had it the worst. I got insulted on occasion too even though I wasn't homeless, earned more money than most college students earned, paid rent on Beacon Hill, and was trust-fund baby.

[coconutmama]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

wrong answer. .

the funding for social security needs to change:
the current limits on salary are too low, way too low,
not the percentage, the salary top out. .

and since the larger the salary, the less the payment will affect the lifestyle. .

working longer keeps the young people from advancing and takes away jobs from the people who will buy your house when you retire and relocate to TV

You are 100% correct.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

wrong answer. .

the funding for social security needs to change:
the current limits on salary are too low, way too low,
not the percentage, the salary top out. .

and since the larger the salary, the less the payment will affect the lifestyle. .

working longer keeps the young people from advancing and takes away jobs from the people who will buy your house when you retire and relocate to TV

100% agree. It's insane that you only have to contribute social security on the first $160,200 in the year.

I'd be in favor of raising the maximum monthly benefit to accommodate people earning between $160,201 and $250,000 - AND raising the max cap on deductions to $400,000 per person per year.

$160,200 doesn't really go very far, if you have a couple of kids and live in a "reasonably" decent neighborhood of the burbs in many states. So sure - let folks who are earning more, get more when it's retirement time. But make sure even more than that are paying a full share in.

I think the max monthly payout is $4,555. That's a huge heap of money for most people. But for folks who are in the higher (not highest) income levels, it might not even cover yearly expenses including property tax, HOAs, long-term insurance premiums, all those other things that really wealthy people (or people who were fortunate to be able to invest early and often) don't need social security to rely on.

I'd kick the max monthly up to $6000, reserve that for people who averaged $250,000/year or higher for 18 years (or whatever the criteria is for that), and require the same deductions for paychecks totaling up to $400k/year.

It'll mean an extra $100/month out of the salary of someone earning $400k/year. To compare - someone finding a dollar on the sidewalk, will only be able to buy 99.99 cents worth of stuff with it.

[Inexes@aol.com]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Welcome to the new America. ]Most home health nurses are immigrants.[/FONT] Most Americans don't want the job. Some immigrants are afraid to work now, even if they are legally here, because of the constant harassment just because they have darker skin, or an accent. Entitled folks say "just show your ID and you'll be fine." How many times have those entitled folks been ordered to show their ID?

I have no idea where you get your information but as a Home Health Nurse, for 40+ years in Florida, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. 20 years in St Pete, 20 years here in The Villages. Employed by 5 of the major HH Agencies in the state.
At not one of those agencies was the majority of employees anything but white American born males & females....... And those who were not white American born were treated no differently than those of us who were white. The only exception I will make, and it didn't matter if we were white or "other", most did not want to work in TV because most often we were treated as less than equal. I never encountered the discrimination anywhere in HHC as I did here in TV. If I decided to let them know that I was a resident, ie, "one of them", then the "attitude" adjusted.

[justjim]

The labor shortage was projected by labor analysts in the 90’s. I know because I worked in education and job training several moons ago. We always had those people who were disabled and couldn’t work and those who found staying home for others reasons more profitable than working for minimum wages and paying for child care. That said, there is definitely more demand for labor than supply today. It’s not just lower skilled jobs either. Teachers, nurses, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, carpenters, equipment operators, construction workers, computer engineers, and truck drivers just to name a few occupational shortages. Maybe it’s time to face some of these challenges instead of fighting “culture wars” that we seemed to be marred in. It’s simply called doing what’s right for the better good and the future of our children and grandchildren.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

all those other things that wealthy people (or people who were fortunate to be able to invest early and often)

Don’t confuse making sacrifices and working very hard with being fortunate. There were lots of things I would have rather done from my 20’s through my mid 50’s rather than studying hard for 6 years after high school then having to put on a suit and tie every friggin day and commute 100 miles round trip to work in a high stress cut throat industry. I lost 35 of the healthiest years of my life where I would have much rather been doing lots of other things. I have friends who used to call me at work from ski areas after a major powder storm or from a golf course on a beautiful summer day just to bust my balls and tell me they wouldn’t change places with me for all the money in the world. Now they are jealous of me and complain they can’t afford to have a home in the Villages. I have to remind them of the reason why and explain that I am now reaping the benefits of sacrifices they choose not to make.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

100% agree. It's insane that you only have to contribute social security on the first $160,200 in the year.

I'd be in favor of raising the maximum monthly benefit to accommodate people earning between $160,201 and $250,000 - AND raising the max cap on deductions to $400,000 per person per year.

$160,200 doesn't really go very far, if you have a couple of kids and live in a "reasonably" decent neighborhood of the burbs in many states. So sure - let folks who are earning more, get more when it's retirement time. But make sure even more than that are paying a full share in.

I think the max monthly payout is $4,555. That's a huge heap of money for most people. But for folks who are in the higher (not highest) income levels, it might not even cover yearly expenses including property tax, HOAs, long-term insurance premiums, all those other things that really wealthy people (or people who were fortunate to be able to invest early and often) don't need social security to rely on.

I'd kick the max monthly up to $6000, reserve that for people who averaged $250,000/year or higher for 18 years (or whatever the criteria is for that), and require the same deductions for paychecks totaling up to $400k/year.

It'll mean an extra $100/month out of the salary of someone earning $400k/year. To compare - someone finding a dollar on the sidewalk, will only be able to buy 99.99 cents worth of stuff with it.

You probably need to do more research and math on your proposal.

You want to collect $100/month from those making $400,000 but then increase their benefits by $1,500/month while they are retired. Since most of us won't be working 15 times as long as we are retired, that is a losing proposition.

Oh, it looks like your $100/month is a bit off too. Since the employee's portion of FICA withholding is 6.2%, the additional withholding for someone making $400,000 would be $14,880/year or $1,240/month.

Okay, at $1,240 extra/month while working, the additional payment about balances out the $1,500 in benefits but at best this is a net zero since all his payments would come back to him in retirement with nothing left over for anyone else.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

100% agree. It's insane that you only have to contribute social security on the first $160,200 in the year.

I'd be in favor of raising the maximum monthly benefit to accommodate people earning between $160,201 and $250,000 - AND raising the max cap on deductions to $400,000 per person per year.

$160,200 doesn't really go very far, if you have a couple of kids and live in a "reasonably" decent neighborhood of the burbs in many states. So sure - let folks who are earning more, get more when it's retirement time. But make sure even more than that are paying a full share in.

I think the max monthly payout is $4,555. That's a huge heap of money for most people. But for folks who are in the higher (not highest) income levels, it might not even cover yearly expenses including property tax, HOAs, long-term insurance premiums, all those other things that really wealthy people (or people who were fortunate to be able to invest early and often) don't need social security to rely on.

I'd kick the max monthly up to $6000, reserve that for people who averaged $250,000/year or higher for 18 years (or whatever the criteria is for that), and require the same deductions for paychecks totaling up to $400k/year.

It'll mean an extra $100/month out of the salary of someone earning $400k/year. To compare - someone finding a dollar on the sidewalk, will only be able to buy 99.99 cents worth of stuff with it.

How nice that some folks happy to spend other peoples money.

[Boomer]

America can’t get out of its own way these days. Too busy being had by those who want to pit us against each other for reasons that have nothing to do with what America needs to survive.

I am a big fan of Freakonomics and have been listening to a backlog of their podcasts…..

It occurred to me that they should do one connecting the dots between the labor shortage mess we are in and the doing away of the draft 50 years ago.

Oh my, do I dare say? Well, I do say……

Of course there would be the usual draft dodgers. (Doesn’t anybody who sweated that number and then served their country remember draft dodgers? Geez. Seems to be quite a bit of amnesia surrounding that one. (ahem))

And, of course, I am not advocating for a war machine….

BUT, there was more to the draft than just that……

Now America has way too much undirected testosterone running around. If all that testosterone were to be channeled again, young men would have time to grow up and could be directed to find interests and talent and skills that could earn them a good living later on in civilian life. Teach ‘em to build bridges, etc.

I could go on and on about reasons why I think a form of a draft could help America’s future tremendously, but I need to not bog down in another TOTV thread.

Just a thought…..but a damned good one, I think.

Boomer — who remembers when America used to grow men.

[Gigi3000]

[QUOTE=billethkid;2232835]Too much of the potential workforce of today just are not interested in working to be paid.

Far too many make out as well or better by not going to work.
Too many programs offering far much money for doing nothing in return.

I have heard it too many times.....why should I go to work when I can make as much staying home.

Progress will not be made in employees availability until we as a society get back to NEEDING A JOB to survive!!

_________________________________________________


Its multiple things. Burnout from the pandemic, nurses are tired of the overwork, teachers are sick of the administrators(being asked to do things without pay and not backing them), students(unruly) and parents( i read of one parent that asked the teacher to call her each morning cause she kept sleeping through her alarm), then there's the psychotic bosses, employers' doing sneaky things to paychecks.....its _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( you know what) run amuck, no concern for the person..imo.
Some employers just throw you out to do a job that needs training, its sink or swim and you may have quit a job to take this job!! People aren't lazy, they're sick of the stress. Then when you get older, you're disposable. Can you imagine working your whole life for one employer then worrying about that? I'm tired of ya'll saying people are lazy!

[Pballer]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Too much of the potential workforce of today just are not interested in working to be paid.

Far too many make out as well or better by not going to work.
Too many programs offering far much money for doing nothing in return.

I have heard it too many times.....why should I go to work when I can make as much staying home.

Progress will not be made in employees availability until we as a society get back to NEEDING A JOB to survive!!

_________________________________________________

Please list these programs. Is it the gravy train of Florida maximum unemployment benefits of $275/week for 9-12 weeks, or the incredibly generous Florida welfare and SNAP payments? These people must be living high on the hog.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Inexes@aol.com

I have no idea where you get your information but as a Home Health Nurse, for 40+ years in Florida, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. 20 years in St Pete, 20 years here in The Villages. Employed by 5 of the major HH Agencies in the state.
At not one of those agencies was the majority of employees anything but white American born males & females....... And those who were not white American born were treated no differently than those of us who were white. The only exception I will make, and it didn't matter if we were white or "other", most did not want to work in TV because most often we were treated as less than equal. I never encountered the discrimination anywhere in HHC as I did here in TV. If I decided to let them know that I was a resident, ie, "one of them", then the "attitude" adjusted.

I mis-wrote, and corrected my post. I should have said home health aides, not home health nurses. I apologize for that.

There's been a few neighbors who've had home health aides - none of them were white, or male. The ones I've spoken to were either Haitian or Jamaican, except for one from Barbados.

My mom has gone through over a dozen of them - she has to have 24/7 care at home. Not a single one of them was white. She has three currently - one every night, one weekdays, and one for the weekend days. Two are from Haiti. One is Jamaican.

On the east coast of southern Florida, it's mostly Haitians and Jamaicans who care for folks who needs 24/7 care at home. I have no idea why that is so, but - it's so.