Originally Posted by Jazuela (Post 1674260)

Which people? Where will they live, where will they come from, what will they do when they're not working? Which people will be attracted enough to these jobs, AND qualified to accept them, AND in a financial position to afford them, that these businesses will draw employees?

And don't forget the criteria here, because it's real:

1. Seniors relying on social security must either earn more than their social security check, OR work very few hours. So the jobs need to be either REALLY GOOD high paying full time jobs, OR really crappy low-paying part time jobs, if their target employee is a senior on social security.

2. Non-seniors who are healthy enough to work these jobs, will need health care. If they are being subsidized, then working will immediately cause their premiums to rise, and might disqualify them from any subsidies at all. So if the target potential unemployed person seeking work is someone who qualifies for subsidies, the jobs need to either a) come with comprehensive health care or b) pay enough to cover the employee's full cost of premiums on top of paying the rent/mortgage utility bills taxes etc.

So again: where will these resources - these potential employees come from? Who will they be?

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore (Post 1674170)

Would love to see some type of proof or facts, that even MOST Villagers...came from 'poor' backgrounds.

Broad-brush statements can be made by anyone with just an opinion and an agenda (and make proclamations, pretending to speak for MOST others), but require actual proof...to have even a scintilla of credibility.

It's boring at best, completely deceiving at worst, having someone drone on about how their anecdotal experiences...somehow apply to most other people. :ohdear:

Originally Posted by Aces4 (Post 1674183)

I agree with Gracie. The incivility on this forum makes me wonder how many here have any education.

Originally Posted by Jazuela (Post 1674260)

1. Seniors relying on social security must either earn more than their social security check, OR work very few hours. So the jobs need to be either REALLY GOOD high paying full time jobs, OR really crappy low-paying part time jobs, if their target employee is a senior on social security.

Originally Posted by Aloha1 (Post 1674288)

Huh? This comment makes no sense. If you are already getting Social Security, you can work as much or little as you want and it has NO effect on your monthly SS payment. Therefore to work or not to work is an individual choice. Some folks like to bag groceries at Publix because it gets them out and around others and it's a low stress way to make extra income.

Originally Posted by Boomer (Post 1674295)

Actually, there is more to it. It is not as simple as what was said in the quote above.

The quote above applies only to those who choose to wait until reaching full SS age before collecting.

Those who choose to collect SS at 62, or somewhere before their full SS age, have to calculate earned income limitations should they decide to work. That is because SS benefits are reduced by $1 for every $2 earned over a certain limit. The earned income limit for 2019 is $17,640. ($1470 per month)

Originally Posted by Jazuela (Post 1674335)

Not just those who "choose" to get SS at age 62 but those whose jobs, companies, departments were eliminated when you're almost 62, and starting over in the work force after over 20 years at the same job, when you were planning on retiring in a few years anyway, is not practical or pragmatic. Sometimes "early retirement" isn't a choice.

Originally Posted by Boomer (Post 1674341)

You are right, Jazuela. (I chose the wrong verb. “Choose” in this circumstance is loaded with the wrong connotation.)

What you are talking about is absolutely true. It just happened to someone we know. And to heap insult upon injury, though he is close to Medicare age, his wife is 3 years behind him, making the scramble for healthcare awful It was obvious age-discrimination, but the big companies have the big legal departments.

Originally Posted by Velvet (Post 1673827)

Yes, I was a bit taken aback too. I thought New Jersey must pay their teacher’s well.

Originally Posted by Boomer (Post 1674341)

You are right, Jazuela. (I chose the wrong verb. “Choose” in this circumstance is loaded with the wrong connotation.)

What you are talking about is absolutely true. It just happened to someone we know. And to heap insult upon injury, though he is close to Medicare age, his wife is 3 years behind him, making the scramble for healthcare awful.

It was obvious age-discrimination, but the big companies have the big legal departments.