Early Retirement Of Baby Boomers Is The Cure For High Unemployment

The Federal Government Should Offer Early Retirement to Baby Boomers
by Spencer Holly, AngryCalifornian

Our current high unemployment rates are not due to lack of jobs, but, rather, to the fact that our employed workforce is too large, thanks, in part, to the Baby Boomer generation that is not ready to retire.

There are two basic ways to reduce unemployment. One, the conventional solution, is to increase the number of jobs available by somehow creating more jobs, and two, to somehow reduce the total number of currently employed workers in viable jobs; jobs that will need replacement workers. Either one, or a combination, will reduce the unemployment rate.

Creating jobs is good, but it takes too long; it takes many years, and there is no guarantee that there will ever be enough jobs.

Reducing the number of currently employed workers is never considered because, on its surface, it doesnt make sense because reducing the number of employed workers should mean that there is an increase in unemployed workers and the unemployment rate. But that is only true if the no longer employed worker needs to collect unemployment benefits, and seeks new employment.

If the not-employed workers did not collect benefits, and did not need to seek new employment, the effect would be to create new job openings. It is a mathematical fact that when employed workers drop out of the workforce, the unemployment rate must decrease

So, we need to reduce the employed workforce in order to reduce unemployment.

Obviously, we cannot reduce the workforce by decree, or by force. We want individuals to voluntarily leave their jobs, and drop out of the workforce. A simple, and effective way to induce workers to voluntarily vacate their jobs, and not collect unemployment payments, and not need to seek new employment, would be to offer early retirement to certain, older, individuals who are already near retirement, but are still holding on to their jobs until they reach age 65.

Under current Social Security rules, an individual may now retire at age 62, however, their benefits, and the monthly amount they receive is much less than if they wait until they reach the age of 65. We could induce older workers to retire early by offering them full Social Security benefits at age 62, instead of age 65, and effectively reduce the unemployment rate.

We would probably create more than one position per retiring individual, because older/experienced workers often possess knowledge and skills that make them efficient workers who are able to do the work of more than one inexperienced individual. It could easily take two or more new employees to handle the duties of a single retiring employee.

Employers would like this because it would reduce their payroll costs; they would be shedding the higher paid individuals in favor of lower paid individuals, and could quite possibly hire more than one new employee per retiring employee. And they could also see a reduction in their health insurance costs, and their workers compensation costs, because the younger workforce is healthier.

Instead of collecting unemployment payments, the now employed individuals would be paying income tax, and SSI & Medicare, etc.

And lets face it. The people who spend the most money in our culture are the young people with families to feed, and cloth, and house, etc, etc. The older crowd is through with that; quite possibly, their houses are paid for, and their kids our out of college, etc. They are spending their discretionary money on medications, and recreation, and vacations.


Of course, there is an extra expense involved in paying the extra retirement monies, but that may be more than offset by the savings in not having to pay unemployment benefits, and the additional tax revenues paid by the hired workers, and the greater ripple effect their monies would have on the overall economy. (Employed people spend money and support the employment of other individuals).

From a quick search of the internet I found that during the first three years of the Baby Boomer generation, 1946, 1947, and 1948, there were an average of 3.66 million births EACH YEAR, in the U.S, for a total of about 11 million births.

Since the first baby boomers turned 62 in 2008, if all of those individuals were allowed to retire early, right now, we would create 3.66 million job openings, immediately, and then another 3.66 million jobs for EACH of the next two years.

(These are obviously high estimates, because, many of those born in those years surely have died already, and there may be some who won’t want to retire early).

According to current stats, there have been 3.6 million jobs lost in nonfarm occupations, since Dec of 2007.

(That number is certainly much higher, at this time).By changing the current retirement rules, we would almost immediately nullify all the jobs lost so far, and create up to an additional 3.66 million jobs for each subsequent year.


I don’t really know the true cost of allowing individuals to retire early, but let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it costs an average of an additional $ 20,000 per year per individual, which is probably conservative. Remember, this additional amount is only a burden for three years per individual retiree, if they choose to retire at age 62. After that, at age 65, the additional amount would no longer be additional, but would be the normal amounts dues at age 65.

At $ 20,000 per individual, if 3.66 million additional people retire early each year, the total additional annual cost is 73.2 billion dollars.

From that 73.2 billion dollars, we need to deduct the savings in unemployment payments, because formerly unemployed people would now be employed.

We would lose the tax formerly received from the retiring individuals, but that would be offset by the employees who are now employed, and paying taxes. Plus we would gain much more revenue from the ripple effect of having more, and younger, people employed.

That 73.2 billion is a huge amount of money, but, we’ve reduced unemployment by 3.66 million people, and if those formerly unemployed, now employed, individuals pay ONLY $ 3,000.00 per year in Federal income taxes, SSI, etc, the total is 11 BILLION dollars PER YEAR, off the top.

We have already wasted 100s of billions of dollars on programs, such as the 700+ billion dollar TARP, that have not created a single job, so why not spend a fraction of that amount on a program that will actually work, and will actually create job openings, and reduce unemployment ?

If the early retirement program were in effect for just a few years, say 2008, 2009,2010, 2011, and assuming the program actually begins in 2009:

If we had this program in effect for the next three years, beginning in 2009, the maximum cost would be about 658.6 billion dollars:

Age 62………………2008…….2009…….2010…….2011


Total…………………………….146.2…….219.6……292.8…..=……658.6 billion dollars

In reality, each year would be much less that 73.2 billion because the individuals would not be eligible to retire until they have attained the age of 62, which, for the population, would be distributed over the whole year.

In terms of jobs created, we could create almost 33 million job openings:

Age 62……….2008……….2009………..2010………..2011


Total………………………….7.32……….10.98………..14.64….=….32.92 million jobs


In a couple years, we could actually have a labor shortage, and wages would be forced up, and, hence, tax revenues would also increase.

Even if my figures are off by 50%, we’ve still created 3.66 million jobs immediately, and 12.8 million
more job openings in subsequent years.

Another plus, is that the retired individuals are not going to live forever, and their numbers will decrease steadily with each year, decreasing the over all cost.

On it’s surface, this kind sounds like a crack-pot idea, but……. maybe it wouldn’t hurt to do some serious number crunching on this one…

And that is just my opinion.

Spencer Holly, AngryCalifornian

Employment Lawyer He can Protect Workers’ Rights

The relationship between a worker and their employer can be a wonderful arrangement. It can also be fraught with unfair treatment that needs the attention of an employment lawyer. While many employers are just as upstanding and hard working as their workers, there are some that are so focused on the bottom line that they infringe on the rights of their employees. Some of the issues that such lawyers can help with include:

Sexual Discrimination: It is illegal to be discriminated against in the employment arena due to gender. Age Discrimination: An adult person’s age cannot be used to determine wages or job availability. If a person can do the work, it doesn’t legally matter how old they are. This, of course, is not true for minors. Minors under the age of eighteen years of age may only work under specified conditions and hours.

Sexual Harassment: A person may not be harassed sexually during the course of their employment. This covers a broad spectrum including intimidation, insults or derogatory language.

Pregnancy Discrimination: Each employer must adhere to legal guidelines in regards to pregnant employees. Pregnancy is never a reason to engage in discriminatory practices.

Wrongful Termination: A proper course of action must be adhered to in the termination of an employee. Wrongful termination is a cause for legal intervention. Problems Related to Severance Packages: Issues do arise regarding severance packages. Issues may include what is rightfully owed to the employee and how the package will be distributed.

Disability Discrimination: A person can not be discriminated against because of disability limitations. Legal intervention is necessary if this type of discrimination should occur.

Race Discrimination: A person’s race has no bearing on their ability to carry out their job. Using race as a deciding factor in job selection or wages is illegal. Problems with Contract Negotiations: Employment lawyers can help with individual contract issues as well as broad scale company or union negotiations. Problems Related to Family Leave Issues: A certain amount of family leave is a person’s right. If problems occur, legal guidance may become necessary.

If legal issues come up within a workplace environment, it is important to have an attorney step in. Workers, like all citizens, have rights to be treated fairly and without harassment or harmful discrimination. They also have the right to work in a safe environment. If an employee finds that this is not the case where they work, they should consult with an employment lawyer as soon as possible.

An employment lawyer, Media PA specializes in employment law cases and is eager to help you resolve your dilemma, so you can continue to work. Firms here provide top-notch legal protection and legal counsel for those in need of an employment lawyer. To know more, visit http://www.benarilawfirm.com

Best Legal Advice Warranted For Employment Tribunals

Many states are coming up with their independent employment tribunals as part of rapid dealing with cases related to jobs and such circumstances. Tribunals have been resorted to by many governments, both at the local centres and also at the state levels. These are courts which deal with matters of governance and of civil nature, but mostly their functions are to hear out cases which can be dealt without having a jury or long trials. Tribunals are usually meant to expedite civil cases, which are concerned with administrative matters. Judges sitting in chair in employment tribunals are either specially deputed from the regular courts or have special expertise in administrative cases.

Whenever employment related issues are to be brought into the court of law, it is seen that tribunals are the best places to go because the final word can be received quickly. If an applicant is not satisfied with the results, then the case can be taken to the higher levels. But if things are alright for them, then it is very easy and even productive to start at the very beginning. Since special cases are only heard in these tribunals, not every lawyer or solicitor would be able to handle the cases.

Further, general public is totally unaware about the proceedings inside the court room. For this reason, legal advice is highly essential whenever matters of employment are brought before the employment tribunals. Lawyers can be contacted when these kinds of cases are forthcoming. People can approach solicitors of repute, who have been handling the cases and have the necessary expertise to give them legal advice. Many people are there, who are not in the knowledge of such specialised lawyers.

To get more information on them, people should ask about in the court or their lawyer friends to suggest the name of the right solicitors for them. With the right kind of advice on legal matters, clients can be sure of getting a reprieve in their cases, or at best they will have a proper representation in the court of law. During any problem that arises in case of employment or in offices or work related environment, aggrieved persons can go for the employment tribunals, through the employment lawyers or solicitors.

It has become customary nowadays, much because of the fact that people are becoming aware about their rights and also because there are plenty of experts who can provide legal advice on matters related exactly to employment. These are people who have had specialisation of employment and labour laws in their courses or have been practising the same in courts for many years now. Taking advice about matters pertaining to employment tribunals is therefore the usual method to start of a case these days, so much so that employment related lawyers are beginning to go for these features by getting the proper mileage and advertisement.

Proving Race Discrimination In Employment

Direct race discrimination is when an organisation (or an employee of the organisation) treats a person less favourably than someone else on racial grounds. Proving direct race discrimination is not trivial. The burden of proof is on the employee alleging the discrimination. The UK landmark case of Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins of 2006, where the Employment Tribunal’s finding of race discrimination led (after Abbey National’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s order to re-instate Mr Chagger to remedy its wrongdoing) to the record 2.8 million compensation order, serves to illustrate the burden of proof in race discrimination. Abbey National (being re-branded as Santander from 2010 and being part of the Banco Santander Group) employed Balbinder Chagger as one of its two Trading Risk Controllers, both managed by Nigel Hopkins. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin. He earned approximately 100,000 per year. Abbey National dismissed him in 2006, apparently for reasons of redundancy. The redundancy pool of selection was he and the other Trading Risk Controller, a white female.

The employee alleging the race discrimination must prove that his employer, on the balance of probabilities, discriminated against him on racial grounds. On the balance of probabilities means that the alleger needs to prove that it is more likely than not that the employer treated him differently on the grounds of his race; the alleger does not need to prove with absolute certainty that the employer discriminated.

The alleger must prove that he was treated less favourably than someone else (preferably a real comparator, but it could also be a hypothetical comparator) on the grounds of race. This can often be very difficult because the employer will almost always deny that the alleged discrimination had anything to do with race.

Mr Chagger established a case based on facts suggesting there had been race discrimination. The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Chagger had been selected for redundancy and had been dismissed and that a real comparator (the other Trading Risk Controller) had not. The Tribunal noted that there was a difference in race, colour and ethnic origin between Mr Chagger and the comparator. The Tribunal noted the following: Mr Chagger’s selection for redundancy was grossly unfair; Mr Hopkins had predetermined that Mr Chagger would be the employee that would be selected for redundancy; Mr Hopkins had used the redundancy selection process as a means to remove Mr Chagger from his position; Mr Hopkins had reduced Mr Chagger’s redundancy scores on matters which no reasonable employer would have taken into account; Abbey National provided no Equal Opportunity training for any of the managers it assigned to hear and decide on Mr Chagger’s issues and complaints of race discrimination; Abbey National failed to answer Mr Chagger’s Race Relations Act Questionnaire; and Abbey National was in breach of the statutory Code of Practice on Racial Policy in Employment by failing to carry out monitoring, failing to take allegations of race discrimination seriously, and failing to investigate them promptly.

If the alleger can establish a case based on facts suggesting there has been race discrimination, then the burden of proof could shift to the employer to prove otherwise. The employer will then be burdened with the task of having to prove that it would have treated in a similar way someone else who was not of the same racial group as the alleger. If the employer does not have any non-discriminatory explanation, or if the Tribunal finds the explanation inadequate or unsatisfactory, then the Tribunal must infer discrimination on racial grounds.

The Tribunal was satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. The Tribunal, therefore, passed the burden of proof to Abbey National and Mr Hopkins to show that there was no discrimination whatsoever in respect of Mr Chagger’s selection for redundancy and dismissal.

The employer will almost always deny that the alleged discrimination had anything to do with race. The explanation that Abbey National and Mr Hopkins put forward was that the selection for redundancy and dismissal was carried out fairly. The Tribunal rejected this explanation for the factors listed above. Abbey National then put forward an alternative explanation, that Mr Hopkins and Mr Chagger could not have had any reasonable working relationship (that is, the difference in treatment suffered by Mr Chagger was for a reason other than racial grounds). The Tribunal could not rely on this explanation; it was an explanation that Mr Hopkins himself did not accept.

Entrepreneurial Options

Very few people ever got rich by working for someone else. Leaving aside pop musicians, sportsmen and similarly gifted people, the only way to acquire wealth by work is to build a business of your own. The type of business you decide upon will depend on: a) how much money you have available as start-up capital and working capital; b) your business idea; and c) your confidence level.

There are three types of business: 1) the traditional one in which you are reliant solely on your own efforts; 2) a franchise where you follow a proven idea and receive considerable training and back-up from the franchise company; and 3) network marketing.

Each business type has its pros and cons.

The traditional business requires considerable financial input, either from your own resources or part-funded by your bank. You may need to rent premises; buy equipment; hire staff; pay for advertising, brochures, stationery, and stock. A frighteningly high percentage of this type of business fails in the first year. To succeed you need: a good idea, considerable financial backing, good health, an understanding spouse, and stamina. If you do succeed you will own the business outright and benefit from all the profits.
Franchises have a high success rate. Banks like them because each franchise operation has a proven track record and thus the banks can accurately judge the risk, consequently they will lend money for this sort of start-up. However, all the support and training comes at a price: the initial entrance fee is likely to be very high, and a percentage of the business’s turnover has to be paid to the franchise company.
Network marketing, also known as multi-level marketing, has many advantages and few disadvantages. The entrance fee is low and the ongoing expenses are even lower. A network marketing business can be started in your spare time – in fact that is the best way to approach it. Start small, and keep at it. The secret is perseverance, get past the first year and you should find the business has a sound foundation from which you can build a serious income. It is said that 95% of those who survive ten years in network marketing become wealthy beyond their wildest expectations.

So which type of business is for you? If you wish to provide a service or product where you have previous experience from, say, a former employment, the traditional business will be probably be the best choice. However, if you are just tired of working for someone else and making them rich and wish to strike out on your own, then a franchise or network marketing must be the preferred option.

The choice then is determined chiefly by the funds you have access to, and the time and effort you wish to put into your enterprise. A franchise will require substantial funds and 100% commitment. You are jumping in at the deep end, although the franchise company will provide training and support to help you to swim.
On the other hand you can ease yourself gently into network marketing by starting part-time while you continue with your current employment, building your business by ploughing back profits if necessary. Persevere and there will come a time when the income from your own business will be sufficient to support you financially. You will then be able to leave your employment and concentrate on your business, spending more time on it or enjoying considerable free time with your family.