Other inequities are just as disturbing. The Congressional Research Service found that in 1990, a 50-year-old man would have lived, on average, to the age of 88 — as long as his income was in the top decile. If that man had an income in the lowest decile, he would have most likely died 12 years sooner.That, naturally, is on top of two other facts that the author wasn't as interested in.
First, for those in the lower deciles of income and education tend toward physical work, which becomes difficult to impossible after one's mid-60s. Forcing such folk to continue in labor is cruel.
Second, it is well known that age discrimination in hiring is real, not imaginary. If workers manage to not become unemployed after 55 (for example), then continuing to work until 70 can happen. On the other hand, if a 56 year old gets canned, even because the XYZ corp. closed the plant s/he was working in, the chances of getting another job (at the same wage??) is slim. Well, make that 45.
Hiring managers admit they are reluctant to hire those over 40 or 45, arguing they probably won't be a good "fit," their experience won't be relevant to the workplace, and they'll be unable or unwilling to learn new skills.And there remains the fact, offered here more than once, that life expectancy at 65 hasn't changed by very many years in decades. It hasn't changed by all that much at age 25 or 35 in decades. Anyone who makes it to adulthood since WWII, or thereabouts, lives about the same time. What has changed is the revelation (who knew??) that the Baby Boomers were/are a pig-in-the-python cohort that paid for SS and Medicare for the parents and grandparents, and there isn't another pig to bail out the Boomers as they exit the ass end of the python. Boo hoo.
No comments:
Post a Comment