[Seraphim]

Source:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


At the time of posting:

US population 312,158,431
US work force (population aged 18-64) 139,207,930
Official Unemployed (laid off in last year & can't find job) 13,804,247
Actual Unemployed (includes those laid off more than 1 year, and 'career' unemployed) 24,531,231
Income Tax payers 112,073,843
Retirees and SSI 65,885,740
Food Stamp Recipients 45,638,731

Discussion on other displayed figures welcome as well.

One thing I note: it seems the 'official' unemployment rate of 9.1% is, in actuality, a lot higher.

[LOL WUT]

I think these numbers state that 44.6% of the population is working, 15.0% of possible workers are not, 58.8% of income tax payers have a senior counterpart eating up social security, and 40.7% of income tax payers have a leeching counterpart eating for free.

[Seraphim]

Only about 36% of the population is working (work force minus actual unemployed / total population). I also get over 17% of the potential labor force unemployed.

[Pika]

	Originally Posted by LOL WUT To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think these numbers state that 44.6% of the population is working, 15.0% of possible workers are not, 58.8% of income tax payers have a senior counterpart eating up social security, and 40.7% of income tax payers have a leeching counterpart eating for free.

"Eating up Social Security" that they contributed to over their working life. It is not as if SS is a government handout. The original idea of SS was that employers and employees would both contribute to a fund that is supposed to provide some minimum level of retirement security. Social Security being paid from the general fund is a perversion of the original idea and one that was not intended in the original concept IIRC.

So, don't blame seniors for the problems of SS. First, they would be fairly easily solved if it were not for gutless politicians. And second, today's seniors and their employers have contributed in good faith to a fund that pays a significant portion of current benefits based on earlier contributions. That SS is not honestly funded speaks more to the fundamental dishonesty of politicians than it does to your implication of parasitic seniors.

[The Frozen One]

It says to me that the economy is thoroughly screwed. Having such a low number of people of course means that the government and programs being run do not have adequate funding to run without increasing debt. That in turn affects our credit standing and the strength (or lack thereof) of the dollar. The affore mentioned list only tells part of the story.

On number not mentioned is the "underemployed". To be more specific, those that want to, but can not find a full time job and have to settle for part time. I also wonder how many of these jobs are low end service sector jobs paying minimum wage. That would paint an even clearer picture of where we stand economically. I would imagine, it wouldn't be a pretty picture.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a link from the Bureau of Labor Statistics about the underemployment rate.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Tristan]

The employment level and age of retirement are being held low by public policy. Not as bad a situation as Europe, but sustainable?

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by Seraphim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Only about 36% of the population is working (work force minus actual unemployed / total population). I also get over 17% of the potential labor force unemployed.

The section of the population aged 18-64 is significantly larger than 139M. Labor force on that table is a tally of non-farm employment. The value you're looking for is called the Civilian-Employment Population ratio (which includes farm labor) and it's around 58% of the total population (or ~178M citizens).

[Seraphim]

Pika

Yes. SSI originally began as a federal mandate for the states to enact on their own. (1935). I'm not sure how it became part of the federal budget ( any history buffs know?). SSI is funded, supposedly completely, by deposits of the participants - no other source of federal income employed. The program has actually been successful, but weakened by congressmen who 'borrowed' funds earmarked for SSI and never paid it back. Its future problems are based more on the changing balance of participating members: a smaller percentage of members paying ahead compared to a greater number ready to begin accepting distributions.

---------- Post added 09-07-2011 at 09:43 AM ----------

Aronnax

Thanks for the education. It's appreciated.

My apologies to lol wut for doubting his figures

---------- Post added 09-07-2011 at 09:52 AM ----------

Sustainable? I don't see how.

[mrhat]

The questions to ask are: When is the system going to collapse? How long will it last? How bad will it be when it does collapse?

[eternaltriangle]

To those saying we are screwed - can you find a data point from a time when we were not screwed that showed different results?

[mllebrie]

Originally Posted by Seraphim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Pika Yes. SSI originally began as a federal mandate for the states to enact on their own. (1935). I'm not sure how it became part of the federal budget ( any history buffs know?). SSI is funded, supposedly completely, by deposits of the participants - no other source of federal income employed. The program has actually been successful, but weakened by congressmen who 'borrowed' funds earmarked for SSI and never paid it back. Its future problems are based more on the changing balance of participating members: a smaller percentage of members paying ahead compared to a greater number ready to begin accepting distributions. ---------- Post added 09-07-2011 at 09:43 AM ---------- Aronnax Thanks for the education. It's appreciated. My apologies to lol wut for doubting his figures ---------- Post added 09-07-2011 at 09:52 AM ---------- Sustainable? I don't see how.

Pffft, yeah right. *Snort* I see so many people on SSI, Medicare Part D (for those who are elderly, disabled or otherwise unable to work) who, I am positive, can probably count the number of days they've worked on one hand.

The most irritating thing is that a lot of them are perfectly able to work. I'm sick of supporting these people when I can barely support myself.

I'll leave the number crunching to the math nerds.

[Seraphim]

mllebrie

I imagine I've seen more abusers of the system over the past 40 years - on a daily working basis. I agree with you, there are abuses that are costing the system money. I consider entitlement a dirty word because there are a large number of leeches on the system - it has grown to a culture: a lifestyle passed from one generation to the next. Overall, however, the basic pension system of SSI has been successful and mostly self supporting.

I neither pay into SSI nor will I receive benefits from it. It can live or die as far as I am personally concerned.

We need, though, to cut the leeches from the [overall] system. A different topic, perhaps.

[Pika]

Originally Posted by mllebrie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Pffft, yeah right. *Snort* I see so many people on SSI, Medicare Part D (for those who are elderly, disabled or otherwise unable to work) who, I am positive, can probably count the number of days they've worked on one hand. The most irritating thing is that a lot of them are perfectly able to work. I'm sick of supporting these people when I can barely support myself. I'll leave the number crunching to the math nerds.

There is a big difference between Social Security Insurance (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). Medicare Part D has nothing to do with Social Security; as stated in its name, it is part of Medicare and (I believe) Medicaid. SSDI was not put in place until 1956.

For someone to be eligible for SSI they need to have worked and paid into the SSI "trust" for 40 quarters (ie. ten years).

For someone to be eligible for SSDI, they need to demonstrate "an impairment of mind or body which continuously renders it impossible for the disabled person to follow any substantial gainful occupation," and was likely to last for "the rest of a person's life." (see
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
). I don't believe that there are any requirements for having paid in for one to be eligible for SS Disability.

I don't think you have any argument with the intent of any of the above programs. Rather, you see problems with their implementation, and justifiably so. I don't think anyone would deny a career-long contributor to SSI a pension nor would we deny a truly disabled person access to SSDI. None of us want to see the elderly or the truly disabled starving to death in the streets. The problem comes with those who "game" the system: Personally, I think there should be a special section of Hell reserved for these parasites.

[Kisai]

Data points are useless. Graphs are the shiznit.

[eternaltriangle]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Data points are useless. Graphs are the shiznit.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Seraphim]

	The problem comes with those who "game" the system: Personally, I think there should be a special section of Hell reserved for these parasites.

Agreed. Thanks for the input, Pika.

---------- Post added 09-09-2011 at 01:53 AM ----------

triangle: the graph's bringing a lot of questions to mind. Anyone know if those in the service are included in the 'civilian employment' figures?

[eternaltriangle]

	Originally Posted by Seraphim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	triangle: the graph's bringing a lot of questions to mind. Anyone know if those in the service are included in the 'civilian employment' figures?

The BLS website says that active duty military (but presumably not people in support roles) is not included in current employment survey data, which is probably what the numerator is.