PDA

View Full Version : chart to Retire


skate
02-18-2008, 01:39 PM
http://www.investmentu.com/images/20070209_IU.gif

ljb
02-18-2008, 02:28 PM
Where is the section for going back to work as a Wal-mart greeter? :D

kenwoodallpromos
02-18-2008, 02:44 PM
30% foreign stock, 30% US stock- where is the majority workforce for those companies?

Tom
02-18-2008, 03:12 PM
The foreign stocks are the jobs we used to have here.

skate
02-19-2008, 06:37 PM
Ok OK OK, i understand, jobs lost, Zippo, gone, now what?

Many jobs are elsewhere, but people are still here, whatnow you ask?

And someone (skate) says, many jobs are still here and not only that, but many many new jobs are created due to "Jobe going Elsewhere".

Jobs lost are not significant to society. Oh yes, you adjust to the New Economy, with a NEW job.

The adage about "working in Macs" is full of crap, you know it.;)


Merchandise coming from overseas, creates more Money flow (creates jobs) than if the Merchandise were made here.

RR have been getting ready, big time, for the continuation of MORE and MORE transportation.

Transporting what? ask the-skate.

skate
02-19-2008, 06:42 PM
The foreign stocks are the jobs we used to have here.

correct, and if we invest in those stocks, the invested money does the work that we use to do...


While we still have more jobs (good pay) than ever before. So, we have the best of two worlds.


Problems, yes. but jobs lose is not a problem.

ljb
02-19-2008, 07:36 PM
Skate,
What world do you live in ?

skate
02-19-2008, 07:42 PM
Skate,
What world do you live in ?

Ahhh, are you saying it's "my choice"

or is it, you have something to say?

ljb
02-20-2008, 06:54 AM
yes

Tom
02-20-2008, 07:37 AM
Yeah, I'd be happy to take a $20K cut in pay to support the flow of jobs outside our country if I had to.
Wait a minute.....I DID!

Just what we need here - more McJobs. I didn't even get fries with mine.:lol:

riskman
02-20-2008, 04:07 PM
The only reason stealing is a crime in America is because the government hates competition.

chickenhead
02-20-2008, 04:21 PM
pandoras box has been opened and there isn't any closing it. Its a brave new world of competition. What irks me is that we are not doing what we need to do to be (more) competetive.

We need to be producing smarter young people who get it. Some people complain...but the squeeze hasn't been felt yet. We are not ahead of the curve, we're behind. And we're soft...coasting on our pre-existing advantages.

skate
02-20-2008, 04:24 PM
of corsey, you might be correct...but,

no question about:

1) we just broke the record for consecutive Quarters increase in Employment.
2) Our worth is higher than ever.
3) even with all the immigration, we could not handle the factory jobs that closed.
4) we have about 6 bidders for a building in NYC bidding over $3 Billion. the building cost about $8million 30 years ago, and that was when Businesses really went Overseas. those new renters will have to eat, and they'll pay about $35 for a big Mac, so, you'll be looking for a pay hike.
Also, that makes for some expensive rent. Which leaves NO room for your factories etc.
5) The choice is not about lost jobs, but rather, the choice is "find a new one" which will come with higher wages.

chickenhead
02-20-2008, 04:33 PM
its not about any of that stuff. focus

1.) we need to maintain lowish tax rates...which means we have to fix social security and medicare. Have to. Now. Period. Aren't going to. That's very bad.

2.) good jobs require skills...our schools are broken, they suck. They need to get much better soon. They aren't going to. That's very bad.

pretty much all the othe talk that goes on is window dressing if we don't do those two things.

skate
02-20-2008, 05:30 PM
its not about any of that stuff. focus

1.) we need to maintain lowish tax rates...which means we have to fix social security and medicare. Have to. Now. Period. Aren't going to. That's very bad.

2.) good jobs require skills...our schools are broken, they suck. They need to get much better soon. They aren't going to. That's very bad.

pretty much all the othe talk that goes on is window dressing if we don't do those two things.

OK ok ok, here i go focus focus Focus. What i was looking at was "job lose".

But but butt, it's tough to have all the answers at once, even tough to have one answer at once.

Lower tax rates would go a long way to help. we should really look at the facts, we're in very good shape.
It figures that if we increase the GDP, along the same % (2.5 or above) as we have over the last 5 years or more, then the S.S. situation would take care of itself.

Good jobs would need definition. Does pay scale being higher equal better jobs?
We have an abundance of good jobs, especially since the illegals are moving back south.

Schools are paying very good wages where i live, 5 years ago they paid $90,000 and up and that's (like all schools) part time.
More children (not all) in the right schools are getting better education today than 30/40 years ago.

When you say we need...and you ask someone to focus, i answer with, sure , but give me a particular.

The only issue out of controlis violence, which comes from Hollywood and drugs. Take them away and schools are fine.

chickenhead
02-20-2008, 05:51 PM
Good jobs would need definition. Does pay scale being higher equal better jobs?
We have an abundance of good jobs, especially since the illegals are moving back south.

Most of your ideas for good jobs don't require any education, so maybe you think it doesn't matter, anyway. People with skills generally will end up better off than people without skills. A nation of engineers will generally end up ahead of a nation of truck drivers and rug cleaners.

It figures that if we increase the GDP, along the same % (2.5 or above) as we have over the last 5 years or more, then the S.S. situation would take care of itself.

This proves you haven't been paying attention. SS Benefits are tied to wages. It's impossible to grow out of the problem. Otherwise, we already would have grown out of it....but we haven't...and we won't.

"It will just all be better like magic!" is a great philosophy, except when action is actually required. SO heres particular #1 you can stash away some where: SS Benefits should be indexed to inflation.

wonatthewire1
02-20-2008, 08:20 PM
Can you get there?

http://www.firecalc.com/

http://www.flexibleretirementplanner.com/

Both are free to use...

chickenhead
02-20-2008, 10:11 PM
This proves you haven't been paying attention.

I know I know, the inertia of an entire generation (or two) sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to face up to facts is a difficult one to overcome all at once...it goes without saying that most people have chosen not to pay attention (paying attention means getting less and paying more, thats no fun, let's leave that for the kids!)

But, on the off chance you do want to read about it.......go here and peruse around

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/socsec/

skate
02-21-2008, 05:48 PM
Most of your ideas for good jobs don't require any education, so maybe you think it doesn't matter, anyway. People with skills generally will end up better off than people without skills. A nation of engineers will generally end up ahead of a nation of truck drivers and rug cleaners.





OK ok ok, patience (for the-skate), lookey, Most of my ideas have NOT been stated. so you are not correct.
When you say "people with skills", you leave me hanging. What are the skills?
And your third point (likely tied to your second?) is sooooooooo easy to understand, but first let me ask/say " this is exactly MY point"

You are not alone, while fighting the issue. The only point that i would like to make contradicts what you say about my ideas and what you imply are my thoughts.

If you give some thought yourself about your line ending with rug cleaners. You see, as would have it, MY opinion is that society would be much better off with good Engineers and good Truck drivers, bingo with the Both.





This proves you haven't been paying attention. SS Benefits are tied to wages. It's impossible to grow out of the problem. Otherwise, we already would have grown out of it....but we haven't...and we won't.


Look, ok, i'm too too too very much stupid, ok fine. feel better now?

Aside from your proof, get this one please, EVERYTHING we are talking about is tied to WAGES. It is quite impossible to think that because we still have a problem, that the fact the problem still exist is proof that we can not outgrow said problem.

It is a Mathematical fact, that if we increase GDP (some say 2.5%, over a period) we can erase any Money problem. if you then apply the increase to said problem, simple, the end.




"It will just all be better like magic!" is a great philosophy, except when action is actually required. SO heres particular #1 you can stash away some where: SS Benefits should be indexed to inflation.

go ahead, index, im not sure about what you are saying here, when you add things like "Magic", because before you add to MY thoughts, what I'm saying is not magic, but only pure Math.

skate
02-21-2008, 06:04 PM
Chickinlittle


As i remember, what i was saying about employment, was in direct reference to questions about Factory Jobs Lost.
And because the question was in regards to factory jobs, i thought long and hard about what job market would a factory worker look into?

1)school teacher
2) religious order
2) porno
3) enginering

Now being really stupid, what i did was, look for jobs that PAID.

Boy oh boy, what a wad am me.

chickenhead
02-21-2008, 08:05 PM
It is a Mathematical fact, that if we increase GDP (some say 2.5%, over a period) we can erase any Money problem. if you then apply the increase to said problem, simple, the end.

No, it is not. You whine and say "you don't know what I really think" wha wha wha :( and continue to say the same thing...which is flatly incorrect.

Our economy has been growing for decades. I'm sure you had the same 5 year theory 5 years ago....guess what, here we are 5 years later, and nothing has changed. What is necessary is no more affordable, no easier. It's more expensive and more painful.

We can do this again in 5 more years, guess what, it will be even more expensive, and more painful.

You grow the economy at 2.5%...and I'll grow benefits at 3.5%....and lets get together on any day you want in the future...and YOU can EXPLAIN to ME...the math of the situation.

chickenhead
02-21-2008, 10:27 PM
ok skate...this is as a % of GDP. This is factoring in your magic bullet solution....this assumes (of course) GDP continues to grow

combined percentage of GDP SS, medicare, medicaid....almost doubles from 2000 to 2030. Why, because they are growing faster than the economy, of course. If they weren't, we wouldn't have a problem.

I should note this is actually an optimistic picture...it was made at that brief period of time when they actually projected budget surpluses.

skate
02-22-2008, 06:07 PM
:lol: , wine baby. more wine for the-skate.


Hey hey, they have you "on stuck";) and you'll stay stuck until you grasp onto some "Skate Knowledge".

now i'm not gonna say it all right now but...soon...:cool:

In reverse order, somewhat...because if you can grasp this part, then no need to bring on the heavy ammunition. Oh, i know you can, but you gotta let go, first.

Health care and SS will not grow faster than GDP/per cap bases, hence, increase will decline until it equals GDP growth. It can't grow faster than per cap. GDP unless unless ALL other consumption go ZERO.

One other fast point, if you attach SS to inflation (if that's what you ment?) that would mean, when Inflation goes up (costing people more to live) then your Tax also goes up.

We have an opening in "CUBA". nice place to hide.

Another short point here, i believe you are thinking "raise tax to pay for SS and Health care", while the-skate says "increase GDP".
And of coarse, we need DEBT to raise GDP.

We, congress just went about cutting, while talking about raise in taxes, this put a scare into the economy. We shall see if i'm correct, shortly, because the $160 Billion (tax cut) should bring back the Healthy 2.5% increase in GDP.

chickenhead
02-22-2008, 06:28 PM
Health care and SS will not grow faster than GDP/per cap bases, hence, increase will decline until it equals GDP growth. It can't grow faster than per cap. GDP unless unless ALL other consumption go ZERO.

what do you mean it can't, it has been for decades. Every year, we spend a greater percentage of GDP on these things. Which yes, means less on other things. Your sentence is the very reason it needs to be reformed, because we can't allow it to continue. Make no mistake tho, unless the laws get changed, it will continue eating up more every year, each and every year. It is the current law, its not a market mechanism...it will continue until the laws gets changed.

One other fast point, if you attach SS to inflation (if that's what you ment?) that would mean, when Inflation goes up (costing people more to live) then your Tax also goes up.

the revenues and the benefits are not hinged together, they are independant. If you're taxing the wage base...a fixed tax....but you pay benefits indexed to inflation....so long as wages grow faster than inflation, you have a sustainable situation. The benefits only keep the same absolute value over time....right now, they keep the same percentage of standard of living. The benefits right now, are actually growing faster than wages. Think about that.

skate
02-22-2008, 06:52 PM
what do you mean it can't, it has been for decades. Every year, we spend a greater percentage of GDP on these things. Think about that.

Hey Stuckey, "it Can't" Keep doing whats been done, immpossible. to keep doing what its doing would mean Taking over the entire GPD.

Now, as a mater of fact, 75 year SS & Med. deficit is equal to 1.95%/ Taxable patroll.

Last year, as a mater of fact, that figuyre was 2.02% of taxable payroll.

Whatever you like about using figures from the past, fine, but the-skate sees the fact that these increases Can Not Keep Increasing as a % of GDP. You must admit that in order for the % of SS &Med to keep increasing, that would mean the SS&Med %cost would equal 100% of GDP, simple.;) Can't hapen.

What will happen, the cost % will rise slower than the GDP. And that % increase in GDP has to equal about 3% or less of the total SS &Med.


Forget about increase in Tax. Decrease tax to increase GDP in order to cover SS &Med increase.

gotta go

chickenhead
02-22-2008, 07:03 PM
What will happen, the cost % will rise slower than the GDP.

And what is the mechanism for making that happen? What mechanism is going to kick in to cause the rate to slow down? There is only one, which is changing the way these programs are run. What is past is prologue...the way costs have grown in the past using these same rules...is exactly the same way they are going to continue to grow in the future, until the rules have changed. That is the entire point.

Yes, it will become such an enormous painful damper on our economy that we will at some point change the rules...the situation is not sustainable (again, the entire point). It will change. But the sooner the changes are made, the better, the easier it will be for people to deal with and to afford, to be able to plan a retirement. The longer we wait, the more expensive, and the more unfair the changes become.


Forget about increase in Tax. Decrease tax to increase GDP in order to cover SS &Med increase.

Neither. Decrease benefits, and increase savings.

skate
02-24-2008, 09:37 PM
And what is the mechanism for making that happen? What mechanism is going to kick in to cause the rate to slow down? There is only one, which is changing the way these programs are run. What is past is prologue...the way costs have grown in the past using these same rules...is exactly the same way they are going to continue to grow in the future, until the rules have changed. That is the entire point.

Yes, it will become such an enormous painful damper on our economy that we will at some point change the rules...the situation is not sustainable (again, the entire point). It will change. But the sooner the changes are made, the better, the easier it will be for people to deal with and to afford, to be able to plan a retirement. The longer we wait, the more expensive, and the more unfair the changes become.











Relax, all bases are covered.
This is sooooooooooooo easy, but first, take a breath. Now, you keep saying that the cost is going (you imply, ALways) up, but you should make an allowance for the very fact that WE (USA) have not stopped increasing coverage. Once we have the coverage needed for everyone (we keep getting closer) BINGO "level is as level does". The Money (as water) will search for the Level.
GDP will then carry SS&Med, as long as its stays above 2.5%.






Neither. Decrease benefits, and increase savings.


i don't know where you are going with this. Whose benifits, for what? Savings for whom? The gov.?

If you wanna go that route, you need more Docs and more lawyers (with a limit) who end up paying when they lose. Or something along those lines.:eek: