The Glade 4.0

or some such.
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/22334844/detail.html


So we'll pay older workers to retire to free up their positions? How... umm... insightful? Creative? Mathematically challenged?

_________________

Is that such a terrible idea? Examine it on it's merits, or at the very least come up with a better thread title.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

It's not completely terrible; many companies offer early retirement packages that are cheaper in the long run than retaining workers.

However A) Hopwin has examined it on its merits insofar as the very brief information available and B) the inevitable conclusion is that the government will end up paying for this retirement with money it doesn't have and there are no corresponding savings to anyone except possibly some companies who can hire new workers for less money.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Rats! And I thought, by the thread title, I was gonna get back to work, finally.

Ding.

_________________

Its pretty much giving the money right to the businesses in the form of cheaper labor with less accrued vacation time while relieving the businesses from having to pay a higher reward to get older staff to accept early retirement.

I thought you didn't like it when the government gave business favors from the public coffers Monte.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Isn't that what social security is? So basically he's saying we need to lower the retirement age?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I'm not sure which one it is yet, I can guarentee from the context that it's one of his three old standby positions.

a) Not reading an article or the OP before posting himself to comment on the article and/or OP.
b) Jumping into ignorance fueled attack mode against a presumed "conservative" author, regardless of content.
c) Pathological, bipolar peak and valleyesque, inconsistancy.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Yes, but remember Dennis Kucinich proposed it. Therefore, it must be a good idea since Dennis Kucinich has lots of credibility with liberals. It's the same reason that anything Rush Limbaugh can be disregarded by them, just applied in the opposite direction, and hence the demand to "examine it on its merits".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Have you noticed that when stupid conservative ideas get painted up and made fashionable (Fashion is the number one feature of attractiveness for "Liberals" it seems), they become plausible, reasonable *and* being ushered in under a public mandate?

Even the word Liberal is more fashionable than conservative. Conservative gives the impression of old, outmoded and obslete.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

What jobs is he adding? None. He is just shifting positions from those already employed to those looking for jobs by retiring the people already in those positions.

Depending on the exact nature of his "bill", if a private company were to implement such a plan, they would be sued for age discrimination.

Rynar:

I'm fairly certain you can challenge Montegue's response and its lack of forethought without insinuating mental instability.

Montegue:

What exactly do you see as the merits of this plan?

_________________

Ah, but shifting the positions in that way reduces the unemployment statistic. Nevermind that it produces no more jobs and no more income for the population (nor even any more revenue for the government!).. it looks good for the politicians when they can trot out that unemployment graph, and that's all that matters.

I wonder which is cheaper: government funded, limited duration unemployment benefits; or government funded retirement incentives + retirement benefits?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

It actually has a net reduction in tax revenue for the government, state and federal, while increasing expenses. Its a good plan, I highly recommend it.

Yep, I forgot to point that part out; it's commensurate with the net reduction in population income, and amplified by the low tax burden retired people generally face.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Oh, I didn't insinuate mental instability. I was speaking only of method, not motive.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I honestly don't know if I like it or not. There's no guarantee that younger workers would be hired or that *anyone* would be hired if his plan were enacted. It may not have it's intended effect. If I saw some more in depth analysis, I might be able to make a better call on supporting it or not.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

If they plan to replace the older skilled workers with trainees sans clues, its an idiotic idea.

The general run is the older skilled workers phase out training almost as skilled workers to do their jobs, who then train the ones below them to do their jobs, etc. until you get to the newbs who get to sweep the floor and learn as they go. The savings is almost always overestimated as the companies then spend the next year getting their workforce retrained.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Same deal with most compensation packages. They under pay so they have high turnover which results in perpetual training and massive loss of competitive intelligence. Some day companies might learn that when you treat people well and compensate them fairly you save in the long run. It isn't sexy but its true.

_________________

Alright, but I don't think you need third party analysis to see that this is a bad idea. One of the major problems facing the American job force is a lack of workplace skill and discipline. While there are certainly talented and dedicated people in the work force from Generations X, Y, and Whatever the **** Comes After (tm), the current career model is actually expensive and counterproductive from a business standpoint. Asset level employees are expect to change positions and employers every 6 years. The cost of replacing those employees generally far exceeds their salary demands and expectation. However, companies rarely, if ever, provide internal career path development any longer. Consequently, no one goes from the mail room to the boardroom to borrow a popular metaphor.

The individuals likely to take voluntary retirement in this situation are either going to be very poor or financially indifferent to the government offering. And, as it stands, I'm fairly certain the majority of them will fall into the latter group. Realistically speaking, however, we don't have the young talent to replace them cost-effectively. So companies will hire two or more people at a fraction of the exit salary (20-25% max in most cases) and hand off their handling to someone who didn't retire. It increases the inefficiency of the organization. Plus, given first year turn over rates in career path positions, it will end up costing the company money over the first five years: money the government will pony up as incentive cash.

Just doesn't seem logical if you ask me.

_________________