Ineresting post from Boomer Death Watch, it was first posted in 2008, so as we move into the Labour Day weekend I thought it would give us some time to reflect
This piece, from the Calgary Herald, starts its argument on this frightening economic fact, already known to boomer-watchers everywhere:
One problem though. Many of us poor Xers have been waiting our whole lives for the boomers to retire, so that we can get a shot at the jobs they've been hogging their whole lives, if only for a few years until we retire, bitter and spent from years of nursing our grudges. Calling for an end to mandatory retirement is what will separate the true believers in conservative economic practice ("the economy is paramount; all else follows") from those who are willing to suffer the decade of "losing skilled labour" for a kick at the can. For those people, "doing the next generation a favour" has little appeal - they're the boomers' kids, and they've been squeezing us from the other side for almost as long. So screw 'em.
I hope, at the very least, that this leads to an interesting thread in the comments section.
This piece, from the Calgary Herald, starts its argument on this frightening economic fact, already known to boomer-watchers everywhere:
Proceeding to the assumption that over-65s who keep working live longer (a leap of faith based on a University of Maryland study), it makes simple economic sense to scrap mandatory retirement just so that boomers can keep contributing to the economy, and not looting it by drawing on savings and the CPP until their (medically delayed) demise:
| "Mandatory retirement has to go. Boomers tend to be well-educated. In the workforce, they're productive, and with Canada's demographics, losing skilled labour is going to hurt in about 10 years. Finally, it would be doing the next generation a favour. As well as educated, boomers tend to be healthy and will live a long time. Out of the workforce, they'll be expensive to keep." |
One problem though. Many of us poor Xers have been waiting our whole lives for the boomers to retire, so that we can get a shot at the jobs they've been hogging their whole lives, if only for a few years until we retire, bitter and spent from years of nursing our grudges. Calling for an end to mandatory retirement is what will separate the true believers in conservative economic practice ("the economy is paramount; all else follows") from those who are willing to suffer the decade of "losing skilled labour" for a kick at the can. For those people, "doing the next generation a favour" has little appeal - they're the boomers' kids, and they've been squeezing us from the other side for almost as long. So screw 'em.
I hope, at the very least, that this leads to an interesting thread in the comments section.
No comments:
Post a Comment