Editorial

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/05/charles-koch-how-to-rea...

Second, we should eliminate the artificial cost of hiring. Government policies such as Obamacare have given businesses a powerful incentive to hire two part-time people to do one full-time job. This trend was reflected in June's employment data, which included the loss of half a million full-time jobs. In 2007, 4.4 million Americans worked part-time jobs because they could not find full-time work. That number now stands at 7.5 million, up 275,000 in June. "The existence of such a large pool of 'partly unemployed' workers," Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said, "is a sign that labor conditions are worse than indicated by the unemployment rate."

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I think the editorial's focus on people obtaining skills and education to reach their potential defines--in a nutshell--what's wrong with the Country.

Most of my family members who are 30+ years old have prepared themselves via education and/or training for a career. But my family members under 30 seem to be unconcerned about their futures. They are fortunate in that their families have offered to pay for a college education or any alternative specialized training--yet they blew their chances by flunking out of college. Now they drift from one no-future job to another.

What I foresee is a growing divide between the people who are motivated to be successful and those who somehow thought life was just going to "happen" without any effort on their parts. "I breathe--therefore I should have as much as you."

Oh Galt, please stop the rightwing angle. Sure, there's some of that going on, but plenty of people today realize that the American Dream is largely a fantasy. They can't afford it, and those who try have to take big risks to get it. It's like telling people they need to put their money in the Wall Street casino in order to have a substantial retirement... oh wait, that's exactly what people are told.

I don't blame people for just dropping out. I've done so myself. I largely spend money when I have to, not when I want to. That essentially eliminates my contribution to the 70% share of the economy that's driven by consumer spending.

It would be nice to just spend money like a "real person". I'd like to take vacations, for example. But I don't dare, since the rightwing economy combined with the leftwing government, means its foolish for me to assume that I'll get a paycheck next month. I endured punishment enough about these points when I returned to Toledo after over a decade away. Now I learned. And I learned that when it comes to money, it's all about me... not you. My money is for me, since I never know when I'll be unemployed again, and when unemployment strikes again, I never know how long it will persist. Hence, I've dropped out, and if that affects your own income stream, then too bad for you. Since the economy forces me to choose between myself and you, naturally I choose 'me'.

I never berate someone who believes they should keep the money they earn. I'm all for that.

Now, if you had a government job in Ohio, you wouldn't have to worry about retirement income. I'd like to give you an example. My neighbor has worked in maintenance at UT for 35 years. He belongs to the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS). He has contributed--as a requirement--10% of his income into PERS (in place of paying Into Social Security). He asked me to go with him to Columbus to talk to a PERS rep about his upcoming retirement. Here's the scoop:

The average of his 5 highest income years is $43,000 (round figures). He will receive 77% of this as his annual retirement income (this is based on his 35 years). His annual income will be $33,110. Now, if you figure that he will no longer have 10% of his income deducted for retirement, he will be essentially making 87% of the salary he earned while working.

He also has enough quarters from a previous job that he will be allowed to collect $3,200 a year in Social a Security. So he will be collecting just about exactly as much in retirement as he made while working. And he can take a part-time job 90 days after retirement and not lose a dime.

He has us taxpayers (and the Democrats who have established this retirement system in order to obtain the State employees' votes) to thank for his secure and lucrative retirement.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.