[mEDITate-OR:

as JGBell

Wrote on Sun, 9/4/2011 - 10:42 am

Bill, fascinating, as ever. However, there is another view of this data that most of U.S. need, that is not shown here.

First, as you are only too well aware, there have been a few layoffs. Some argue that a huge number of U.S. have not only lost our jobs, but have taken "early SS retirement". And, possibly many have delayed taking SS retirement at 65, for economic reasons.

But, your 'time lines" not only do not show U.S. that, they blur the possible impacts.

The first group is not really 55 to 60, but 55 up to 62. The second group are those from 62 up to 65. The third group is after 65 until 71. And, the fourth group is 72 on.

Group 1 cannot retire, and if long term unemployed, they are skewered (sp?). Group 2 can take early retirement, at a cost, but ARE they? Group 3 are those @, or for the non-numeric, AT their current retirement age. They can "retire" with full benefits, but ARE they? Or, are they staying bcuz of economic reasons - either bcuz they need more income, OR that they do not need the money and can wait to get the yearly increases? Group 4 is at the age where they get what they get - no more, no less, unless they die.

What MATTERS to the rest of U.S. is what is really happening to those who can NOT retire early, and have lost their jobs? What is really happening to those who CAN take early retirement - did they? Stop paying in, and begin collecting? And, what is really happening to those who could get full benefits? Do they need to keep working, and are they?

IF you do not show that to U.S., how are the rest of U.S. to know?

IF you cannot be bothered (that was unforgivable, was it not)

can you tell at least one of U.S. where to find the accurate numbers?

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

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

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

=========
CR Update: Labor Force Participation Rate by Age
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/09/update-labor-force-participation-rate.html
=======