Many commentators -- including yours truly -- have noted the financial pressures that stem from having an aging population of baby-boomers.
But the problems extend beyond the already substantial costs of the retirement safety net and the special needs of those whose bodies are losing their youthful resilience.
In today's world, many of those who, either through choice, ignorance, or misfortune, don't have the resources they need to retire comfortably are being forced back into the jobs market.
According to the Wall Street Journal, in a report entitled "Elderly Emerge as a New Class of Workers -- and the Jobless," this development is another source of stress in an unraveling economy.
Mary Appleby, 76 years old, lost her job in January as a cashier at a courthouse cafeteria here. She is now looking for minimum-wage work.
Mary Bennett, 80, began filling out applications for fast-food restaurants and convenience stores after she was laid off last March as a machinist. Fred Dase, 81, a bartender until last summer, also needs another job.
During past recessions, older workers simply would have retired rather than searching want ads and applying for jobs. But these days, with outstanding mortgages, bank loans and high medical bills, many of them can't afford to be out of work.
With jobs so scarce, people in their seventh and eighth decades are up against those half their age in a desperate scramble for work.
The number of unemployed workers 75 and older increased to more than 73,000 in January, up 46% from the prior January. Among workers 65 and older, the jobless rate stands at 5.7%. That's below the national average, but well above what it was in previous recessions, including the recession of 1981, when it reached at 4.3%.
The growing numbers reflect, in part, an increase in the number of older workers. The percentage of people 65 and older who are in the work force rose to 16.8% at year end, from 11.9% a decade earlier. Among people 75 and older, the increase was even greater -- to 7.3%, from 4.7%.
As people live longer and stay in better health, some of them merely want the stimulation and challenge of a job. But for workers like Ms. Appleby, Ms. Bennett and Mr. Dase, the motivation is financial necessity.
Fewer people than in years past are covered by defined-benefit plans, such as company-sponsored pensions that guarantee them specific monthly income for life. Those with retirement investments have seen their values erode with the stock-market tumble. Others worked for smaller companies, or were self-employed, and never had pensions. Many are outliving whatever savings they might have had, especially by the time they reach their mid to late 70s. Mortgages and medical bills push others into the job market because Social Security and Medicare, though helpful and critical, aren't enough.
There are few programs to help older unemployed workers. Several states are developing pilot programs. The Obama administration is receiving proposals for new ways to connect workers 55 years and older with local jobs.
"We're seeing a tremendous increase in the number of people coming for help," says Cynthia Metzler, who heads Experience Works. The Arlington, Va.-based national nonprofit organization offers job training and placement for 20,000 older adults in 30 states, and has a waiting list. The Cleveland office of another nonprofit group, the Senior Employment Center, has been seeing about 570 people coming in for help each month.
Even when the economy is humming along, older workers who get laid off tend to spend more time unemployed. In December, the average period for joblessness for workers older than 55 was 25 weeks, compared with 18.7 weeks for those under 55, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute. The physical limitations of some older workers likely account for part of the difference. But Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, director of the Sloan Center on Aging and Work at Boston College, cites lingering stereotypes that older workers are more expensive, less productive and resistant to change.
Today's sputtering economy has flooded the labor market with a multitude of younger workers looking for jobs, which has made it even harder for older ones.
Mr. Dase, the unemployed bartender, knows. He spent 40 years working at Pittsburgh taverns and at his own bar, never receiving a pension. Over the years, when the $1,625 Social Security check he and his wife receive each month didn't cover prescriptions or other medical costs such as supplemental Medicare insurance, they used their charge cards. Last year, when their credit-card debt reached $29,000, they took out a $26,000 home-equity loan to pay off most of it. He still owes $5,000 on one credit card, and needs to come up with $363 a month for eight years to pay off the home-equity loan.
Mr. Dase had been working at a local Veterans of Foreign Wars club as a bartender. But he had to leave in August because it required too much standing. He looked for other jobs, applying at Big Lot stores, but he never heard back. "Who is going to hire an 81-year-old man?" he asks.
Three weeks ago, he entered a jobs-training program called the Senior Community Service Employment Program. The program pays him $7.15 an hour to stuff envelopes and greet visitors at the human-services center in Turtle Creek, Pa. "It helps quite a bit," he says. "Towards the end of the month, we start to run out of food. But luckily my daughter comes and helps us out."
At the moment, the Senior Community Service program, which currently has $433 million in funding, is the lone federal jobs initiative that targets unemployed older workers. Workers must be at least 55 and not have incomes more than 25% over the poverty level -- $13,000 a year for individuals. The program matches older adults with community nonprofit or public organizations. They receive on-the-job training, and are paid minimum wage, by the federal government, for up to 20 hours a week. Although it handles about 92,000 workers a year, the program is currently funded to serve less than 1% of the workers who would qualify, according to the Sloan Center, citing a General Accountability Office report.
The goal is to help both unemployed older adults and community organizations, which often are short on staff. But it isn't meant to provide permanent employment. The paid training is supposed to last for no more than 24 to 36 months. Increasingly, those limits are being exceeded because there are fewer paying jobs available, especially in smaller towns and rural areas.
Lois Humphrey, 80, has trouble climbing stairs and suffers severe hearing loss, so she needs an amplifier on her phone. She had to leave her department-store job because it was too hard on her feet. But she must keep working to pay for rent and prescriptions. She started at Experience Works in 2000. She has moved from one community organization to another in her Mechanicsburg, Pa., community, receiving different training along the way.
She is now back with Experience Works, the nonprofit training and placement organization, which thus far has been unable to find her a private-sector job. "I've been stuck in here," she says, but gladly so. "I still need to work because of medications," says Ms. Humphrey, who has cancer, diabetes and arthritis.
Justyn Jaymes of the Senior Employment Center in Akron, which administers the federal training program locally, is expected to move 27 to 32 people a year into private-sector paying jobs. They aren't supposed to spend more than 27 months in the program, on average. Several people are at that level or have exceeded it.
"I'm going to have to be aggressive pushing people out in the next year," says Mr. Jaymes. He says he's always on the lookout for jobs, noticing a help-wanted sign in an Office Max store, and whether hotels need housekeepers, janitors and breakfast hostesses.
Every week, he meets with at least four new older unemployed adults. He says he is "pretty blunt with them," telling them up front: "This is not a job. It looks like a job and feels like a job, but it is training and temporary. Are you going to job hunt or get comfortable?" Those accepted into the program must keep a log, recording their job-hunting efforts.
Getting hired isn't impossible. Dorothy Adams, 90, who raised six sons, had been a waitress. She quit at age 85 because of the physical demands. She couldn't make it on $8,000 a year in Social Security and $1,140 in food stamps, so she enrolled in an Experience Works training program in central Pennsylvania.
She got a job last year at a home-health-care agency. She drives to the homes of elderly adults who are sick and homebound. She reads them their mail, takes them to appointments, helps them dress and prepares light meals. She gets paid $7.50 an hour, plus mileage reimbursement.
Ms. Bennett, the laid-off machinist, had worked steadily since she entered a dress factory at the age of 17, taking time off only for the births of her seven children and a quintuple-bypass surgery in 1995. After a divorce, she worked two jobs, assembling coffee pots in the day and working at truck stops or tending bar at night. When one factory or shop or restaurant closed, she would look for another with a help-wanted sign posted in the window.
In her mid 70s, she left the truck stop hoping to retire, but found that she couldn't afford to. She applied at a machine shop in central Pennsylvania. Although she had never been a machinist, she got the job, and began making parts for door hinges, trucks, cranes and guns for $9 an hour. "I'm an easy person to teach," she says.
Ms. Bennett and a few dozen others were laid off last March. She applied at restaurants, stores and the local mall, which needed a cleaning person. She had two interviews. They seemed to go well, but she never heard back. "I thought I had a good chance, but a lot of places want to hire younger people," she says.
As weeks passed, with no luck, she applied for unemployment for the first time in her life. She continued hunting for work before resorting to the federal job-training program.
About a month ago, she started at the cafeteria of a local hospital, waiting on customers and running the cash register for $7.15 an hour. She works five hours a day, four days a week.
Her children, including her oldest, who is retired, want her to retire. "I don't have the money to do that," Ms. Bennett says. "I couldn't plan for retirement because I was raising seven children, and it just took all the money."
Ms. Appleby, of Akron, is still without a job. For 18 years, she had worked at a small snack shop in the basement of the Summit County Courthouse. She cooked, cleaned tables and served. As her knees got weak and she relied increasingly on a cane, she was stationed at the cash register.
She earned only minimum wage, but it helped supplement her $723-a-month Social Security check, and was enough to make her house payments. Five years ago, she tore down her childhood home, which needed too many costly repairs, and built a small white bungalow in its place. Ms. Appleby, who never married and has outlived most of her relatives, other than a few far-flung cousins, took out a loan -- a move she now regrets.
Last year, sales at the snack shop, called Buddy's Place, fell as more office workers began packing lunches and governments trimmed staff, resulting in fewer people stopping for coffee and soup. The owner, Aaron Hopkins, who is 36 and blind, watched labor costs balloon to 29% of sales. That put him in danger of losing his own business. Under a state program for the visually impaired that got him the snack-shop job, he had to keep labor costs down to no more than 20% of sales. Mr. Hopkins, who earned $22,000 last year, reluctantly laid off Ms. Appleby.
Her mobility and age limit her options. She doesn't have a résumé. A local law firm organized a benefit to help her get through the winter and pay mortgage bills. "It is our way, as courthouse family, to try to do something to help her get back on her feet," says Jonathan Sinn, an Akron attorney. Given her age and health, Mr. Sinn doubts she will be able to get another job in the court.
She is considering knee surgery, which may make her more mobile, and thus more marketable. She is applying for unemployment.
"I was waiting to see if [Mr. Hopkins] would call me back, and he hasn't," says Ms. Appleby. She lives modestly, with Timmy, a 13-year-old white spaniel mix, amid piles of papers, boxes and a lone black-and-white photo from her high-school graduation. "I was fine with Social Security and my job. I have to find other work."
Let's get real. This is a capitalist society where winner takes all.
It's in effect a lottery.
The possibility of becoming king Midas is open to you, but this in turn means you might also be working till death.
That's the finality of it all. Nothing will change short of violent revolutions.
You guys at AB are whiners. You have no balls to effect real change. You will type type type till death...whine...whine...whine.. while Ken Lewist and friends walk away with your life savings.
Posted by: Bedda Days | February 23, 2009 at 01:01 AM
With the exception of the last person noted, I believe that all of the examples of elderly unemployed had children - many had more than five.
Of course I have sympathy and compassion for these individuals, their predicament AND their desire to work, but why, does this "problem" even exist? Are ALL of their children so cold-hearted and/or destitute that they won't provide assistance to their mother or father?
We have government deficits now annually measured in the trillions of dollars. I am a baby boomer and I have children - why are we passing on this legacy to my teenage children? Have we so broken down as a society that "family" means nothing and "society" is expected to support everyone?
WE are "society" and we'll go bankrupt as a nation if this is the path that we continue to trod.
Posted by: MichaelN | February 23, 2009 at 08:08 AM
I agree with Michael. Unless the six
sons of Dorothy Adams are cripples, drug addicts,
homeless, or in jail, they need to get with a plan: their mother.
Posted by: Marion Shaw | February 23, 2009 at 09:13 AM
This sorta mal-treatment of our fellow americans isnt anything new . I think it is gonna get more obvious though , as late stage capitalism gets worse and the strong overtake the weak for more crumbs for themselves .
But hasnt our social system always been a continuos, ugly, predatory clusterfunk ?
I mean , it began as genocide of the natives and stealing their homeland .
Things were good for us (the new americans ) then ,for a while , as good as things could have been given the lack of modern comforts and such .... but the air was clean , the bounty of the earth was abundant , the soil was rich , the rivers , wild and rich and beautifully unimpeded, we were very free , the land itself was
often free ! What more could ya want ?
Unless you were a slave of course .But we like to forget that it was slavery that did so much of the work that built up our greatness ... so much more comfy to blame our prosperity upon our own virtues.
To me, the slaveries and genocides of that early american era just disentegrate any claims to social virtue .
And so , soon ya come to the civil war era , where murder, mayhem , and destruction
firmly put to rest any possible illusions of social virtues .
Followed by the industrial revolution ...... here, I visualise , sweatshops , child labor , mine wars , pinkerton thugs , WW1,....... Ahhh , the roaring 20's ( that musta been fun ) but , watch out , cus here comes the DEPRESSION and WW2 of course .
I'm still not seeing the social virtousity we remember so fondly, so vaguely , but it does seem that there were some calmer days in the post WW2 decade , I mean ,we had a lot of economic opportunity to help rebuild the European ruins (destruction is good for capitalist societies economically ), puts people to work . We had little competition from europe as we pillaged the third world .
But that didnt last forever , and Vietnam came and Martin Luther King and war
protestors ...enraged our ire at bringing our lack of virtue to light once again so clearly , so we killed them when we could .
So long with so little virtue to call our own , we gave up , we Reaganised the WorldView
of the everyday Joe and Jane and soon greed was good and debt was freedom and
the biggest bestest bomb became the collective goal .
We mortgaged our virtues to feed our demons .
I dunno , It just seems inappropriate to expect any sort of social virtue in America from the past or the present .
In the future , maybe ? I doubt it , cus we only favor social virtues when we need them and thats when we are at our weakest. Catch 22 .
Sort of . I guess.
Posted by: scottt | February 23, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Will we choose a society for the people or a military empire for the rich and powerful? If we choose the military empire, then live as long as you can work and produce and die off in short order because there is little to recommend old age.
There will undoubtedly be more yelping about social security and medicare recipients as this meltdown worsens. These safety nets provide a decent society for its members...if we care to have a decent society.
My take: Complain about the 800 military bases around the globe that this empire maintains. This govt could provide for its citizens if it gave up the constant warring against other nations. We will need to make choices - are we for our own citizens or the ambitions of the powerful elites? Social security and medicare are not the problem. Indecent govt by the elites is the problem. So to anyone who does not get it: Stop blaming the victims because we are all victims of a corrupt system.
Posted by: mary | February 23, 2009 at 01:56 PM
It is beginning to get ugly out there. Reference the near (or actual) riots at the Florida Housing Authority that was seen on CNN today. Seems there were about 2000 available spots on the waiting list for section 8 housing, and over 5000 showed up to get them. Not housing, mind you, but just being on the waiting list. People came 24 hours or more in advance of the 7:00 am advertising opening time. Police had to be called in, etc. Sadly, this kind of behavior will only cause the lessening of available HUD/Sect 8 housing. More and more of us, already fed up with excessive paper work, and property damage, have considered stopping accepting government subsidized rents. Our company, a few months back, decided to rehab some of our apartments that were HUD eligible, and convert them to Market Rate only units. We have had much more success and a better bottom line with those. The incentitive used to be to accept HUD/Sect 8's and have a wider market for rental prospects, thus having less vacancies. What happens is that your costs and frustrations go much higher with those type rentals. I was, and still am, all for being sensitive to the needs of folks who must have subsidized housing--and I will continue to keep one complex available for the Sect 515 EHC (Elderly and Handicapped). Additionally, it is hard to keep site managers at HUD/8 properties longer than 2 or 3 months. There are just too many domestic disturbances, drugs, thugs and property damages to make it worthwhile for the owners, or to interest a person or couple in being the on site managers. In my opinion, government subsidized housing is a great benefit for someone needing it. In most cases the tenant pays only 30 percent of their adjusted gross monthly income as rent, and in some cases even a utility allowance is available. There is also such a thing as a "zero income" tenant!!! I have had a tenant that after considering the utility allowance, we PAID the tenant 46.00 a month to live in the apartment!!! (or the goverment did anyway). This particular tenant had to be evicted, after nearly destroying the apartment in less than 8 months time. It is really sad.
Posted by: A. Keck | February 23, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Oh stop the whining. This problem can be easily resolved. They even made a movie about it. I think it takes places about 17 yrs from now, when we will be hit by the highest level of the biggest dipsh*t generation there ever was - the so called "arrogant baby - it's all mine give it to me -boomers. Highly recommend check out you tube George Carlin's boomer rant.
So as a victim of these parasitic Leona Hemsley wanna bees, I demand that our corrupted bad haircut political sluts pass the "Anti-parasitical society preserving rescue & food act." To be for ever known as "The Soylent Green Law". It will force feed the surviving Boomers earlier vintage comrades.
Posted by: Kill boomers today | February 23, 2009 at 06:49 PM
"But Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, director of the Sloan Center on Aging and Work at Boston College, cites lingering stereotypes that older workers are more expensive, less productive and resistant to change." and then the story goes on to tell the stories of older workers who can't hear, can't stand, can't climb stairs, can't do anything but stand at a registar for short amounts of time... As a health care worker I have to say from my experience the elderly aren't more healthy now than they were in the past, they are just living longer due to the extreme intervention of the medical field.
I also do not understand why their families are not working harder to keep them afloat. What ever happened to having mom and dad move in with you? Is it the kids who won't take them in or the parent's who are still trying to be so damn independent that they refuse? Why is our society so hell bent on keeping family at an arms length?
Posted by: Jennifer | February 23, 2009 at 07:00 PM
I agree with Kill boomers today. The obvious solution that no politician is brave enough to address is to turn the elderly into food products. What better use than turning the non-productive into raw materials for the productive. We could also tan their leathery old hides for clothing and shelter.
Is that wrong to say? Tough times deserve tough measures.
Posted by: Abraham | February 23, 2009 at 08:18 PM
For years, decades even, America kicked asses all over the world proclaiming the absolute superiority of America economic system. One that produced endless innovations to save the world. One that created the highest standard of living in history. Land of freedom and opportunity. But land where if you failed you're on your own. Land where maximum success is worshiped. And land rich enough to fund $550B per year on the world's biggest military machine. To protect the world.
So what's the problem?
Posted by: drunk | February 23, 2009 at 11:33 PM
There is a lot of cynicism in these remarks. But the
fact that the Indians got screwed; the slaves got
enslaved; the wealthy ripped off the poor; the military
industrial complex thrives on wars and at worst we could
kill off the elderly for pragmatic aims, does not
excuse the six sons of a 90 year old woman from giving
her relief before she dies; which she will; just like
the rest of us in due time.
Posted by: Marion Shaw | February 24, 2009 at 08:01 AM
Not all retirees are hurting. If you recently retired from the Vallejo, CA fire department with 30 years of service and were at least 50 years of age, you'd be getting 90% of your final year's salary and retiree medical benefits. Of course, the city is now in bankruptcy proceedings, and it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. In the meantime, I'd stay way from Vallejo and other high crime parts of the US.
Posted by: Rocky | February 24, 2009 at 11:56 AM
farang is a dead middle baby boomer: 1955. I have this to say:
Kudos to the local law firm that organized a benefit to assist a disabled person wanting to work.
Razzies to those cold- hearted Americans blaming the lower-income workers for all this criminal "bailout" activity under Bush, continuing under Obama.
But I would not have organized a "benefit", I would have held a raffle:
$10 to enter, the winner gets to use Ms Appleby's cane to beat the snot out of Rick Santelli, on primetime CNBC broadcasting hour.
Posted by: farang | February 26, 2009 at 06:10 AM