InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register
S&P 500
5,464.62
(
-0.16%
)
US TECH 100
19,220.00
(
-0.20%
)
Dow Jones
39,150.33
(
0.04%
)
Brent Oil
84.39
(
0.00%
)
Bitcoin
64,258.00
(
0.27%
)
Post# of 447449
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

ChrisJP

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 97
Posts 31272
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 08/02/2000

ChrisJP

Member Level

Re: Trinityz1 post# 237360

Tuesday, 05/08/2012 7:54:45 AM

Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:54:45 AM

Post# of 447449
well at least we agree (I think) that the unemployed + underemployed = 20% - 25%. But that's like 40M people not 87M people.

One of the problems with counting people over 65 is that 30 - 40 years ago, a lot more people back then didn't live as long. Our economic system isn't designed to keep so many seniors employed.

the idea was for you to retire or die around 65 so that people in their 40s could take your place and people in their 30s could take their place and so on.

But with so many seniors hanging on to their jobs, younger people aren't finding enough job openings.

Chris

Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Sign Up