[Paleopsych] NYT: On the Job, Till Death Do Us Part? (9 Letters)
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Mon Jun 20 18:41:51 UTC 2005
On the Job, Till Death Do Us Part? (9 Letters)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/opinion/l16tierney.html
To the Editor:
In "The Old and the Rested" (column, June 14), John Tierney mentions
the unmentionable: he suggests that healthy seniors consider going
back to work.
But here's something even more unmentionable: many seniors would love
to do just that - or keep the jobs they already have - but employers
don't want them. Why?
The feeling is that seniors are not as mentally acute as younger
employees. That they can't or won't work as hard. That training them
is a waste because they don't have another 20 years of work left in
them.
And most unmentionable of all, they make younger decision makers
uncomfortable.
How many 35-year-old managers (beyond those at McDonald's or Wal-Mart)
are eager to hire employees who could be their parents? The problem is
less that many seniors who could return to work won't; it is that many
who would love to can't, because only minimum-wage jobs that do not
make use of their knowledge and experience are open to them.
Neil Chesanow
Montvale, N.J., June 14, 2005
To the Editor:
Most people who have done manual labor their entire working lives are
ready to retire by age 60 and should be able to do it.
Back, hip and joint problems aside, their lungs and other organs have
been assaulted for decades by things like paint, welding fumes and
solvents, and it's quite likely that they don't have a whole lot of
time left.
People who have been writers, editors, accountants and stockbrokers
probably have plenty of work left in them at age 60 or 65, and it
isn't unreasonable to suggest that they stay on the job.
Our economic system is replete with disparities like this, and any
Social Security "fix" that doesn't address them should be rejected.
David Rubenstein
Minneapolis, June 14, 2005
To the Editor:
How can John Tierney write so disparagingly of those of us who are far
along in our aging species, even to the point of asking, "Why is
loafing an inalienable right?"
He cites 68- and 69-year-old athletes participating in the National
Senior Games and asks if they're not "capable of putting in a full
day's work at the office." Maybe they are, but not for 50 weeks a
year.
How many hours did Mr. Tierney put in interviewing 80- or 85-year-olds
or those in their young 90's who would welcome part-time work
assignments, who never expected to stay this long and now "scrape by"?
Hear us, journalists. We're the ones on your "front line," not only
those facing retirement. With eight decades or more (I'm 82), we have
the perspective you can't know.
Have the guts to look at the hard wisdom we can give you, not to
self-serving sarcasm. Pardon our anger, but perhaps you need to hear
it.
Bob VanWagoner
Morehead City, N.C., June 14, 2005
The writer wrote a column about senior issues for The Sarasota
Herald-Tribune, 1998-2001.
To the Editor:
Having been let go from my job in March at the age of 61, I have been
trying unsuccessfully to find another position (as have many other
people in my situation).
Also, I need the health benefits offered by full employment. I don't
want to apply for Social Security at 62, but it seems that I may have
no choice.
So please ask John Tierney for a list of companies that are hiring
people who are over 60 and that offer benefits. I have a feeling there
aren't very many of them.
Carol Robinson
New York, June 14, 2005
To the Editor:
John Tierney's idea of what retirees do with the largess of Social
Security (golf?) is laughable.
Today's retirees have a new job, women's work.
Now that women either need or choose to support their families,
grandparents have stepped in to help with child care. They have also
taken the place of housewives in volunteer work. In doing so, they
apparently give in to what Mr. Tierney calls "greed and sloth."
Although unpaid work receives little public acknowledgment, it is
needed, and so (desperately) are retirees.
Sarah Denes
Stony Creek, Conn., June 14, 2005
To the Editor:
John Tierney's column resonates with many citizens, senior and
otherwise.
Norwegians, with perhaps the best quality of life of any country, have
a retirement age of 67 for their version of Social Security.
We can easily raise the retirement age and work longer. That will help
take Social Security out of a financial bind and keep seniors active.
But until we stop laying off or sidelining older workers and slow our
rush to outsource meaningful jobs to other countries where labor is
cheaper, Mr. Tierney is pipe-dreaming at best.
Michael A. Keane
South Orange, N.J., June 14, 2005
To the Editor:
John Tierney's indictment of the "Old and the Rested" graciously
doesn't blame Americans for becoming lazier but places the onus on
"the system." What he doesn't mention is that "the system" includes
corporations that offered early retirement because it was economically
expedient; private pension plans (corporate promises to workers) that
were underfinanced or raided during mergers; and a culture that is
youth-oriented and vilifies the aged.
The AARP did not invent early retirement; M.B.A.'s in the boardroom
did. Most elderly people are willing to work longer at the jobs they
are qualified for, but they work as department-store greeters because
they are too experienced and overqualified for the jobs they can do.
Brent J. Eelman
Willow Grove, Pa., June 14, 2005
To the Editor:
Re "The Old and the Rested" (column, June 14):
If the Republican tax cuts to the wealthy were reversed and the money
appropriately applied, this wouldn't be an issue. This is just more of
the same-old, same-old in the continuing saga to shift wealth upward.
If seniors want to work, fine; but if not, aren't they entitled to
retire, or is that only for the wealthy elderly?
Michelle Cacho-Negrete
Wells, Me., June 14, 2005
To the Editor:
Contrary to John Tierney's column, the problem for my generation is
not that we are lazy. It's the job market. I'm 68 and happy to work.
Now all I need is for people and businesses to hire me.
Danny Kleinman
Los Angeles, June 14, 2005
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list