The Instigator
One_Winged_Rook
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ldcon
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

People should not work after retirement

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,919 times Debate No: 25356
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

One_Winged_Rook

Pro

I will be arguing that once people reach the age of retirement, they should not continue to work (at the company they retired from or any other). The first round will just be for acceptance.

My opponent must believe that it is beneficial to the individual and/or society for people to work after retirement. However, "they need the money" is not an acceptable reason for one to work longer. It is assumed that social security benefits would increase so that people who have reached retirement would still be sufficiently provided for should they be unable to provide for themselves in retirement. This will obviously increase costs. It is up to both debaters to take this into account in their argument and discuss how this will effect the rest of the system.
ldcon

Con

Alrighty then.
Debate Round No. 1
One_Winged_Rook

Pro

I want to start by thanking ldcon for accepting this debate. Best of luck.

Unemployment among college grads is currently 53%. http://www.theatlantic.com...

What this means is that people who should be entering the workforce and gaining experience from people who are about to retire, are not doing so.

As you can see here http://www.wageproject.org... the mean salary of a (male) 18-24 year old is $24k and a 25-34 is $40k. However, the mean salary of a person 45-64 is approximately $60k and even after that he'll make approximately $55k. Not that it's a surprise that people with more experience make more money. Nonetheless, if older people are forced to retire at say, 55 or possibly younger, a greater number of younger people can be hired and trained.
This is not to conclude that more people means more or even equal productivity, but over time, they too will gain experience and be able to contribute. They must get the experience at some point. This amount of time doesn't change if the starting point is moved to an older age(that is to say, it takes 5 years to gain 5 years of experience, whether that is between 25-30 or 30-35). So, it is better to get that experience when they are younger and making less and will be able to use that experience in the field longer.

My first argument sums to this: Young people are not getting opportunities in the workforce because older people are staying on longer.

Secondly, I believe that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks".
We live in a world that we constantly want change. We want the newest technology to improve our methods and make for more efficient and reliable products. With the burst of technology over the past 10-20 years, older people never quite got the handle of it. The problem is when businesses retain out-dated practices because the older generations refuse to adapt to new technologies. Yes, we need the experience of the older generation, but we also need the freedom to implement new things. The longer the older generation holds on, the longer it will take for new technologies to be implemented.

My second argument sums to this: The workplace would keep better pace with technology if the older generation were forced to retire.

Lastly, everyone should get their chance. Old people trying to hold on because "they have a job to do" is selfish. Get a hobby, travel... write a book. This world only belongs to you for a very short time compared to us. We should have more of a say on how it is governed. Get out of politics, get out of the judicial system, get out of the business world. This isn't your world anymore. Why is someone on their deathbed (as in someone who will die before the new President gets inaugurated) allowed to vote but a 17 year old kid working at Burger King and has a kid not?

My first argument sums to this: Young people will live in this world much longer, they should control i
ldcon

Con

ldcon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
One_Winged_Rook

Pro

I think it would be unfair to continue without my opponent giving his response to my first argument. So I will forfeit this round and we will continue.

We'll see if I can get my second and third arguments in in the last round. If not, I won't shorten them, I will only submit one and my opponent will get his response.
ldcon

Con

Okay so the first argument has to do with the long term finances of SS. [1] Basically, SS has historically delivered far more to individuals than they paid for. We can either balance it on the elderly working slightly longer (and more productively), or we can balance it on the young. It's plain to see which model better provides for solvency. This is compounded by one of the observations my opponent includes at the beginning of the debate: that it is assumed benefits increase to the point people are 'sufficiently' provided for. The most reasonable interpretation of 'sufficiently' must come to the individual--where individuals choose to work longer, it can be inferred they require more for sufficience.

But the larger problem with my opponent's argument is in it's attempt to use a temporary recession to affect a large structural shift: the young aren't structurally unemployed, and so it's unnecessary to conduct national policy as if they were.

My opponent would need far more evidence to support the claim that the elderly are 1. the primary barrier to technology adoption and 2. that there is a barrier to technology adoption. Considering the success of blue chips, (or perhaps some of Facebook's market flops) it seems plain we have no pressing technology insuffiencies in the market. (And of course, many older individuals have learned various technologies--they built the internet!)

[1]http://www.urban.org...
Debate Round No. 3
One_Winged_Rook

Pro

The argument against Social Security costing more, is the fact that "cost of living" actually doesn't increase over-time. Assuming you throw out mortgage (which, old people should have their house paid off for by then... if not, I think it's fair to move them to old folks homes/live with their kids) and things like college loans (which also should be paid off), if we're just talking about things like the cost of food, travel, and electricity, all of these things are actually getting cheaper to provide for the elderly (in the fact that they are more abundant). So although the retired population is more and the working population is less, it is still easily possible (in the US) to provide for them.

I don't think we are structurally unemployed either, and I absolutely wasn't using that in my argument. I was arguing more on a Keynesian unemployment stance. Except demand hasn't dropped, production per capita has simply increased so large, that the employees required to output the same amount is dramatically less. (I would also argue for Marxian unemployment, but if we are to apply that to America, it would be beneficial if elders made up that unemployment and not young people)

As far as giving evidence to old people not keeping up with technology, I must ask my opponent to ask himself. I know of no studies on the subject. But as my opponent is a 26 year old male, likely with more computer skills then his parents, I ask him if he believes me. Assuming too, that you work in an office setting, it is likely that you can notice the elders around you constantly asking the younger people how to use technology properly (and never actually learning it themselves, just asking again every time something goes wrong). In my personal experience... a LMGTFY.com moment happens VERY often. Also, besides tech start-ups, (again, I have no source, I'm merely hoping you will concede)... most businesses (especially large corporations) are run by people who can be considered "elderly". Young people are, in general, the employees and the elders are the employers. If there is technical lag, it comes from the employers who make decisions such as what software to use. And as the employers are generally the elderly, the elderly are causing technical lag.

I can't really complete my argument in the allotted space, but contrary to what I said, I'll give an abridged version (as I alluded to it above). I believe we (as a society in the US) have all the necessary resources to provide for the elderly should they stop working. So all other things being equal, they should be relieved (and it should be made systematic) to no longer have to work as wage slaves in a structured environment and can dedicate their time to pursuing their own passions. Maybe we aren't as fruitful as I believe, but without evidence, I do believe that we have enough to provide for everyone. I personally, would appreciate, if they would step aside and let us control our own destiny.
ldcon

Con

Unless you're referring to an un-standard definition of 'cost of living', you're incorrect. Hence, the annual cost of living increase in the social security program. I.e., COLA adjustments for 2012 increase payments 3.6%--COLA is adjusted to keep benefits ~constant. COLA doesn't always increase--it didn't in 2010 and 2011, but it has consistently increased over time. Further, the argument you're putting forward, that it *isn't* costing more is actually insufficient to negating the argument I made. Namely, regardless of what we might determine to be a sufficient income for an elderly person, the fact of work indicates that individuals disagree--some people want more than SS pays. SS isn't a retirement program; it's an antipoverty program.

One the question of structural employment, if my opponent agrees, and he apparently does, that it's too soon to label unemployment a structural problem, then the solution he proposes is in excess of the harm--i.e. we expect full employment in 3-4 years so there's no reason to fire the elderly.

I don't disagree some elderly lack the technical proficiency of some of the young. Perhaps even on balance. My dispute is that this has an impact on actual work product--elderly school bus drivers (a group predominately staffed by the retired) don't need to be Java-coders. Hence, we'd need evidence to conclude there even is a barrier to technology adoption rather than individual assignment into the proper vocations.

My opponent alludes to an argument not quite fleshed out during the debate--that the elderly are 'wage slaves'. Even if this were the case, what he ignores is that there is no alternative. He assumes we have the sufficient resources to not only fire all the elderly (many of whom continue to make important contributions in their fields, especially as mentors to their younger replacements) but to increase SS to a full retirement program. We don't have that money. SS already has a $21 trillion unfunded liability and my opponent wants to increase costs of the program. [1] Contrary to my opponent's beliefs, to layoff the elderly would not empower the young--it would triple down the taxation necessary to sustain the SS additions. The young would become wage slaves he imagines the elderly to be.

In sum, the current system isn't sustainable. My opponent's system is less sustainable. His system would exacerbate the problems he finds in the status quo. And he ignores the reality of the jobs the elderly tend to assume.

Lastly, as nothing was specified for forfeited rounds, and because my opponent agreed to continue the debate, judges should not hold my R2 forfeit against me while voting.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ldcon 5 years ago
ldcon
Apologies for the first round forfeit. I can either forfeit the debate or respond to subsequent postings?
No votes have been placed for this debate.