Pension or Penitentiary?

Talk about a cry for help: Timothy J. Bowers robbed a Columbus OH bank of $80, handed the money over to a security guard, and waited for the police to come and arrest him. In court on October 11, he pleaded guilty and told the judge that he would like a three-year sentence – just enough time to get him to the age of eligibility for Social Security benefits. The judge graciously obliged, demonstrating compassionate conservativism at its warm-hearted best.

Bowers, almost 63 years old, is no wacko. He passed a court-ordered psychological exam and explained that he had not been able to find a new job since his old one ended when his employer’s company closed in 2003. “At my age,” he said, “The jobs available to me are minimum wage jobs,” adding that “There is age discrimination out there.”

Bowers had hit another kind of “doughnut hole,” like the one that plagues Medicare recipients: He was “too old” for the above-minimum wage workforce and too young for Social Security. Thanks to rampant age discrimination, “too old” can mean as young as 45, leaving a 20 year gap before Social Security kicks in.

Leaving aside the obvious disadvantages of incarceration – having to pee in public, being unable to send out for pizza, etc. – Bowers made a perfectly rational choice. The minimum wage in Ohio is $5.15 an hour, or $824 a month before taxes, which won’t get you much of a dwelling space in Columbus, at least not if you intend to maintain a regular schedule of meals. Prison, on the other hand, offers a free bed, free food, and, however inadequate, free health care. We can expect a rash of similar bank robberies as the elderly and the middle aged seek ways to wait out the years between the onset of age discrimination and the arrival of their first Social Security check.

There’s nothing new about using about prison as a solution to poverty. Over 2 million Americans are presently incarcerated, the great majority of them from the lowest income brackets. In fact, incarceration is expanding as the welfare state shrinks: while the U.S. offers 2 million prison beds, it provides public housing to only 1.3 million households, and that number is dropping rapidly. Bowers could have applied for a Section 8 housing voucher, but the waiting list for those exceeds, in some cities, his three-year prison term.

In short, we are reaching the point, if we have not passed it already, where the largest public housing program in America will be our penitentiary system.

If Bowers’ choice was rational, the same cannot be said of our social policies. The cost of incarcerating an elderly inmate is about $69,000 a year. A compassionate – or merely rational—state would give Bowers a stipend to live on and save its prison beds for actual bad guys.

Comments

[Corvid]

And this morning there was a story in one of the British tabs about Americans applying for asylum in Britain to get housing and free medical care during the 5 years it will take for their applications to be processed. Still, I think people get the kind of society and country they really want--and apparently most Americans are willing to settle for shabby. In fact, a lot of us seem to be just daffily thrilled about the state of things. As Charles Crumb said: How perfectly goddam delightful it all is, to be sure.

[Anarcissie]

The (American) state is not fiscally rational, but it is politically rational. While the government is not really democratic, it does have to maintain a certain level of popularity, and in the U.S. many people evidently feel bitterly envious of poor people who, they think, may be getting something they can't get. In fact, Welfare is much cheaper than the alternatives, but few politicians want to pay the political costs.

[Tim Worstall]

Right, so you're in favour of a guaranteed minimum income then? Like the one Charles Murray is proposing?

Odd really because I never had you tagged as the libertarian type.

[bifemmefatale]

Tim, I'd say asking for a boost to the social safety net is pretty much the opposite of Libertarian, since it was my understanding that Libertarians don't want the federal government to do much of anything, including even public education. Afaik they only want the Feds to handle national defense.

[The Eternal Squire]

I think we will also being seeing more older people without benefit of tribal connections at least threatening suicide or even perhaps attempting it in full public view so that they can be provided with room and board at psychiatric centers.

[Arwen]

Ach. You don't want to stay at psychiatric centres; with the drugs and the fear of early release (which will happen, given the desperate need for beds and the fact that a given psychological condition is hard, long term, to properly ape.) I'd prefer prison, even with the threat of violence.

When I was a kid, we visited a family member in prison with some regularity. There was a guy (South-Pa, a paternal, left-handed old guy), who would make bets about how fast he could get back in just before his release. He wanted federal time, but didn't want to be violent. He'd smash windows and steal things and then sit and wait for the cops to come bring him home.

[dearkitty]

Prison may not turn out well, as a new trend is setting dogs on US domestic prisoners, like in Abu Ghraib. See http://dearkitty.blogsome.com/2006/10/13/usa-dogs-used-to-terrorize-prisoners/

[Ryan M. Powell]

It's interesting how Americans love to point out only the inequalities and injustices perpetrated against themselves or the group(s) to which they belong.

If you're over 50 and can't get a job that pays more than $7 an hour, it must be age discrimination. End of story. Forget the fact that most 20-year-olds, 30-year-olds, and 40-year-olds have the exact same problem, for every wise Baby Boomer knows younger generations are uneducated and incompetent.

Good ol' cognitive dissonance hard at work.

I am a 32-year-old white male from a "middle class" background. Although I am a hard worker with a great mind and five years' worth of college credit (which means nothing to me), I have NEVER had a remotely decent job and I have NEVER been paid even half of what I'm worth. I probably never will.

Is it because I am a 32-year-old white male from a "middle class" background? Absolutely not!

It's because the job market is no longer based on reason. (Was it ever? I don't know.) The people running the show, from the CEOs to the HR folks, are clueless and face no adverse consequences when they do their jobs poorly. Instead of hiring and promoting people based on merit and real life credentials, they base everything on who you know, who your parents were, the color of your skin, the length of your hair, how much money your parents were able to blow on your college "education," to what extent you'll allow them to rip you off, how well you bullshit people who don't have the ability to detect bullshit, and how many lies you tell on your pre-employment personality survey. (More lies = You'll probably get the job.)

Yes, there is age discrimination in the workplace, making things very difficult for some folks over the age of 50. But there is also race discrimination, sex discrimination, [young] age discrimination, cultural discrimination, subcultural discrimination, aesthetic discrimination (discrimination against ugly/short/fat people), and hundreds of other kinds of discrimination that are just as wrong (and counterproductive) as every form of discrimination I've listed here.

If you are a recently unemployed white, male Baby Boomer, you have led an easier life than almost everyone in the history of the world. So shut the fuck up about age discrimination unless you also care enough about your fellow human to speak up about all the other forms of discrimination in the job market.

But if you are one of the many privileged, financially stable, white Baby Boomers and you want to turn your money into more money, I have an idea for you: Throw some seed money my way to help me make Aimless: An American Documentary (follow one of the links below). Or throw some seed money my way to help me open a profitable pizzeria. Or just hire me to replace one of the incompetent bullshitters you currently employ (but only if you intend to pay me what I'm worth). I am 100% serious.

Stop being so god-damn selfish. It might actually pay off for you.

Ryan M. Powell
http://www.aimlessmovie.com
http://www.blog.aimlessmovie.com

[Anarcissie]

Tim Worstall: "Right, so you're in favour of a guaranteed minimum income then? Like the one Charles Murray is proposing?"

I was just pointing out what the ruling class would be doing if it were financially rational. They are not interested in my advice and I do not put much effort into trying to change their minds. I _am_ interested in how people of more modest means and powers could organize their lives differently to their advantage. I would call this an anarchist rather than a libertarian approach, although some of the latter edge into it from time to time. We're all very marginal anyway.

[Diane Nilan]

Sounds like a good public demonstration event for United Professionals, which I just joined last week.

Organize a nationwide bank robbery event...I'm kidding, but then again...

[Chas S. Clifton]

Ms. Ehrenreich:

I like your work. I use "Nickeled and Dimed" as a model in a university creative nonfiction class that I teach.

But I also teach rhetoric and I have to say that "There’s nothing new about using about prison as a solution to poverty. Over 2 million Americans are presently incarcerated, the great majority of them from the lowest income brackets"
creates a major logical fallacy.

It assumes, first of all, that we can accurately measure the income of prison inmates, as though they file income-tax returns listing all their ill-gotten gains.

It assumes too that committing felonies is a rational response to poverty. I can say that I've been poor too, but I didn't commit crimes, even when I was trying to stretch my food stamps. In fact, most poor people are not felons.
They are more usually the *victims* of the felons.

But I have known a few felons, and I say with some assurance that they commit crimes (a) because it's thrilling and (b) because they think that they will get away with doing so.

But keep blogging anyway.

[JP Merzetti]

Well well.
69 Big Ones to keep an elderly (um, 62 is not elderly!) person under wraps in Hotel Sing Sing?
I'd say about one third of that would keep him in the community where he belongs.
Pretty good fiscal saving there (as legislatures everywhere lick the egg off their own faces...)

I've read enough about prisons lately to get the distinct impression that they are a booming business (privatized - slave labor - growth industry, etc.)

I think this ersatz "bank robber" is making an excellent statement.
Sort of a real life Art Carney.
Age discrimination hits all ages in these times. Young people are trashed royally these days, and often scapegoated for conditions they had no hand in creating.
I was one once, during a time when any joe-job kept anyone of any age off the street and self-sufficient (unless they were a junkie.)

As the rules of the game get further bent and warped out of shape, our "betters" mumble more inane and inept apologies/indictments/and any manner of illusions and delusions as to the cause and effect of all of this -
I mean, dear readers - what did we really think was bound to happen as the wealth of nations was siphoned upwards and outwards to offshore tax havens? Really?
Make your pile - or shut up and die, appears to be the maxim daily flavor.
Our public domain has been privatized. Quite a cost.

[Elizabeth]

It'd be great if this guy wrote a memoir about his experience. It sounds like he's got a creative mind. I wonder if he's got any writing talent.

[Ryan M. Powell]

Chas Clifton,

Your "logical fallacy" claim is ridiculous. Are you trying to suggest that prison inmates are a bunch of big-time thieves or what? Tax evaders perhaps?

Most of them are small-time drug dealers and drug users who turned to such activities because not everyone's experiences living in poverty mirror your own. And contrary to the drug dealer stereotypes invented by Hollywood and "the news," most drug dealers earn very small incomes.

Just try to step into someone else's shoes for a moment, would ya? You might learn something from it. I don't commit crimes, either, but I can't say I wouldn't if I lived in the same state of desperation as those (unlike yourself, surely) who were born and raised with absolutely nothing, including positive role models.

[Ryan M. Powell]

Chas Clifton,

Your "logical fallacy" claim is ridiculous. Are you trying to suggest that prison inmates are a bunch of big-time thieves or what? Tax evaders perhaps?

Most of them are small-time drug dealers and drug users who turned to such activities because not everyone's experiences living in poverty mirror your own. And contrary to the drug dealer stereotypes invented by Hollywood and "the news," most drug dealers earn very small incomes.

Just try to step into someone else's shoes for a moment, would ya? You might learn something from it. I don't commit crimes, either, but I can't say I wouldn't if I lived in the same state of desperation as those (unlike yourself, surely) who were born and raised with absolutely nothing, including positive role models.

[Ryan M. Powell]

Sorry about that double post, folks. It was an accident.

[The Eternal Squire]

Arwen,

I had put my bipolar ex in and out of psychiatric centers for "suicidal ideation". I realized in retrospect, many years after divorcing from her, that it seemed to be her favorite way of taking a vacation from life when work and married life got to be too much for her.
Our civilization considers suicide or suicidal behavior to be an intrinsically unrational behavior, no matter how politically or economically motivated, that it would feel obligated to hospitalize any and all practicioners. As a Bush-league (pun intended) Cassandra, I predict that we will see at least a few people standing on the high points of bridges, falling on thier own swords in various ways, or even setting themselves on fire, to make a political statement to attempt change in our systems.

[Jacqueline]

To Ryan:

Age discrimination is not only hurting "a few people over age 50". It is also hurting MANY people over age 35. I am a few months away from hitting the big 40. I NEVER had a chance for a decent job after making the sacrifices to complete my 4-yr college degree, going into steep student loan debt in order to do so. I not only need to be able to live and afford healthcare, but I also have $54,000 in student loan debt that I have to worry about. I am an older Gen-Xer. When I was young I couldn't get a good job because I graduated HS in the recession of the 1980's. Now that I am older, I am passed over for a chance in favor of the 20-30 yr olds of Gen-Y. But unlike most younger folks who are fortunate, I don't have parents that are living who can take me in if I end up destitute out on the streets. I also do not have the benefit of the good health I had when I was young because of having to age in poverty without ever really getting a chance for any security and a job with health benefits, despite doing "all the right things". So I am less physically able to fend for myself if I end up homeless now at this stage of my life than if I were 20. But becaue I am not a single mother or the spouse of a low-wage worker with small kids, I can't get ANY help - even though I have health problems and I am disabled!

Many of the Boomers you speak of are not selfish money-hoarders who are doing all that great, contrary to what you might think. Many have ended up homeless and out on the streets with their health going down the toilet fast due to the hardships of poverty and homelessness - because they are not getting chances for jobs that pay enough to live or that offer decent health and dental benefits - due to age discrimination. And if you think age discrimination isn't a serious and unaddressed problem, come here to Erie PA where I'm at. Even the HR people and managers at any bank, credit union, doctor's office, dental office, hospital, insurance company or telemarketing firm are under age 30. Maybe out of 100 employees, only 1 or 2 employees will be over age 35. That's because the HR people are all young and they only want to hire their friends, those in their snippy little cliques - while poor middle-aged applicants deserving and in need of a job get sent home (if you still have one) poor and empty-handed with nothing. But nobody seems to care how we're supposed to be able to live - or if we live.

Remember, poor older adults without little kids can't even get ANY help from welfare. But we have less of a chance for getting a job that pays enough to be able to live and that has health benefits than the 23 yr old (with or without a college degree). Middle-aged and older people are the fastest growing segment of the population suffering in poverty - and are far worse off than the welfare-poor because at least those on welfare with kids are getting helped and getting to particpate in job placement programs like SPOC here in PA.

[lc2]

I don't see how being preoccupied with the specific form of discrimination that is keeping someone from putting food on the table, is an indication that they are not concerned in a theoretical or ethical sense with other forms of discrimination. Ryan expects someone desperate enough to rob a bank or abandon a job search to take a minimum wage retail job -- less than $7/hr, btw(like my 32-year old friend just did), to have the energy left to be actively working against other forms of social injustice or putting their problems into global perspective. To me this is an indication that he doesn't have a clue what discrimination is or about the financial desperation that it cultivates. Things like not having a computer to conduct a job search or a phone line to receive call-backs from employers. Things like crushing exhaustion from two entry-level retail jobs -- read Nickel and Dimed if you need a primer.

Ryan is a 32 year old like me, and he is going to lecture boomers about their good fortune? The fact of the matter, young Ryan, is that we're in the prime of our lives physically and have decades left to save for retirement, whereas a 50-year old is facing higher health maintenance costs and needing to double savings efforts besides. In short, they will be infirm nearly 30 years before we will, so whether or not they are being truly discriminated against, they are under the gun to get some ducats together quickly while they still can. Of course, we've decided to be one of the only societies in the history of the human race that will leave such vulnerable members to fend for themselves. Will this experiment fail? Barbara's post seems to answer this question.

[Jacqueline]

Lc2, you hit the nail right on the head! The economic impact of the age discrimination that keeps one for putting food on the table - is the whole point here. It is not that those of us who are suffering because of age discrimination don't care about other victims of discrimination, but we are struggling just to survive while the media and everybody else wants to pretend that age discrimination is not real - like the elephant in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge is there.

Additionally, age discrimination complaints through the EEOC are not handled as aggressively as suits for race and sex discrimination. In fact, while some who was discriminated out of getting hired in a job based on race or sex can get awarded damages including back pay, front pay and punitive damages, the victim of age discrimination can't.

The reason is because the current laws do not allow for age discrimination victims to use as proof that those over a certain age are under-represented in the hiring processes. Age discrimination suits are only possible when the aggreived already has a job and the company is trying to slash expenses by targeting only older wrokers for job/pay/benefits cuts. But when you are denied a job in the first place based on age, that is perfectly OK under the current laws and no redress is included for those not hired based on age.

And there is alot of bias in society against older and middle-aged people, too. People like Ryan wrongfully assume that everyone who is older than them already got their "slice of the pie" and "had it made" when the fact is that many older people never got locked into good jobs and comfy lifestyles with nice retirement plans and nice homes and a spare Cadillac they could esily part with to get some badly needed money in a pinch.

For those who used to have relatively middle-class jobs but who find themselves without jobs now, any money they might have had saved up doesn't last very long when you have no income or only a slightlly-above minimum wage income.

Health insurance premiums also are 3 to 4 times as expensive for middle-aged and older people than for the young healthy ones. SO not having adequate incomes due to job discrimination based on age is a two-edged sword: You fnd yourself without health benefits in the most critical stage of your life, but can't afford it on your own if you cannot get another job that pays enough to live plus offers decent, affordable group health insurance benefits.

If you are without adequate employment and health benefits at age 40 with 25 yrs or more to go before you can collect social security and get on Medicare, you have to have a nest egg of $2.3 million to draw on - at least - just to be able to maintain and afford healthcare on your own for that very long gap of 15-25 years before you can collect Social Security, and get Medicare.

Lastly, since social security is based on how much you were able to earn during your working years, someone taken out of the workforce 20 yrs or more before official retirement age who cannot get anything but minimum wage jobs (which you can't live on)due to age discrimination, translates to an eventual paltry amount of social security benefit that may not be enough to keep you from living under a bridge in your senior citizen years.

[lc2]

This is what I meant in a previous post when I talked about wasted human potential. When one's energies are so completely wrapped up with survival (particularly if they have more than one job), they have very little left with which to contribute to the community or the world at large. They become nothing but a person shuttling from job to sleep, job to sleep, and unlike the execs who consciously choose that lifestyle and are handsomely rewarded for it, they are still broke at the end of the month. Your humanity and sense of concern for others is chipped away at in such a situation.

[Ryan M. Powell]

At least a couple of you really missed my point and apparently did not read what I wrote. In fact, you've argued some of the same points I made, yet you've suggested that I said the complete opposite.

I DID NOT state or imply anywhere that individuals over the age of 50 do not face age discrimination in today's job market. I DID NOT try to diminish the legitimacy of their claims of discrimination (or any other group's claims). Similarly, I DID NOT say "a few people over age 50" anywhere on this page (until now).

I DID NOT single out any specific group of people as being either more or less deserving of fair treatment than any other group. If I had done so, that would make me both an asshole and a hypocrite.

I DID NOT make any kind of "me vs. them" argument, nor did I attempt to suggest that I've been treated less fairly than anyone else. In fact, I did just the opposite when I admitted that my white skin and "middle class" upbringing have given me a lot of UNFAIR advantages over people born without white skin or "middle class" parents. That's not right.

I DID NOT, in any way, suggest that I think anyone desperate enough to rob a bank should take a $7/hour job. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. I believe people need to start refusing to work for $7 an hour because no one's labor is worth only $7 an hour. Even the least valuable employee's labor earns his or her company considerably more than $7 an hour. That is, unless the ownership/management is incompetent. In that case, the ownership/management should be the ones making $7 an hour (or taking a loss). (I may explain this perspective in more detail some other time, but it would take a lot more words than I intend to use here.)

Believe it or not, I recognize the reality that lots of people over age 50 have been victims of age discrimination in the job market, and I think it is wrong. It should not happen and it should be illegal.

But this sense of entitlement is ridiculous and selfish. Most of the people who cry "Age Discrimination" have never had to face adversity before. They own homes and have prospered enough to put their kids through college. (Unfortunately, even college graduates can't find decent jobs in the 21st century.) Unlike their kids in 20 years from now, they can say they have had a decent job for 20-30 years. They also have savings accounts and all kinds of other money stashes that most people under 50 will never dream of.

If they believe age discrimination in the job market is so wrong, then they also must believe every other kind of discrimination is wrong, too. But I don't hear them complaining about the blatant discrimination against blacks, gays, muslims, fat people, unattractive people, strange people, or any of the other groups whose constituents have ALWAYS faced 50 times more discrimination than what they've finally begun to experience after 50 years.

People over the age of 50 have had 30+ years to prevent this shit. The New Fascist America is mostly a result of their apathy, complacency, and lack of insight. They fucked things up for everyone. And now the culprits want to play victim while ignoring the real victims.

Yeah, that pisses me off. But not enough for me to wish ill will on them. If only they could mirror that sentiment.

It's not all about me.

Ryan M. Powell
http://www.aimlessmovie.com

[Ryan M. Powell]

You love to put words into my mouth, don't you? Where did I say that EVERYONE older than me already got their slice of the pie?

Nowhere! That's where.

Please do not refer to me or respond to my comments if you are unable to spend a few minutes reading what I actually said.

Ryan M. Powell
http://www.aimlessmovie.com

[lc2]

You write a post about mythical "people" who live high on the hog for thirty years then cry foul when they're thrown back into the job market -- disregarding the fact that Barbara's post was about an entirely different scenario. She didn't write about a homeowner with savings -- she wrote about someone desperate enough to court a jail term to get three square meals a day. She wrote about someone who felt trapped by his economic circumstances, not someone whose style was cramped by a temporary cash deficit.

I don't think your posts have been mischaracterized at all. I think you're just troubled by the fact that someone called you on your naive and arrogant comments. You made some pretty strong statements -- you should have been prepared to stand by them. For example, you should be able to substantiate a statement like, "Most of the people who cry 'Age Discrimination' have never faced adversity before."

[Jacqueline]

Ryan, I DID read what you posted - verbatim. In case you forgot what you said yourself, here's a little memory jogging for you, starting from your very first post.

Ryan: " Yes, there is age discrimination in the workplace, making things very difficult for some folks over the age of 50."

Re-read your own posts. What is it about the word "SOME" that at least a couple of us misunderstood here?

Ryan:" If you are a recently unemployed white male Baby Boomer, you have led an easier life than almost everyone in the history of the world. SO shut the fuck up about age discrimination unless you also care about your fellow human to speak up about all the other forms of discrimination."

And this vitriolic post isn't an attempt to diminish the legitimacy of the age discrimination victims' claims of injustice? This post isn't arrogant, inconsiderate and inflammatory, implying that most older people have had it made compared to everybody else and as such, do not have a legitimate complaint regarding age discrimination? Gee, could have fooled me!

Ryan:" But this sense of entitlement is ridiculous and selfish. Most people who cry age discrimination have never had to face adversity before. They own homes and have prospered enough to put their kids through college....Unlike their kids in 20 years from now, they can at least say they have had a decent job for 20-30 yrs. They also have savings accounts and all kinds of other money stashes that most people under age 50 will never dream of."

Sense of entitlement and selfish? Crying about a grave social injustice that has jeopardized the health and lives of those shoved out of their jobs and consequently, who have lost EVERYTHING, and due solely to age discrimination, cannot even get a $7/hr job to keep from ending up out on the streets - this is a "ridiculous sense of entitlement"? This is being selfish?

If it were blacks being shoved out of their jobs for no reason other than they were black and then due to racial discrimination, they couldn't get another job paying enough to live, this would be wrong, but when it's age discrimination this is somehow justifiable because those affected are simply undeserving greedy oldsters with ridiculous entitlement attitudes and only being selfish?

OK Ryan, how about this: you are 32 now. In another 18 years you will be 50. Now suppose that you (like me and so many others) never get a good job until you are maybe 45. After only 5 years of having that job that you FINALLY got, that you waited so long for and that you deserve by virtue of your experience, education, sacrifice and ambition and then one day with no warning you are shoved out of your job and onto the unemployment rolls - and the only jobs offered to you hereafter is a minimum wage Wal-Mart Greeter job - just because you are no longer young and some 32 yr old gets handed your job on a silver platter, how would that make you feel?

Imagine some kid getting to grab your job just because he feels he is entitled to it because, after all, you're only some greedy oldster with lots of money, a nest egg, a house (that you FINALLY qualified for the mortgage to buy it) and don't need your job anyway. This is somehow right?

Go into unaffordable student loan debt to get the education and subsequent re-training and more re-training after that in order to be "worthy" time and time again, only to be among the first to always get the axe just because you're no longer young, even though you've got a family and bills to pay, need a roof over your head and owe tens of thousands of dollars on all those student loans. Such a good deal!

Oh, and that "stash of money" you think the majority of age discrimination victims have - well, try going 4-5 or even more years without ANY chances for a job and see how far your savings will last you. WHen you don't have a good job, that money gets wiped out just paying the mortgage, utilities and food. It doesn't take long for that stash to be wiped out down to zilch. In fact, it usually only takes a little over a year. And when you are older and at risk for things like heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, and cancer and have no health insurance because you haven't been able to get a job that offered it and can't afford it on your own, this is hardly what I would call living prosperously.

And where is all this prosperity you think older job-seekers have who are being selfish crying age discrimination? How many of these folks still have their homes after fruitless job searches that run into YEARS without getting a chance for a good job? Let me clue you in: The number of homes in foreclosure has skyrocketed. You will find alot of these homes you think are owned by prosperous older people are on the Foreclosure Sales lists. The majority of all personal bankruptcies are filed by middle-aged people without health insurance from being without good jobs with benefits. Many are also filed by those minimum-wage Wal-mart greeters who can't afford health insurance on their own or the unaffordably priced HMO offered at their minimum wage jobs of $5.15/hr. Oh, and these older homeowners - many have lost their homes to foreclosure due to lack of income from lack of opportunity for jobs paying above $5.15/hr - never mind the $7/hr jobs (which many of us would be grateful for that we can't even get)which you think are too beneath you.

Lastly, how is it morally right or remotely fair to shove older and middle-aged workers out of jobs or deny them jobs in the first place solely based on age just so some snot-nosed kid who didn't "pay their dues" can get a high-paying job handed to them on a silver platter? How is it fair that someone who is middle-aged(who never previously enjoyed a "good job" and any "prosperity"), who finds themselves having to go into debt for a degree to re-enter the workforce - only to get denied a $14/hr job w/ benefits at a call center because the young HR manager would rather give all the jobs to 18 yr old HS grads Call that fair? This is what happened to me when I applied 3 times to a local firm called Telatron. NONE of the applicants who were my age and older got hired - but all the kids for whom this was their first job out of high school still living at home with mom & dad, were hired.

Do you know what an equal opportunity for that $14/hr job w/ benefits would have meant for me? I would have some hope of not ending up like the poor man in Barb's article whose ONLY option for an old-age "financial plan" was to get thrown in prison until able to collect social security and Medicare. Gee, how selfish of me! (sigh)