No jobs? Why so many channels?

[kimmy]

I’ve heard………here’s an idea, what if we borrow from Obamacare and require all Canadians to invest in a bottomed out RRSP from once they enter the work force?

That's one of the ideas that's being tossed around right now. Unfortunately it still leaves the problem of unfunded obligations to current CPP members.

Though I can understand your sentiments, in your view, what would be a “fair” age cut-off ? For arguments sake, let’s say only those under 38 would see the double payout……is that fair for those that are 39? Or what of the 37 year old lawyer earning six figures versus the 52 year old granny working at Walmart?

Tough questions to be answered for sure………

When deciding when to make cuts, picking a "fair" age cut-off never seemed to be much of a problem. They picked a 1963 birthdate as the cut-off when they were raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67. When Romney and Jughead were campaigning with their ideas of voucherizing social security and medicare, they did the same. "Don't worry, this won't affect anybody over 50." Once again a 1963 birthdate would have been the magic cut off. When they started ramping up tuition fees in the mid 1990s, did they have this kind of discussion about fair? A college degree cost somebody who entered college in 1995 more than twice what it cost somebody who entered college in 1991. It must have sure sucked to be born in 1977 instead of 4 years earlier...

I don't see that deciding that people who are currently close to retirement are not eligible for "enhancements" is any more complicated than deciding that people who are currently close to retirement won't be required to face the costs of "reforming" these programs.

Joking aside, in a few years, feeding us old farts apple sauce and rolling us over to the window (but not in direct sunlight!) may become a financially rewarding career…………..Or we’ll just push for further foreign workers, there has to be a whole bunch of eager Filipino nurses out there dreaming of changing our diapers and giving us sponge baths…..or better yet, those robots off Elysuim (Just watched it with the wife)

My former landlord is married to one of those Filipino care aids, and the stories she told him would make your skin crawl. Suffice to say she had a pretty low opinion of her compatriots and the work they did and their general reliability. From what I've heard, the best care you can buy for $10.50 an hour isn't actually very good.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

...I don't see that deciding that people who are currently close to retirement are not eligible for "enhancements" is any more complicated than deciding that people who are currently close to retirement won't be required to face the costs of "reforming" these programs.

Maybe that's because Canada has already had that discussion and decided what to do. Or does that kind of logic only apply to entitlement schemes that you favor ?

[Guest Derek L]

That's one of the ideas that's being tossed around right now. Unfortunately it still leaves the problem of unfunded obligations to current CPP members.

It need not be a black or white solution…..I’d maintain current contributions, reduce payments and make up the difference for the poor with OAS…….and require you youngens to start socking away money into a RRSP from once you enter the labour force….

When deciding when to make cuts, picking a "fair" age cut-off never seemed to be much of a problem. They picked a 1963 birthdate as the cut-off when they were raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67. When Romney and Jughead were campaigning with their ideas of voucherizing social security and medicare, they did the same. "Don't worry, this won't affect anybody over 50." Once again a 1963 birthdate would have been the magic cut off. When they started ramping up tuition fees in the mid 1990s, did they have this kind of discussion about fair? A college degree cost somebody who entered college in 1995 more than twice what it cost somebody who entered college in 1991. It must have sure sucked to be born in 1977 instead of 4 years earlier...

I don't see that deciding that people who are currently close to retirement are not eligible for "enhancements" is any more complicated than deciding that people who are currently close to retirement won't be required to face the costs of "reforming" these programs.

So what is "close to retirement"? I was born in '63 and the wife and I could retire now if we wanted, but will likely choose to work into our 60s (part time) but will still be contributing the max contributions for another 10-15 years…….Why should we be precluded from larger monthly payments, when a teacher or bus driver born in 64 will retire at 55 with their full pension? Outside of the max CPP contributions, even if we reduced our household income by half, we’re still paying an awful lot of taxes….

In essence, it’s alright if we keep working and paying for others through taxation, but there is no way we should be entitled to greater benefits that we contribute fully to?

My former landlord is married to one of those Filipino care aids, and the stories she told him would make your skin crawl. Suffice to say she had a pretty low opinion of her compatriots and the work they did and their general reliability. From what I've heard, the best care you can buy for $10.50 an hour isn't actually very good.

-k

And my brother is married to a Filipino born and trained surgical RN…….believe it or not, in the Land of the Philippines, their healthcare professionals are taught about sterilization and sanitary conditions…..

Edited December 22, 2013 by Derek L

[kimmy]

It need not be a black or white solution…..I’d maintain current contributions, reduce payments and make up the difference for the poor with OAS…….and require you youngens to start socking away money into a RRSP from once you enter the labour force….

To me it sounds like an idea that would be great for people who are nearing retirement, and great for people who are new to the work force or not yet in the work force, but would really suck for people like me who have been in the work force for a while and paid a lot of money into the current system.

So what is "close to retirement"? I was born in '63 and the wife and I could retire now if we wanted, but will likely choose to work into our 60s (part time) but will still be contributing the max contributions for another 10-15 years…….Why should we be precluded from larger monthly payments, when a teacher or bus driver born in 64 will retire at 55 with their full pension? Outside of the max CPP contributions, even if we reduced our household income by half, we’re still paying an awful lot of taxes….

In essence, it’s alright if we keep working and paying for others through taxation, but there is no way we should be entitled to greater benefits that we contribute fully to?

Well, yes. I don't think folks your age and up have any business expecting a windfall from higher pension payouts when you won't be paying higher pension premiums for nearly as long as us "young'uns".

If you don't like the idea of paying into a program that you won't benefit fully from, then welcome to my world. I entered the workforce with hundreds of billions of dollars of pension liabilities to fund, and hundreds of billions of dollars of accumulated public debt amassed on programs and services that have been cut back or cut completely before I got to participate at all.

I mean, you guys ran up immense public debt during the most prosperous times in human history. How's that even possible? And now that your time in the workforce is coming to a close and you guys near retirement, suddenly the priority changes. "Holy geez, all these programs and services are just unsustainable. We have to cut because the debt is just too high. But you know what we really need to do is Enhance ™ the pension plan and improve care for seniors. It's really important, everyone."

I can't imagine why you'd expect to be exempt from the problem of putting money into stuff that won't directly benefit you, when that's the permanent legacy the baby boomers have left.

And my brother is married to a Filipino born and trained surgical RN…….believe it or not, in the Land of the Philippines, their healthcare professionals are taught about sterilization and sanitary conditions…..

Maybe, but the deadbeats and layabouts who'll actually be caring for you in your rest home suite really don't give a crap. They're there for the money, and it's not a lot of money at that. They're as motivated and committed as fast-food workers.

-k

[Guest Derek L]

To me it sounds like an idea that would be great for people who are nearing retirement, and great for people who are new to the work force or not yet in the work force, but would really suck for people like me who have been in the work force for a while and paid a lot of money into the current system.

And you see the point of view of those older that you suggest shouldn’t receive larger CPP payments………Remember, not all of us Baby Boomers have a gold house and rocket car, a great many are in a much less solvent boat then yourself, but unlike you, they don’t have 3 ½ more decades for a “do over”…

Well, yes. I don't think folks your age and up have any business expecting a windfall from higher pension payouts when you won't be paying higher pension premiums for nearly as long as us "young'uns".

Even folks my age that earn less then you currently do? You’re at the start of the race and own a place, a might sight better then those in their 50s renting a basement suite working at Walmart or as security guards……

If you don't like the idea of paying into a program that you won't benefit fully from, then welcome to my world. I entered the workforce with hundreds of billions of dollars of pension liabilities to fund, and hundreds of billions of dollars of accumulated public debt amassed on programs and services that have been cut back or cut completely before I got to participate at all.

For me it’s both the principle and the thought of screwing over those in my age bracket that are far less fortunate then my wife and I and would be gouged with your plan…….In all honesty, Leonora and I don’t need CPP, but screwing over folks that both pay into it and will need it is wrong.

I mean, you guys ran up immense public debt during the most prosperous times in human history. How's that even possible? And now that your time in the workforce is coming to a close and you guys near retirement, suddenly the priority changes. "Holy geez, all these programs and services are just unsustainable. We have to cut because the debt is just too high. But you know what we really need to do is Enhance ™ the pension plan and improve care for seniors. It's really important, everyone."

And the roads, hospitals, schools and hydroelectric dams etc didn’t benefit you and your age group in anyway?

I can't imagine why you'd expect to be exempt from the problem of putting money into stuff that won't directly benefit you, when that's the permanent legacy the baby boomers have left.

Because I have the same primary interest as you…..myself and my family‘s financial well being.

Maybe, but the deadbeats and layabouts who'll actually be caring for you in your rest home suite really don't give a crap. They're there for the money, and it's not a lot of money at that. They're as motivated and committed as fast-food workers.

-k

That settles it.......robots it is.

[kimmy]

And you see the point of view of those older that you suggest shouldn’t receive larger CPP payments………Remember, not all of us Baby Boomers have a gold house and rocket car, a great many are in a much less solvent boat then yourself, but unlike you, they don’t have 3 ½ more decades for a “do over”…

I don't think the people who've helped themselves to the public trough and left a massive tab behind of their folly have any business complaining if they don't receive higher pension payouts that they never actually paid for. It seems utterly ludicrous to me. You guys already got yours.

I think that people your age who don't have gold houses and rocket cars have only themselves to blame.

Even folks my age that earn less then you currently do? You’re at the start of the race and own a place, a might sight better then those in their 50s renting a basement suite working at Walmart or as security guards……

People who don't receive the new Enhanced™ levels of CPP payouts as they're phased in would still receive current levels. And there's more assistance for people who are in dire straits, so it's not like I'm advocating leaving the elderly poor to starve.

And what's with this sudden sympathy for people who have made choices that left them in less-than-robust financial situations? Earlier in this thread yourself and Dick expressed an overwhelming lack of sympathy for young people who've been left behind by the changing job market and student debt and degrees that aren't needed anymore and offshoring and all of these things. But now you care about some older lady who's working in a blue vest job at Walmart? Why? Because she's old?

For me it’s both the principle and the thought of screwing over those in my age bracket that are far less fortunate then my wife and I and would be gouged with your plan…….In all honesty, Leonora and I don’t need CPP, but screwing over folks that both pay into it and will need it is wrong.

Well, let's be clear: it's not my plan. There's talk going on about higher pay-in and higher pay-out for CPP. It's somebody's plan, but not mine. My position is just that higher pay-out should only be for people who have provided higher pay-in. That's all.

And saying that folks who didn't pay increased premiums shouldn't get increased benefits isn't "screwing them over".

On the other hand, awarding increased benefits to boomers who only paid the increased premiums for a few years would be a king-sized screw-over. It would be utterly criminal.

And I have to point out that the reason driving this talk behind Enhancing™ the Canada Pension Plan is that employee pension plans have ceased to exist. Government workers might still have them; I wouldn't know. But private sector workers don't have them. Even employers that used to have them are phasing them out; new employees don't get to participate. It's the realization that these plans no longer exist and that people in the future will be relying entirely on CPP and their savings that is driving the discussion about expanding CPP. Folks who grew up in the era when employee pension plans still existed shouldn't even need Enhanced™ CPP.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

...... But now you care about some older lady who's working in a blue vest job at Walmart? Why? Because she's old?

Yes...isn't that was a good "socialist" would do ? Spoiled kids who want a lot more now without paying their dues deserve little sympathy.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't think the people who've helped themselves to the public trough and left a massive tab behind of their folly have any business complaining if they don't receive higher pension payouts that they never actually paid for. It seems utterly ludicrous to me. You guys already got yours.

I think that people your age who don't have gold houses and rocket cars have only themselves to blame.

Ok, but why should I pay higher rates towards CPP for people of your age and not get any benefit? How about us old people keep paying the same rates for the same benefit, and you youngsters do likewise, but also invest in your own retirement through a mandated RRSP or TFSA if you’re so concerned about eating cat when you get old?

People who don't receive the new Enhanced™ levels of CPP payouts as they're phased in would still receive current levels. And there's more assistance for people who are in dire straits, so it's not like I'm advocating leaving the elderly poor to starve.

So why not keep the current CPP system as is, mandate your age group to save for retirement through an RRSP, and boost funding to OAS for those eating fancy feast?

And what's with this sudden sympathy for people who have made choices that left them in less-than-robust financial situations? Earlier in this thread yourself and Dick expressed an overwhelming lack of sympathy for young people who've been left behind by the changing job market and student debt and degrees that aren't needed anymore and offshoring and all of these things. But now you care about some older lady who's working in a blue vest job at Walmart? Why? Because she's old?

It’s not a sudden burst of sympathy, the wife and I donate annually to charities what a couple of blue vest ladies might make……but I can recognize that old lady with the blue vest has been contributing to CPP throughout her entire working career, and in turn, those with faux degrees that get kicked out of their parents basement eventually might also obtain a blue vest and contribute to the CPP ponzi scheme, as such they too should get a fair return on their “investment” into CPP.

Well, let's be clear: it's not my plan. There's talk going on about higher pay-in and higher pay-out for CPP. It's somebody's plan, but not mine. My position is just that higher pay-out should only be for people who have provided higher pay-in. That's all.

And saying that folks who didn't pay increased premiums shouldn't get increased benefits isn't "screwing them over".

On the other hand, awarding increased benefits to boomers who only paid the increased premiums for a few years would be a king-sized screw-over. It would be utterly criminal.

Then perhaps we should look to a graduated system of pay-in and pay-outs based on years contributed? Fairness dictates, that my children will pay higher lifetime CPP premiums under this proposed scheme then yourself, for no fault of their own, other then being ~10-12 years younger then you…

And I have to point out that the reason driving this talk behind Enhancing™ the Canada Pension Plan is that employee pension plans have ceased to exist. Government workers might still have them; I wouldn't know. But private sector workers don't have them. Even employers that used to have them are phasing them out; new employees don't get to participate. It's the realization that these plans no longer exist and that people in the future will be relying entirely on CPP and their savings that is driving the discussion about expanding CPP. Folks who grew up in the era when employee pension plans still existed shouldn't even need Enhanced™ CPP.

-k

A well funded RRSP and investment strategy will land you a greater lifetime return then any Government pension……As Bonam(?) mentioned , you’re much better off, both private and public, to get the money up front and take care of yourself for later on in life.

[jacee]

On the other hand, awarding increased benefits to boomers who only paid the increased premiums for a few years would be a king-sized screw-over. It would be utterly criminal.

-k

Oh we paid for increases!

... in 1965 ... Contribution rates were first set at 1.8% of an employee's gross income per year with a maximum contribution limit.

...

Total CPP annual contribution rates (employer/employee combined) from 6% of pensionable earnings in 1997 to 9.9% by 2003.

Contributions I made made in 1997 have increased to 1.5 times their value, just from inflation.

It's how it works. We already paid it forward.

[kimmy]

Yes...isn't that was a good "socialist" would do ?

I don't consider myself a socialist, and I know that you and Derek certainly don't think of yourselves as socialists either. Which is why I found it especially odd that Derek kept mentioning the blue vest lady as a reason why affluent boomers should get boosted CPP benefits. Obviously she should pull herself up by the boot straps, take responsibility for herself, and so on. Perhaps she can start a successful business or, as August proposes, maybe she can start a YouTube channel or a cable TV show and live large.

Spoiled kids who want a lot more now without paying their dues deserve little sympathy.

What an absurd comment. The ones who "want a lot more now without paying their dues" are the boomers proposing that they get increased CPP payouts while only paying increased premiums in their few years left before retirement. Us "spoiled kids" will be paying our dues (and the boomers' as well) for the next 40 years.

-k

[kimmy]

Oh we paid for increases!

... in 1965 ... Contribution rates were first set at 1.8% of an employee's gross income per year with a maximum contribution limit.

...

Total CPP annual contribution rates (employer/employee combined) from 6% of pensionable earnings in 1997 to 9.9% by 2003.

Contributions I made made in 1997 have increased to 1.5 times their value, just from inflation.

It's how it works. We already paid it forward.

I'm sorry, but no.

The increases you paid starting in 2000 were to cover the gigantic shortfall in the plan's funding. You haven't "paid it forward', you've barely been paying your own share for the past 15 years. Prior to that you guys weren't putting in close to enough money to cover your own pensions.

Your existing pension payouts aren't even fully funded; you don't get to talk about sharing in increased payouts without acknowledging the fact that you'd once again be robbing people who come after.

-k

[Bonam]

Why such a binary perspective on this? Sigh, policymakers really should have training as engineers.

CPP payout = (old CPP payout * number of years you paid old contribution) + (new CPP payout * number of years you paid new contribution) / (total number of years worked)

No cutoffs, no "unfair" results. You get exactly the CPP you supposedly paid for.

That being said, personally, I think we should just get rid of CPP and have government require individuals to invest an equivalent amount in personal retirement savings funds instead. You could even have legislation limiting the types of risks people can take with these investments, and have some % of the account value guaranteed by government (from general revenue taxes) to prevent people who retire in bad market years from being screwed over. In effect, it would be the same type of safety net as CPP, but any individual would see exactly the money they put in, how it is doing, and know that no one else but themselves can access it, that government won't put said money to other uses, etc.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Bonam

[kimmy]

Then perhaps we should look to a graduated system of pay-in and pay-outs based on years contributed? Fairness dictates, that my children will pay higher lifetime CPP premiums under this proposed scheme then yourself, for no fault of their own, other then being ~10-12 years younger then you…

And that's the entire essence of the problem. Decisions that are made today are going to screw over me, and they'll screw your kids even worse than me, and screw their kids even worse than yours.

-k

[Bonam]

Us "spoiled kids" will be paying our dues (and the boomers' as well) for the next 40 years.

-k

Or more likely a lot longer. Life expectancies are rising rapidly, and science is fast gaining understanding of the processes behind aging and how to slow or stop them. People in their 20s or younger today may well have the opportunity to live, essentially, for as long as they want.

[Argus]

Ok, but why should I pay higher rates towards CPP for people of your age and not get any benefit? How about us old people keep paying the same rates for the same benefit, and you youngsters do likewise, but also invest in your own retirement through a mandated RRSP or TFSA if you’re so concerned about eating cat when you get old?

When I was in my thirties my RRSP contributions consisted of =0=.

Why? Because I was barely making ends meet, working hand to mouth up to that point. I was supposed to be somehow able to put five grand away into a TFSA (even if they existed) every year!? Are you kidding!? I also had no private sector pension. And I think I was fairly typical for the working poor.

I think you've fallen into the trap of not undersanding the difference between your lifestyle and those of probably the majority of people out there today. I used to be poor, so I understand. Maybe you've always been fairly comfortable which is why you don't seem to.

[eyeball]

From where I'm sitting now it looks like I'll be just getting out of debt when I hit retirement age. Between resource depletion, economic mismanagement the resulting financial hangover of these and meeting some oft-times complicated needs of my family I plan on having to work past retirement age and putting it off as long as possible, hopefully at the same job I love doing right now. Working till I nearly drop, my wife's CPP, plus rental income should be enough.

I'm mostly worried about ageism and the anger of future generations who come to realize how much has been squandered and lost. I just hope the term "I wasn't no senator's son" still means something. To me, investing for the future should definitely involve trying to make things right between the ages as opposed to just assembling as big a stack as possible. It would sure be nice if we could leave a better system of governance behind. I definitely think the biggest threat to everyone's future well being is the governance we've got because there is just too much that is being rendered unsustainable by it. i.e. Pensions, resources, natural capital and above all else, social capital.

Edited December 23, 2013 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

And that's the entire essence of the problem. Decisions that are made today are going to screw over me, and they'll screw your kids even worse than me, and screw their kids even worse than yours.

-k

As I said, a graduated system then should be looked at……..I’d say Bonam’s post above yours would be the ideal, fair to all involved, solution:

CPP payout = (old CPP payout * number of years you paid old contribution) + (new CPP payout * number of years you paid new contribution) / (total number of years worked)

No cutoffs, no "unfair" results. You get exactly the CPP you supposedly paid for.

[Guest Derek L]

When I was in my thirties my RRSP contributions consisted of =0=.

Why? Because I was barely making ends meet, working hand to mouth up to that point. I was supposed to be somehow able to put five grand away into a TFSA (even if they existed) every year!? Are you kidding!? I also had no private sector pension. And I think I was fairly typical for the working poor.

And in my 20s and 30s, I was in the Canadian Forces.........The 80s and 90s hardly saw members living high off the hog….I didn’t really start saving until after I left with my lump ROC…..

I think you've fallen into the trap of not undersanding the difference between your lifestyle and those of probably the majority of people out there today. I used to be poor, so I understand. Maybe you've always been fairly comfortable which is why you don't seem to.

We didn’t become “financially comfortable” until our early 40s/late 30s…….About 10 years…

[kimmy]

As I said, a graduated system then should be looked at……..I’d say Bonam’s post above yours would be the ideal, fair to all involved, solution:

If our policy-makers were as rational as Bonam, we would be better off.

-k

[Guest Derek L]

If our policy-makers were as rational as Bonam, we would be better off.

-k

I won’t laud carte blanche approval to all of his views……but in this case, I agree.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

1) I the utopia you're proposing sounds great, the problem is how does that saying go?

2) The idle mind is the devil's playground (workshop). Look around you and check the news, the opioid crisis, people getting radicalized, suicide, shootings, computer viruses, the list goes on... almost all of this the result of people with too much time on their hands. Continue replacing these individuals with technology and it's going to continue to get worse.

3) Factory work can be very healthy and satisfying. Some people get great satisfaction and fulfilment from it. You've never met anybody that says they hate to be indoors all the time? I got into a debate with someone over entry level jobs awhile back, the common belief is you get in, get a little experience and money and move on.

4) Do you know or have you met anyone in entry level work who loves their job? There are people that would love to make careers of the entry level work they are in, and some do.  

5) Ever watch the movie WALL E? I know it's just a stupid cartoon but is this where we need to be headed? It might be time to step back and take another look at where the human population is headed. Maybe we need to downside a bit, globalization, automation, factory farming, factory child care and so on is turning us into slaves of technology and ruining our planet in the process.

1) Not MY utopia, nor am I proposing it

2) Yes, the effects you are describing are real

3) It can be, but it also can be physically demanding, dangerous and - with lowered benefits and LTD coverage - can end up as financially ruinous.  "Hate to be indoors"... factory work is indoors work, and less healthy than working outside, especially in non-repetitive tasks.

4) Yes, many

5) Propose an alternative to change.  It's a tough task to come up with something practical: most often the effects are absorbed by society and there is a wider adjustment.  All of those factors you are talking about are here to stay, except maybe 'factory child care'.  I don't know what that is but whatever it is, I'm against it as Groucho Marx said.

 

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Change when appropriate and when useful outcomes are identified is good. Not all change is good, and not all things that are "old" are useless or bad.
That place in the middle where everything is perfect and good is far more boring than you realize.

Change is neither good nor bad, but both... and inevitable.  

Anyway, my comment is more about how groups of people change when confronted with widespread change.  Conservatives used to be against free trade, then in the last quarter of the 20th century they made it a priority.  Now the populist base has been impacted by it, so we have a right-wing anti-globalist sentiment.

Interesting, don't you think ?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Change is neither good nor bad, but both... and inevitable.  

Anyway, my comment is more about how groups of people change when confronted with widespread change.  Conservatives used to be against free trade, then in the last quarter of the 20th century they made it a priority.  Now the populist base has been impacted by it, so we have a right-wing anti-globalist sentiment.

Interesting, don't you think ?

No, it gets really boring waiting for stupid conservatives to wake up to what lefties are saying.  Progress will always remain an unnecessarily laborious task so long as they insist on kicking and screaming against it every inch of the way.

Perhaps the way to speed up the process is to let them co-opt all the good ideas and live with the illusion they came up with them.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

On 4/9/2017 at 5:56 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1) Not MY utopia, nor am I proposing it

2) Yes, the effects you are describing are real

3) It can be, but it also can be physically demanding, dangerous and - with lowered benefits and LTD coverage - can end up as financially ruinous.  "Hate to be indoors"... factory work is indoors work, and less healthy than working outside, especially in non-repetitive tasks.

4) Yes, many

5) Propose an alternative to change.  It's a tough task to come up with something practical: most often the effects are absorbed by society and there is a wider adjustment.  All of those factors you are talking about are here to stay, except maybe 'factory child care'.  I don't know what that is but whatever it is, I'm against it as Groucho Marx said.

 

1 Oops,sorry, that was the vibe I was getting

2 I think it's time to figure out how promote more "apprentice" type activity, it should be easier for those of us more experienced to mentor the young (or even inexperienced) would be a step in the right direction. Maybe isolating our children from the work world in the interest of safety needs to be balanced more with the desire to learn, teach and build experience. In a way we are killing our kids because they need to find alternatives to alleviate their boredom. 

3 You could say the same for office work also, maybe not so physically dangerous but I bet there are lots of low paying office jobs as well. Physically demanding work is fine, builds good healthy bodies if you don't overdo it, same as sitting at a desk all day can ruin your health if not done properly. OH&S standards make physical labor incredibly safe these days. Coverage is way better than you think. 

Not all factory work is indoors, think of seasonal agricultural work for instance.

4 And I think this needs to be promoted, reasonable income, job security etc. Being served by people who love what they do makes my day

5 I think it's time to slow down, step back and look at the big picture. 

I can elaborate my thoughts on this point further if you're interested but I must go to work now

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

 I think it's time to slow down, step back and look at the big picture. 

I can elaborate my thoughts on this point further if you're interested but I must go to work now

Please do.  Keep in mind you're taking on an impossible task.