The graying of the American workforce continues: Baby boomers are working longer and earning more than their predecessors did in what Americans typically think of as retirement years, new research finds.

Almost 20% of Americans ages 65 and older were employed this year, according to a new report from Pew Research Center. That’s nearly double the share of those who were working 35 years ago. In total, there are around 11 million Americans 65 or older who are working today, comprising 7% of all wages and salaries paid by U.S. employers. In 1987, they made up 2%.

And not only are more Americans at or above the traditional retirement age of 65 working, but they are also earning substantially more compared with what older workers earned in the 1980s. Now, the typical older worker earns $22 per hour, compared with $13 per hour then. Their wage growth—some of which can be attributed to their working longer hours than older Americans did in the past—has outpaced that of workers ages 25 to 64 over the same time period, according to Pew’s research, which is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and the Federal Reserve’s 2022 Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking.

  • Sonicdemon86@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only way voting third party works is if we get rid of “first to the pole” and instead used something like “ranked choice” voting.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      44
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah but that’s not in the interest of the current duopoly. They’re not gonna shoot themselves in the foot as long as they keep getting votes doing this

      • brianary@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But voting third party doesn’t actually accomplish anything. Take it from someone who did it for decades. It doesn’t shake up or change the system, it just perpetuates the minority rule set up by Project Redmap.

        The right way to do it is to vote your conscience locally, until there is enough support at higher levels. Skipping right to voting for third party presidential candidates is simply naive, I’m afraid.

        Edit: Steve Hofstetter lays it out well (I wish I could find this one elsewhere) https://m.facebook.com/stevehofstetter/videos/why-voting-third-party-for-president-makes-no-sense/359024631794244/

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s interesting about this observation is that you have to conclude voting isn’t the solution. No matter how you vote, either Democrats or Republicans are going to win in 99% of cases. Every vote you deny to one party to teach them a lesson is an implicit vote for the other party. The counts won’t matter so long as one or the other win.

        So what’s the moral thing to do? In terms of voting on a national scale, you pick the better option. But on a state and local level, vote for a reasonable third party that’s investing in growth.

        And no, that hasn’t been tried before, because none of our current third parties actually want change. They throw away their money at the federal level while rubbing shoulders with oligarchs. We need a party that starts local with a 50 state ground game and then gradually accumulates power through local victories. Creating this party is what we need to figure out what to do.