The Newshour rebroadcast a piece they put on a while ago about how wonderful it would be if people worked five or more years beyond the regular retirement age. They had a 101 year old woman who was working at an assembly line--an outlier, as they say because the other examples were a college professor and a business man who started up a consulting firm when he was laid off at age 65. No reference to people who sweat their way to an all too brief retirement at the regular retirement age. But what galled me most is that they chose to broadcast this piece on labor day. Sure it's great that some people wish to continue to work, but to suggest that it's somehow a patriotic duty to work till you drop--that's pure shinola, as far as I'm concerned. The implication of the piece, not stated but certainly not too far under the surface, is that we have a great retirement system, so long as no one retires.

I don't understand why, on Labor Day, they did not broadcast a piece on what would happen to Social Security if the 113,000 income limit were erased. Paul Solman said that if everyone works till age 71 or 72, we'd halve Social Security's cash flow problem. Well, what would happen if the 113,000 limit were lifted? No one ever says anything about that limit, or what getting rid of it would do.
MACTECH ubi dolor ibi digitus