European Governments Reconsider Creating Jobs Via Early Retirement
Continued high unemployment among younger workers -- and the potential for explosive social consequences -- are causing officials to think about retiring older workers. However, many economists say this is (still) a bad idea.
Kecia Lynn has worked as a technical writer, editor, software developer, arts administrator, summer camp director, and television host. A graduate of Case Western Reserve University and the Iowa Writers' Workshop, she is currently living in Iowa City and working on her first novel.
What's the Latest Development?
With unemployment rates among young Europeans remaining high, and amid fears of potential civil conflict, some governments are reconsidering using part of their budgets to fund early retirement programs for older workers. It's one of the ideas that may come up at a July meeting hosted by Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel that will address the lack of available jobs. Merkel is a big fan of the idea, noting that such programs have been used in her country since the Great Depression to help solve employment crises. Meanwhile, officials in Italy say that they are looking at programs that will reduce older workers' hours while allowing them to mentor younger workers.
What's the Big Idea?
While most would agree that putting young people to work is a good thing, economists in particular are strongly recommending against using early retirement as a job creation strategy. Not only is there almost no evidence showing that early retirement opens up the job market for younger people, some say it may make matters worse because new retirees tend to spend less, reducing overall demand. Also, as pension systems struggle, national economies simply may not be able to afford to have workers stopping earlier.
The ability to speak clearly, succinctly, and powerfully is easier than you think
The ability to communicate effectively can make or break a person's assessment of your intelligence, competence, and authenticity.
Antimicrobial resistance is growing worldwide, rendering many "work horse" medicines ineffective. Without intervention, drug-resistant pathogens could lead to millions of deaths by 2050. Thankfully, companies like Pfizer are taking action.
- Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens are one of the largest threats to global health today.
- As we get older, our immune systems age, increasing our risk of life threatening infections. Without reliable antibiotics, life expectancy could decline for the first time in modern history.
- If antibiotics become ineffective, common infections could result in hospitalization or even death. Life-saving interventions like cancer treatments and organ transplantation would become more difficult, more often resulting in death. Routine procedures would become hard to perform.
- Without intervention, resistant pathogens could result in 10 million annual deaths by 2050.
- By taking a multi-faceted approach—inclusive of adherence to good stewardship, surveillance and responsible manufacturing practices, as well as an emphasis on prevention and treatment—companies like Pfizer are fighting to help curb the spread.
The climate change we're witnessing is more dramatic than we might think.
A lazy buzz phrase – 'Is this the new normal?' – has been doing the rounds as extreme climate events have been piling up over the past year. To which the riposte should be: it's worse than that – we're on the road to even more frequent, more extreme events than we saw this year.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.