1 percent should not rule 99 percent

I think most of us agree that government is broken. At some point, probably a couple decades ago, politicians began caring more about themselves than us. And we, the voters, allowed it because life was generally OK for most of us for many years, particularly following the end of the Vietnam War and military draft. The civil rights protests went away. More and more kids were going to college. Retirees were enjoying their pensions.

But now a massive vortex has formed as the country has reached a point of division and dysfunction that we might not ever recover from. We're spinning out of control. There are no more pensions. Even Social Security is at risk.

We're at a juncture where individuals most hurt by the shenanigans of Constitution Avenue and Wall Street have exhausted all options to remain afloat, let alone thrive. Unless we unify, mobilize and get into the faces of bankers, senators and others who make up the approximately one percent of those getting rich on our pain, the lives of 99 percent of Americans will continue to spiral downward -- some slowly, some quickly depending on where you're at in the social-economic order.

While the one percent holds the power and privilege in this county, the 99 percent possess the numbers. However, if the majority continues to sit back and do nothing, or dilute and divide itself into mindless red and blue camps, then the one percent will continue to flourish at our expense.

We don't need a Tea Party, we need an informed Unity Party. We need for people to rally around groups like Occupy Together in order to send a message to those who have abused their powers that we aren't going to take it anymore. Regardless of political leanings, we as Americans should have one cause in common, and that is to stop being abused by those in power. We want our jobs back. We want a more level playing field. We don't want to make anymore sacrifices so that corporate titans can profit while we struggle to put food on the table. That isn't a political philosophy -- it's common decency. And everyone except the 1 percent should be for that.

It is the 99 percent that gives the 1 percent their power. We can also take it away if we stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated by various powerful factions that intentionally try to divide us.

Three years of unemployment and underemployment are taking an irreversible toll on the country as a whole. Roads are crumbling, families are splintering, stores are closing, tax rolls are dwindling. Eventually, the bridges that carry the trucks that bring products to market will collapse. And what will CEOs do then? Layoff more people? Is that how we're going to continue to handle this crisis, by firing capable workers? Is that really the best Corporate America and government can do to address a complex problem that they helped create?

Layoffs just make things worse for society, which in turn eats away at the economy and our national security. Yes, corporate profits have risen, but for how long and through what means? Eventually the recession will catch up to these job killers, who may then realize that gutting the workforce and sitting on their wealth might not have been such a good strategy. In fact, that tactic has fueled a dark super cell -- a storm on the horizon that is so ominous that it may threaten our way of life, our freedom.

There seems to be only one way out of this. We and our elected officials need to start working together. I mean really work together, not just give lip service about it. We need to put aside our philosophical differences, reject the lobbyists/special interests groups and hit the voting booths harder than ever in order to get rid of any politician who seems unwilling to compromise or unable to think outside of the box.

We need to work for and do business with responsible employers who protect and create jobs here in America. When a lawmaker trumpets a claim, they need to back it out with facts not partisan theory and manipulation. We need to verify that tax cuts for the wealthy help create jobs. If that claim can't be supported with hard data, then politicians need to let go of it and move on. And we, the voters, need to punish any politician who clings to any false statements or perpetuates economic myths. Those falsities are a distraction. They are delaying our finding real solutions for the 99 percent of us who don't have a pile of gold stashed away or more time to waste.

The cost of not working together is our destruction. Plain and simple. If you want to cling to your bumper sticker, red and blue mentality, do so at your own peril. But if you want to force our leaders to do something for us rather than against us, you have to abandon your preconceived notions about our two political parties. You must educate yourselves and realize that most politicians do not have our best interests at heart. You must join protesters marching in New York and form your own protests at your State Houses and corporate headquarters of the most offensive companies. You must write and call your representatives. Elect governors who can govern for the people and not just take money from special interest groups. Reject anyone and everyone who doesn't stand up for workers' rights, whether those workers are unionized or not.

At this stage, the 99 percent being passive or uninformed will only make the 1 percent stronger. The 1 percent doesn't need either political party helping them. You must be willing to reinvent yourself, your views on politics and government, and not fall for the same tricks that have done nothing but weaken the 99 percent for a generation or two while right-wingers and centrists have ineffectively ruled the country. If that means swallowing a little pride and admitting your party is overrun by folks who say they are for the middle class but aren't, then open your eyes and vote them out. But at the same time, be cautious with who you're voting in. Make sure they are qualified, honest, sincere and intelligent. Examine their records and make sure they understand history. Don't elect anyone based on your emotions or their empty promises.

Look around your neighborhoods, your offices and see who is doing well and who isn't. Dig beneath the surface and don't just assume that someone who lost their job or house must have done something wrong. If you do that, you're sealing your own faith. Your pink slip will come.

Statistics show that if you're a white male over 50 years old, and get laid off, there is an increasing chance that you will never work again regardless of your credentials. Age discrimination is running rampant, which is another thing the system is supposed to prevent but doesn't because we don't do a damn thing to make sure employers aren't operating outside of the law. Apathy is killing us.

I am outraged whenever I hear politicians talking about raising the retirement age. Who exactly is going to hire or keep a 70-year-old employee these days? It sounds fine to say we're living longer than ever and need to save money on Social Security by delaying benefits, but does anyone ever think about enforcing age discrimination laws so that we can work into our senior years? Simply raising the retirement age without putting some teeth into discrimination laws is a recipe for disaster in a job market that openly excludes experienced workers. I've read a lot of job ads in the last three years, and it always astonishes me how employers aren't shy about their not wanting to give anyone over 50 a chance to even apply, let alone interview. It's a tragedy for mid-career professionals and for less experienced workers who could learn from the seasoned pros. In addition, current job seekers do not need a whole new wave of people to compete with.

Recently, I've heard some Republicans want to make job training mandatory for anyone who receives unemployment benefits. Sounds good on the surface, but surface solutions are often flawed. The real agenda of these Republicans has more to do with throwing the vulnerable overboard than it does guiding them back into employment.

Unemployment benefits are just that -- benefits earned by once-employed people. You don't qualify for them if you didn't work. So the premise that unemployment is some sort of handout is completely wrong in most instances, particularly during this recession. In addition to that, many people who get laid off have years of experience and a wide range of skills. A few months of additional training aren't going to make them anymore employable. It's another illusion promoted by intellectually challenged morons who want to place the blame on the victims of this horrible economy rather than on the culprits. Heck, in many cases it was their vast experience (and larger paychecks) that got good people canned in the first place -- usually older workers.

I resent any statement that implies that all unemployed or underemployed people must have a shortage of skills. In fact, in certain cases, unemployed people from certain professions probably have more skills, education and ethics than those who remain employed. Companies throughout this recession have been letting go of the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

While adding tools to one's toolbox isn't a bad idea in a struggling job market, it should not be mandated as a condition to receive what laid-off workers are rightfully owed. In a day and age where companies don't even have the decency to provide severance, unemployment benefits must be paid as long as those receiving the benefits can prove they are searching for work. Unemployment benefits not only help individuals, but they have been proven to boost the economy.

Why have we all -- outside of those current protesters in New York and previously Wisconsin -- become so apathetic about blatant injustice? Social, economic and institutional injustice is reaching epidemic levels. Have we somehow collectively accepted that we can't fight city hall anymore? Are we willing to voluntarily march off a cliff, clinging to our stale political beliefs right until the end, while the one percent gathers more riches and power? We should be outraged by the one percent who are picking our bones clean, practically robbing our gold fillings from our graves. Where are these people acquiring their nerve and authority to make up the rules as they go?

If you're fresh out of college, and unable to find a job, it's going to be impossible to pay back your school loans, let alone begin your quest for the "American Dream." We have always sold that dream in order to create peace and tranquility among the masses and to drive the economy. It's worked for a long time because people were able to climb the social ladder, buy a car, put food on the table and pay into the system through taxation. That just isn't the case anymore. There is no ladder to climb anymore. Young adults are getting out of college and moving in with their parents nowadays. If you don't work, you can't pay taxes, which in turn causes more economic and societal woes for everyone.

Some are seeing a connection between our disillusioned young, educated people and the youths in Egypt who recently became so disenchanted with a government that wasn't working for them that they took to the streets in full revolutionary mode.

Can that happen here?

I don't see why not. Maybe it has already started.

Chronic institutional unfairness alters social norms regardless of nationality. You want to see class warfare, wait another few years. You won't be able to go the ATM without getting mugged by someone who once paid taxes and lived a three-room rambler with a white picket fence, but is now starving on the streets because politicians couldn't put aside their differences in order to address a national crisis. Wait a few more years and things could be considerably worse. At that point, who do we blame? The politicians or the people who elected them without doing their homework?

Close-minded voters who rely only on talk radio to help them decide on a which candidate to cast a ballot for are worse than people who don't vote at all. Recent Republican primaries are driven by some of the most ill-informed people on the planet and are taking away our options in general elections. I'd like to get back to having two viable candidates to choose from in a general election. I'd like to return to the days when Corporate American didn't control our politicians and where crazies didn't make it beyond their local homeowner association boards in the political world.

We have reached the point where if we don't compromise and find lasting solutions, we will fall and fall hard. The despair, the poverty, the lack of hope will eat at the inner core of America and reduce us to a nation of have and have-nots, with the have-nots eventually rising up to create chaos that even the rich won't be able to shelter themselves from. Perhaps this is why some wealthy folks are finally coming out and pleading to have their taxes raised. Yes, raised. They can and want to help the economy, realizing that if they don't take on a fairer share of the load, they might end up with nothing, like the 50somethings, who were once vibrant, middle-class contributors to society but who are now living in their cars all across this nation. Yet, there are some leaders in Washington who ignore the pleas of the moral rich in favor of the still-greedy rich. They won't raise taxes.

It is time to shut out the extremists and the selfish and work together. The media can play a role in this by not giving any airtime to all the usual suspects who do nothing but promote themselves. We need smart, sincere people on the front pages of our newspapers. People willing and able to make a difference, not manipulators of media who flirt with their short-sighted followers through bus tours and book signings. These people are a cancer. They are not patriots. At best, they are distractions. And we can't afford anymore distractions. Time is running out.

For some victims of the last three years, it's already too late. But there are millions more who could be saved from a very bad ending if politicians, business owners and others can simply redirect their energy to rebuilding the middle class rather than tearing it down though obstructionism and partisan inaction. Politicians can't create jobs, but they can create an environment more conducive to combating joblessness. In that regard, both Republicans and Democrats have failed us miserably.

Jobs, not "Obamacare" or debt reduction or anything else, must be the central focus of Washington. Every time I hear a smoke-and-mirrors politician utter the word "Obamacare," I know they aren't serious about job creation and I won't vote for them. If you're unemployed or want to remain employable for the next decade or two, I would recommend you do the same -- vote out anyone who seems distracted by lesser issues or who doesn't back up their jobs rhetoric with action. Real action. Not speeches, not phony bills that are dead on arrival. I want to see a look of authenticity and truthfulness on the faces of our leaders in Congress. I want to feel a sense of getting along with the opposing party. Please, no more posturing.

I would like to see entire debates dedicated to one subject -- job creation. I don't need to hear anything more about fences along borders, in-state tuition for the children of illegal aliens or English as an official language. I don't need for politicians to sneak in their pet projects or warped values in the name of job creation. I want to see members of both political parties roll up their sleeves and get back to the job of getting us to work.

Everything depends on employment. Everything, including our health, the environment and our defense. We can't protect whales or feed starving children if there is no money going to organizations that do good works. This is not the time for Democrats and Republicans to come out of White House meetings with nasty comments about the other guy or to drone on about why they don't believe in science.. This is a time for unity and a sense of urgency. We have no time left to listen to Tea Party fantasies or to cater to a do-nothing establishment. We must stand together in our demand for jobs. We must turn up the volume in a variety of ways if we want to be a democracy and create a fair and optimistic nation.

Read more about the 99 percent.

Rescue America from Wall Street.

A better pursuit than raising the retirement age

Retirement age should be a personal decision based on one's finances and health, among other things, of course. Yet, governments around the world have a lot to do with that decision. As the economic crisis continues, many countries are considering raising the age for retirement with full benefits.

That would be tragic and wouldn't necessarily accomplish its goal.

Those who have saved enough money for retirement don't need to worry too much about the U.S. or any other country raising the retirement age. But for the majority of us who haven't saved enough or were wiped out by the current recession, retirement is beginning to seem like an impossibility. That is not good for the human spirit that longs for some down time. Raising the age would only make matters worse for older individuals already struggling to stay on the job.

People retiring is one of the ways jobs become available to folks who are looking for work. Fewer retirements means more people in need of unemployment benefits and other assistance. That in turn increases nations' deficits. So I don't see the logic in forcing senior citizens to remain in the workforce. I understand that paying into Social Security is better for the government than people collecting their benefits, but countries shouldn't fatten up their federal budgets on the labor of senior citizens. What next? Reduce the legal age of when minors can work so that they can pay taxes?

The irony is that while some people are willing and capable of working into their golden years, age discrimination laws aren't enforced enough to prevent some companies from forcing older workers out the door. So while governments may raise the retirement age to cope with economic concerns, they should also take a long look at how older employees are treated in the workforce and job market. Tightening up age-discrimination laws will do far more to keep able seniors working than raising the retirement age.

Swimming against the job-market current

I have filled out hundreds of job applications in the last 17 months. Some take an hour to complete, some take five minutes. Almost all of them ask for the following:

1. Gender
2. Race/ethnicity
3. Military experience

There is usually an opt-out check box that allows you to not answer those questions, allegedly without being penalized. It's a legal thing, I am sure. However, I always answer the questions.

I am a white male with no military service. That probably disqualifies me from some jobs, regardless of whether the application or employer indicate that or not. The questions wouldn't be there if they didn't matter. I figure if gender and race are potentially deciding factors, I might as well answer the questions because eventually, somewhere in the hiring process someone will figure out that I am a white male.

I have written a lot about age discrimination in the workplace. The unemployment stats seem to support my opinion. From my perspective, it's as blatant as any kind of discrimination can be. But to make matters worse, these questions of race, ethnicity and gender on job applications make me feel as though I am hopelessly trying to swim upstream at 52 years old.

I am not sure when it became such a liability to be an experienced, white male with with a good employment history, but I can certainly hear the waterfalls getting closer as my job search continues and bank account dwindles.

For anyone who reads this blog, you probably know that I support our country and employers giving fair opportunities to qualified/deserving people, regardless of gender, race, ethnic background, etc. In addition, I believe vets deserve certain considerations for serving our country. But there is something that just doesn't feel right about these questions being standard on most job applications. I feel as though I am out of the running before the race even begins.

Taking aim at real discrimination

Gun owners gathered in Northern Virginia yesterday. They carried loaded weapons at a park near D.C. They were protesting, uh, well... I am not exactly sure what they were protesting. The gathering was legal. I have no issue with people owning guns, but I do worry about folks who feel under attack when no obvious threat exists. Nor am I crazy about loaded weapons in public parks.

This protest, and others like it, seem to be more about intimidation than debate. There are a lot of angry people in this country right now, and gun owners can express that anger with a bit more gusto than your average Tea Party supporter. What are they angry about? Well, your guess is as good as mine. I see no shortage of gun shops where I live.

Living in the Washington area exposes residents to a lot of protests. But the one protest I haven't seen yet is a march of unemployed middle-age men. These are guys who were and are openly discriminated against in the job market. There is virtually no one who would argue against the statistics that prove mid-career men face obstacles (some of them illegal) that most other segments of society don't face when looking for work. There's no affirmative action plans in place for mid-career men. These are men with college degrees and years in professional trades. These aren't untrained, unmotivated guys making a life of hanging out on street corners.

As the result of men being discriminated against by some employers, many women are now carrying the financial load for their families. And while there are signs that the economy is improving, it's not improving fast enough for unemployed people over 50.

My guess is that many older men are without work for the first time in their lives as a result of the current recession. And there is an embarrassment factor associated with that. They've never asked for help so it isn't likely they are going to organize a mass protest or file a lawsuit. My gut feeling is that many of these men come from a generation where personal feelings and failures are concealed.

Gun owners, on the other hand, have no qualms about openly displaying their firearms. They believe that packing heat and yelling out unfounded fears towards the White House is somehow going to protect their rights to shoot things. But unlike the unemployed, no one appears to be threatening their rights. Best I can tell, there is no discrimination against gun owners. I can go buy a gun in 10 minutes and be shooting by noon. No one is going to say I am too old or overqualified. Men and women are treated equally at the gun checkout counter. So what are these protests really about?

We live in a time where far-fetched threats seem to mobilize people more than real threats. Emotions run high when guns, Obama or taxes are mentioned. But the real threat to our way of life has less to do with these topics and much more to do with a decaying sense of self worth in individuals who played by the rules -- folks who want existing laws to be enforced so that they can earn a living. Whether white, black, male or female, people want the right to earn a paycheck more than they want to carry guns in parks and restaurants. So maybe the next protest in D.C. should be about evening the playing field in the job market.

Why I may never vote Republican again

It doesn't happen often in my mature years, but every once in awhile I want to punch some arrogant politician in the face -- if not literally, then figuratively.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the latest moron without a clue as to what he's talking about. Delay says people are unemployed because they want to be. Read about it here.

I would love to invite Mr. DeLay to my modest home and show him my Excel files on my computer with hundreds of jobs that I've applied to since being laid off from USA Today in December 2008. I would love to show him how little food is in my fridge, my lawnmower that won't start and my dishwasher that has been turned off for over a year because I can't afford to have it fixed. My thermostat is on 64. My socks have holes in them. And my pride has been blown to pieces.

I would love to show Mr. DeLay my credentials in order to make my case that for 29 years I was a responsible employee who earned his way up to larger companies, building an admirable career in journalism, learning new skills with each job, and embracing technology. I would enjoy telling him how I worked on my college newspaper and interned at the local television station while other people were partying, and how I am a third-generation journalist with ink in his blood, not a bum sitting on the corner drinking ripple wine.

If Mr. DeLay could produce a job in the area where I live, which paid even 60 percent of what I previously earned, I would take it. I would even consider relocating in order to work. But I doubt this Republican has any clue about the predicament I am in, the efforts I've made and the crushing disappointments I've experienced, nor cares. I am beginning to regret ever having voted Republican in my life. After the recent cold and uninformed comments about jobless people from DeLay, Pat Buchanan and Jim Bunning, I might never vote Republican again.

Wonder if Mr. DeLay knows what it feels like to interview for a job over the phone for 90 minutes and then never hear back from that potential employer? Wonder if Mr. DeLay realizes that I and millions like me spend 4-10 hours a day, seven days a week, looking for work, filling out sometimes complex online applications, networking and making cold calls?

If politicians like DeLay want to do something constructive, how about enforcing age-discrimination laws that are openly being broken by numerous companies. That might help improve the job-hunting chances of qualified folks 50 and older.

Right now, I am fighting against a recession, a dying industry (journalism) and blatant age discrimination. I apply to hundreds of jobs that I am 100 percent qualified for, Mr. DeLay, yet rarely get a reply, even though I usually state that I am not looking to exceed or even match my previous salary. Sadly, as my unemployment payments appear to have run out, I have to choose between selling my house this year so I can afford to accept a minimum-wage job or freelance work, or exhausting my remaining savings while I continue my search for a position that will enable me to maintain my modest lifestyle. This is reality and not as easy a choice as some people throwing stones seem to think it should be.

Mr. DeLay, does this sound like someone who doesn't want to work? Yeah, it's my personal story of the last 15 months, but it's also the story of many other people my age. I suggest you and other politicians who are prone to stereotyping unemployed people leave your gated communities and plush offices in Washington and start talking to guys like me -- guys who have busted their butts for decades, only to be treated like unwanted garbage by people like you. Many of us lost our jobs for less than honest or legitimate reasons. The layoffs of this recession were driven by some companies wanting to clear their payrolls of older workers. Now we're faced with criticism for not being able to find new jobs? Unbelievable.

Sen. Bunning was not "brave" in his recent attack on jobless Americans. That undignified attack wasn't about fiscal responsibility. You two are apparently cut from the same cloth -- talking in code, out of touch with realities of today. You are selling something to your conservative base, the ones who can't think for themselves, that is not honorable or true. Ironically, with your cold tactics and idiotic comments, you are doing more damage to your party than are the Democrats.

I am fiercely independent and weigh each issue on its on merits. I wish there was a political party that spent money wisely, but also protected the environment -- was pragmatic, yet compassionate. For whatever reason, it seems politicians can't support the protection of wolves yet also be tough on crime. I have never understood this. If it was up to Republicans, there would still be smoking in restaurants in Virginia, but we might not have the ridiculous car tax. Republicans want no regulations, but Democrats want to regulate everything. Where's the balance?

After these last several weeks, I doubt I will be supporting anymore Republicans for awhile. I live in a state where Republicans have turned down federal assistance for unemployed people. I've seen what a lack of regulations/funding leads to. And while I still believe Ronald Reagan was the perfect president for the time, I think we live in a very different era now. This recession is different than the last. The unemployment problem alone has taken on a unique form. We need less of Tom DeLay and Jim Bunning, and more politicians who can listen and not simply make ignorant assumptions.

More cheers for Men of a Certain Age

Last Monday's episode of Men of a Certain Age on TNT is worth a second look if you have an on-demand service or if you happened to record it. It's not up on the TNT web site yet.

Episode 7 is titled Fathers’ Fraternity. As you might figure, it centers on father-son relationships. But the show also touches on three forms of rejection -- obvious rejection based on misconceptions or prejudices (in this case, age discrimination), mysterious rejection where the victim doesn't quite understand why he's being turned down and begins questioning his own self worth, and justifiable rejection where one person is picked over another for logical reasons that are tied to abilities rather than emotions or clouded perceptions. My favorite scene is when the Ray Romano character goes to a large hardware store to speak to the general manager about why he rejected his elderly father for employment simply based on age. The manager explains that the work done in the store requires tasks like climbing ladders and expertise on computers, implying that it's work for younger people. Romano looks around and points to a young but obese employee and asks if the overweight worker is climbing any ladders. Meanwhile, Romano's father is roaming around the store, browsing at merchandise, unaware that his son is talking to the manager.

As that discussion continues near the service desk, a dispute occurs in another part of the store where a customer is trying to get an answer about a product from an inexperienced employee who obviously doesn't know the business very well but is trying to compensate by fruitlessly fumbling around on the store computer. The angry customer is about to leave when Romano's father, who owned a hardware store for many years prior to retiring, happens to overhear the discussion and comes to the aid of the customer.

The manager arrives on the scene with Romano and witnesses the exchange and the now-satisfied customer. Romano makes some funny wise crack to the manager about the kid with the computer, which practically made me stand up and cheer. And yes, the manager, now realizing older workers have a lot to offer, hired the retired hardware store owner.

As I have mentioned in a prior post, I like this show. It touches on a host of small and big topics meaningful to men my age. There's a lot of us, so a show like this is long overdue. But the dark-comedy/drama also should have value to women who try to understand us, younger people who will get to 50 one day and to seniors who have been there and done that.

Still, it's a fictional television show. In real life, would that store manager have hired the elderly retiree, regardless of how much knowledge he had about hardware? Do managers these days have the insight to understand why experience matters? Do companies, desperate to trim payroll in this recession, understand that their bottom lines ultimately aren't going to improve by ditching so much institutional knowledge or that there are many seasoned workers who can be had at bargain prices these days?

Technology is great. I truly enjoy the digital age, various new gadgets and such. I like working with younger, high-energy folks with fresh ideas from different cultures, genders, races and ethnic backgrounds. But I also understand that without men of a certain age (and older) being welcomed in the workplace, American society as a whole is diminished. Being unfairly rejected later in life has across-the-board consequences that rival many other societal problems.

Where will the "thresholders" go?

I learned a new term today. I discovered I am not simply a baby boomer. Folks my age are now being referred to as the "threshold generation" by career advisers. Watch the 25-minute video about the changing face of the workforce. (If that direct link to the clip doesn't work, you can go here and scroll down to the video). There is an interesting segment about folks in their 50s -- the threshold generation. These people make up an enormous segment of the population.

There is some good information in the video for job seekers. But I also think that the values, advice and good intentions of these experts aren't matching up with all of the current realities confronted by job hunters or how the recession has altered what employers are seeking. Until the mindset of employers changes and bottom lines improve, you can take all the Microsoft Office classes you want and "tweet" until you fingers fall off, and still remain unemployed or underemployed.

I am a big believer in all generations bringing value to the workplace. The best companies, in my opinion, have a wide range of ages all working together, learning from each other while growing the business. However, that is not how companies are viewing the workforce. I think it's a tragic mistake -- penny-wise, pound-foolish -- for companies to view older workers as fat that can be trimmed from the payroll. When I was young and breaking into the newspaper business, I truly enjoyed working with older editors who mentored me. I never would have learned as much as I did about journalism without their being in the newsroom. And to their credit, I think they appreciated my enthusiasm and energy. The companies that I worked for in the 80s and early 90s benefited from experienced employees mixing with young talent that could be cultivated. Those companies were family operated and seemed to be more likely to employ folks of all ages. Family-owned businesses, unfortunately, are disappearing.

A friend of mine who works for a major company that provides services to the Defense Department and Homeland Security watched some of his coworkers get their pink slips last week. The layoffs were mostly tied to pay rates. In general, the higher-paid people were let go. That was a real eye-opener. This isn't suppose to happen to the people who do the work that keep the country safe. That is allegedly an industry that is growing. It tells me that the recession is far from over and that once again older workers are being dismissed mostly because of their higher salaries, not because they can't learn PowerPoint. Many companies aren't even bothering to see if these higher-paid folks would be willing to take a salary reduction in order to keep their jobs. It's really quite ruthless and cold. I have to believe some bad karma is brewing. But more importantly, where are these "thresholders" going to go?

The downfall of the suburbs

"A new study from the Brookings Institution tells us that the largest and fastest-growing population of poor people in the U.S. is in the suburbs."

How's that for a wake-up call. Read more in Bob Herbert's column: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/opinion/23herbert.html

Yes, Herbert's opinion piece is very similar to my Jan. 19 post. But note that his column was written on Jan. 22. Guess a lot of people are beginning to reach the same conclusions based on the same realities we see all around us. We are in serious trouble but the politicians still don't get it. Some people just want to continue to stick their heads in the sand or blame unemployed people for not trying hard enough to find work. Some folks live in such a state of being above it all that until some beggar with a master's degree is camped out on their circular driveway, they refuse to open their eyes to any inconvenient truths.

Not only does the economy have to be the top priority, but age discrimination must be addressed so that people over 50 have a fair shot at getting back to work. I've said this countless times in this blog. Laws are being blatantly broken by employers who now openly advertise jobs for younger people. Discrimination violations aren't even being masked anymore. It reminds me of the way real estate ads were once written to distinguish between white and black communities (right and wrong side of the tracks), yet fooled no one. But with job ads, employers aren't even attempting to speak in code words anymore. They are coming right out and saying they don't want anyone over 30 or 40 to apply or are using phrases like "youthful energy" to describe qualities they want in job candidates. Amazing that there prejudice is so transparent. So much institutional knowledge, experience and know-how being flushed from society.

On this same topic, here's something else we better start thinking about. There is going to be a profound need for affordable or free senior-citizen housing soon. With so many 50 and 60somethings out of work or in jeopardy of losing their jobs, a normal, self-reliant retirement is becoming an impossible dream for millions. If the politicians aren't going to fix the economy, then at least start building the shelters now so that we can warehouse older people who have lost everything in this recession. It won't be pretty, but it's better than living on the streets.

Homelessness is already increasing in the suburbs. Just yesterday, someone I know got a memo at work stating that a homeless person's belongings were found in the stairwell landing near an elevator that goes to a parking lot. Other office building managers have noticed similar signs of folks finding shelter in parking garages or anywhere else that protects them from the bitter cold. These reports are coming from middle-class and high-end areas in Reston and Tysons Corner, Va. This was unheard of just a few short years ago in these types of communities.

What's astonishing is that acts of desperation are happening in an upscale, well-educated area like Northern Virginia where the unemployment rate isn't as bad as it is in the rest of the country. However, I think what is leading to this new homeless class is that Northern Virginia is also very expensive. If you do lose your job here, and can't find one elsewhere, you very well could end up on the streets, as I am becoming intimately aware of as my own predicament worsens.

Sobering thoughts about aging

This chart from the National Social Life, Health and Aging Project shows what many of my closest friends and I have to look forward to in the next 5 to 25 years. Just think, in 5 years about 1 in 10 of those who graduated from college in 1979 will have trouble using the toilet. And 13.4 percent will have difficulty simply dressing. Daily living will not be what were told it would be. The golden years aren't looking so golden. I have no desire to fight my own feet in order to put on my socks.

Of course, few things in life remain constant or improve over time. Even wine reaches a point where it gets rancid. We have to accept that inevitable decline in all things, including ourselves. But who determines when the wine is turning bad? There is also the question of whether the wine is actually worsening or whether our tastes are changing.

It seems that life involves a series of reboots and dispelling of myths that can often get frustrating as one begins to have the advantage of a seasoned perspective.

Remember when we were told to drink several glasses of whole milk each day? Well, turns out that's a sure-fire way to die before you even begin having toilet issues. But I fully expect that sooner or later, drinking milk will be fashionable again.

Remember the American dream? Get an education. Buy a small house. Work your way up to a good job in a big company. Get a bigger house. Show loyalty and collect a pension after 30 years or so. Then retire to a warm-weather place and play catch with your grandchildren. Now, a bachelor's degree doesn't guarantee you anything. A small house won't necessarily appreciate enough to ever buy a bigger home and may, depending on the economy, lead you into foreclosure. Pensions are long gone at most companies, replaced by 401k plans. And employers show little loyalty, particularly to older workers, making it almost impossible now to work for just one or two companies in a lifetime. Oh, and those 401k and other savings plans ... turns out they aren't the retirement safety nets everyone said they would be when pensions were ditched.

Aging in America is not the rewarding, respectful or peaceful time we were told it would be or just assumed. Many people who should be at the height of their careers are finding themselves on unemployment lines. What's worse is that the future for these folks looks even more dismal because personal resources are being burned just to get through the here and now. If you are one of the 24.3 percent of the people who can't walk a block when you're 65, you won't even be able to be a respectable homeless person.

Whether one's problems are career, financial or health-related, "baby boomers" were not prepared for this. We adjusted and readjusted as boomers have done since grade school when we had to hide under our desks to protect ourselves from nuclear weapons, only to find out that that was one of the dumbest things we were ever told to do. We survived divorces which became fashionable, retooled our careers as technology took off and gave up drinking whole milk. We quit smoking and kept our hands on the 10 and 2 o'clock positions on the steering wheel. Unfortunately, someone mindlessly talking on their cellphone ran right into us and obliterated everything we worked for in our lives. Guess they didn't take driver's ed.

I am not a fan of aging if on top of having a 9.5 percent chance of having difficulty getting out of bed means that once I am out of bed I have nowhere to go. What good is there in medical science increasing our life expectancy if society and our culture casts us out in our 50s and 60s? I don't want to have difficulty walking across the room, assuming I have a room to walk across, only to find that once I am across it there really isn't anything there worthy of my attention.

Because we've eaten more veggies and get prostate exams regularly, the average life expectancy of men has increased to about 75. It was 10 years less when many of us boomers were born. That's the good news. However, I wonder who is going to take us to the pharmacy after the sun goes down when 30 percent of us won't be able to drive a car at night? I wonder how many of us will even be able to afford a car because no one will give us a job?

You would think everyone would be more supportive of the aging process -- from employers to the entertainment industry to Madison Avenue -- because we all get old if we're lucky enough to avoid premature illnesses or fatal accidents.

Maybe along with prolonging life, we better figure out a way to tweak our culture in a manner that allows mid-life and older folks to be contributing members of society. When we get out of bed in the morning, we want to go to meaningful jobs, see movies we can relate to, read books and publications with something substantial to say. Most of us are capable of working well into our 60s and 70s. If given the chance, some folks are still vibrant contributors in their 80s. But our culturally mindset has to change in order to have a more just and productive society. Just because 9.7 percent of us may walk across the room a little slowly doesn't mean we don't possess knowledge and skills that should be treasured.

I am not ready for the shuffleboard courts. I feel the pressure of time being preciously limited, but fortunately I don't have any of the problems listed in the chart above. At least not yet. And while I am blessed to be relatively healthy, it would be nice to feel like there is still a place on this planet for me that doesn't involve canasta and waxing poetic about the Ed McMahon. As many of my boomer friends would agree, we might not be able to play four quarters of full-court basketball or drink until the wee hours of the morning anymore, but we can think, feel, analyze and contribute in ways we couldn't in 1979.

Yes, daily life is bound to get progressively difficult after a certain age regardless of how many hours you spend on the treadmill. But it doesn't have to be made even more difficult by what seems to be a growing list of societal, economic and cultural shifts. Not being able to properly digest a slice of pepperoni pizza doesn't have to be made worse by losing one's sense of place in the world. Ideally, I would like to go back to an America where grandparents are respected, workers can retire comfortably and I can drink a glass of milk every now and then. Yet, I know that's not the way things are trending. And with the prospect of battling my underwear on the horizon, I have to wonder if Billy Joel was right in singing, "Only the good die young."

Tattoos still taboo in the office

According to a 2007 Pew Research Center study, 40 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 40 have at least one tattoo. As common as tattoos seem to be these days, that statistic surprised me. I figured the number would be lower.

I worked in a large office building with hundreds of employees, many of them in the 18-40 range, yet I can only think of a handful of people who had tattoos. I guess a lot of my former colleagues were in the tattoo closet.

It seems those with ink in their skin are still reluctant to show their body art in the workplace as this Washington Post article explains.

"D.C. is culturally one of the most conservative cities I've ever lived in," said Sarah Graddy (not pictured above) in the Post article. Graddy is 31 and has lived in Seattle, Los Angeles and Gainesville, Fla., before coming to Washington to work for the government. She has three tattoos. "I just see fewer people displaying body art in the workplace here."

I have no objection to tattoos unless they become an obsession. Not sure I'd feel comfortable with a dude in a nearby cubicle coming in with his face looking like bar code, but I'd probably get over it if the guy was a decent worker and relatively normal human being. Still, I would advise anyone seeking work not to openly display their tattoos during a job interview because there are still many employers who will pick apart everything about your appearance and jump to false conclusions. Might not be fair, but it's just the way things are. We've battled race and gender discrimination. We've become accepting of sexual orientation and provided considerations for handicapped workers. Yet, in our constant quest for fairness (some might say political correctness) we can't seem to conquer appearance discrimination. If you appear too old, too fat, too tattooed you will be at a disadvantage, particularly in certain professions in cities like Washington.

Seems to me that tattoos are like anything else that we do to ourselves to express a feeling, image or belief. People dye their hair to look young or for self expression. They wear tinted contacts or shave their heads to change their appearance. They have a cross or star around their necks to express religious beliefs. And when it's all done in moderation and isn't a clear sign of some more serious, underlying issues, I'm not sure why anyone would be offended. Of course, if Bob the banker has a swastika carved in his forehead, I'm probably going to open my meager savings account elsewhere.

There is something about tattoos, even "tasteful" ones, that still seems to draw a wider range of opinions and reactions, both positive and negative. With so many people now sporting tattoos, it won't be long before they become more visible in office.