Slashdot Mirror
Laboring Longer a Growing Trend For Americans
AxSpark writes "More and more Americans have the tendency to work after retirement and this number is growing day by day. Last year this number was 6 million people of 65 and over working. The reason for that is quite evident: pensions are not enough for sufficient living."
It could be that a lot of people are still healthy enough to continue working after age 65... and some people actually want to!
I plan on working past retirement, but not doing what the pointy haired boss wants, but what I want. Just because I retire does not mean I have to sit at home, or be on a permanent vacation.
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
If only there were some sort of government solution that would guarantee retirement income for everyone. That would fix everything.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
No problem, just privatize social security! We can trust GOP lobbyists to put our money in the next Enron and secure our financial future, right?! In all seriousness, "people" are too dumb to plan for retirement on their own. That, and a combination of being stretched too thin financially. That extra $5/week from lower taxes goes into the gas tank, not the 401k. Before everyone gets all uppity about "omg people just need to be responsible, not MY PROBLEM that they cant plan for retirement!" you are entirely correct - its not your fault that most people (whom have never been properly educated on the subject nor had such education/information easily accessible to them) are unable to plan for retirement. Its not their fault either.
The reason for that is quite evident: pensions are not enough for sufficient living.
Or: expenses are not enough under control for sufficient living. We all spend too much money on frivolous nonsense during spring and summer of life, but we don't have to.
(Not blaming anyone personally, I'm the first to realise I might have a big problem if all the drinking and smoking just doesn't kill me in time.)
If only you got a pension for reading Slashdot. I could retire now.
Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
Sure, some people are going to keep working because they need the money, but that's hardly proof of the fundamental reason for the trend. I think it's much more likely that it's related to the fact that people are living longer and healthier, and a lot of people (most?) don't want to just lie around the house.
In the "old days", 65 was one foot in the grave. These days, there are a lot more healthy 65 year olds that aren't content to believe that life is over and you might as well start waiting to die.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Neither are hobbies.
Just sayin'.
You living for 10 to 15 years after your retirement. Now the average age is rising thanks to medical science and the quality of your life has improved so you live longer, and will require more money.
Does average age have to do anything with it?
I can imagine that many pension plans are about letting people live for 10 years. From 65 to 75. Now people get older and suddenly need to have money for 20 years.
That together with the fact that health wise, those are the most expensive years. People paying a LOT of money for 1 or 2 more years. My great-aunt always though it was stupid to spend so much money on the elderly and that money should be given to healthy people.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If you didn't earn enough money to support yourself in the lifestyle you want, you have no right to that lifestyle. I'm sick of the entitlement attitude that permeates this society. The day that the American Dream went from a dream of liberty, to a house, 2 cars, middle class family, dog, cat, etc. was the day that this country sold itself out to the highest bidder. If Ben Franklin were alive, he'd probably add a corollary to his infamous quip about security: they that lust after wealth more than liberty deserve neither; it was from that lust for economic equality, unearned money and sense of entitlement that most of the horrors of the 20th century were born.
it seemed logical to me that if we as a race are living longer, we would want/need to work longer and the retirement age would increase in accordance. But this has already been discussed as a national issue here in the UK and now I'm older I've always been left scratching my head because it seemed so obvious/natural back then. I can't see how as a society if we live to 100, we could still retire at 60/65 and expect the state to give us cash for another 35 years as opposed to say 30 years ago people were living fewer years past the retirement age and so required less money.
Jonathanjk.com
As this is a timothy post, I only bothered reading the title. We're expecting our second child in January, and my wife is NOT going to like this news!
As people stay healthier longer, people SHOULD continue to work. We shouldn't conceptualize the stages of human life in terms of years; Instead, we should conceptualize it in terms of percentages of expected life. Granted, the first 18 or so years are pretty much set in stone, but after that, we have a certain percentage of life available for each occupied stage. Looking only at labor, first there is education. Then, there is the career ramp-up. Then we have career maintenance -- perhaps a career switch (using skills from career #1 in career #2 . . . or not). Finally, we wind our careers down. A percentage of our healthy adult lives should be dedicated to each of these, with a percentage left for active retirement. There's nothing wrong with the actual number of years within each stage to increase in proportion to the amount of time we have to live well. This is the biggest benefit of progress in health and life expectancy.
pensions are not enough for sufficient living."
Not everyone can have a house. Not everyone can have a car. Not everyone can live close to all the cool stuff in a city. That definition of "sufficient" is clearly debatable.
Certainly sufficient for survival is not what was meant. Sufficient for a comfortable existence relative to history? I don't think that is what is meant either. I think sufficient in this case means "as good or better than everyone else."
This insufferable materialism is killing us by inches. There's not a lot of inertia behind avoiding it either. I've never seen so many people fall so willingly into slavery.
Baby Boomers are retiring in large numbers, many of them in good health with longer life expectancies. Many Baby Boomers spent their lives physically active and with a real work ethic, starting their own businesses in many cases. Some invested well; others didn't. The recent changes in the economy mean some retirees' pensions and investments aren't going as far as they did, though presumably others' investments are doing well. So the fact that more people are working past retirement doesn't mean just one cause. Some are bored and want something to do, some need more income to last longer retirements, some need more money to make up for poor investments, etc.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
At retirement time, in Italy, 90% of people live on state pension. Let me tell you what happens.
State pension works by having current workers pay pension of retired people. In the golden years (70,80,90) we had people working and an apparent "extra" money into the pension "funds". Politicians thought to use the extra money to send the retiring workers early to pension.
Not only, but it was "normal" to go to pension with 90% of the last monthly income
The problem is that workforce is now declining, taxes are increasing and we currently pay pension to people that are just lucky to have retired early with a hefty pension (apparently nobody is willing to know how much a worker has PAID into the pension scheme and refund just that, plus interest).
I know I will have to work as long as I can, I am just upset that jurnalists and politicians brush this issue under the carpet leaving for when it will be too late
We do have private pension scheme but they are a money drain (basically another way to give luxury cars to some fund manager) they give no guarantee on the capital (as far as I know) and after the Parmalat scandal there is even less trust on any private fund manager institution (Parmalat is not a fund manager, but if you "invested" on their bonds you have lost the money)
I know whan my dad retired he was bored out of his mind since he loved the job he did. If he could have stayed on working I know he would have done. Plus just because you hit 65 doesn't mean you suddenly arn't interested in earning money. I don't see working beyond 65 as a problem personally unless the person is unwell or unfit to continue in the job.
And of course , if you're a COBOL coder you'll probably still be in demand until the day you go face down in your keyboard (or should that be punched card stack?)
They'd invest it in some awesome way, like giving your money to China to plan for your future of not having to be a slave to the Chinese when they call in the debt!
Hooray for big government! Who's with me!?
Perhaps a major driver is a lack of savings (indeed, "negative" household savings in many cases)...
"The reason for that is quite evident: pensions are not enough for sufficient living."
People are also working 40% or more of their lives to support the political class.
It was born in the depression, as the government's way to push older workers out of the job market, to make room for younger (and more taxable) ones. Prior to Social Security, you worked until you died, pretty much.
For many, it's still that way - when you stop working, you start dying. I have no plans of letting that happen to me!
The boomers had plenty of kids. My parents were boomers, and I've found there is no lack of people around my age. The population growth in the United States is still positive, in case you haven't noticed. No, there isn't a perfect distribution among age groups but where do you get this idea that baby boomers didn't have any children? Do you see a massive gap in our population? I sure don't.
Western Europe, Russia, Japan will be going into population decline. America is holding steady.
But holding steady isn't good enough if you want to have some huge nanny state (universal health care, Social Security, etc.)
Ironically, the people who support all those expensive long-term program are the ones having the fewest amount of babies.
As to retirement, less young folks mean you'll have to work longer. Unless there is a major leap in productivity.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
If people are living longer, well then they are probably going to need to work longer. Basically the simple economic way to look at retirement is that for the first part of your life, you spend less than 100% of what you make. That is saved for later. Then, when you retire, you stop making anything and start spending out that money you've built up.
All well and good, however the amount you save need to be balanced against how long you are going to retire for. If you live to 66, and work to 65, well then you don't need much savings. Saving 1% per year would probably do just fine. However if you live to 120 and work to 65, well you are going to need some serious savings. You might need to save damn near half your income.
Of course we don't know when we are going to die. However what we do know is that we are likely to live longer. So, the choice is save more or work longer. Well, many probably feel that work longer is a good option. As you said, many people don't just want to lie around the house. So instead you work for a longer period of time.
As life expectancy extends, this is what we as a society will have to deal with. We can either work for longer, or save more when we do work. Can't really have it any other way. You can't have the same retirement for 50 years as you can for 20 saving the same amount of money.
I personally don't see either as a bad option. I've no problem with people who want to live very thrifty lives so that they can stop working at a rather young age. Nor do I think it is bad for people who want to spend more and work for a longer period of time. Hell, maybe some people want to do both.
Regardless, it is a simple fact that as people live longer, they are going to have to deal with retirement differently. That many choose to work longer doesn't surprise me. Hell we have professors that work well in to retirement. These people don't need to work, if you've held a university job for a number of years you get a nice retirement plan. However, they like to work, and the university will allow you to work half time or less once you are retired. We have a number who do just that, some right until death. We had one professor die not long ago. Great guy, and in quite good health. Regularly played sports and such. Not sure his exact age, but over 70. However, one night his heart had simply had enough and stopped in his sleep. He worked his whole life, because he wanted to, not because he had to.
You insensitive clod!
I don't know about your field, but nobody *I* know gets offered a pension. I think that perk is mostly long gone, except for government workers.
401k/457/etc... start early, be serious, be consistent...
The USA has 10 Trillion dollars in off-balance-sheet liabilities. Because of the way Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are funded, when people in my age group (I'm 60) really start retiring, it's going to be expensive. There is no money there. If a private company ran it's finances the way the government does, somebody would go to prison.
Ok, ask anyone if they expect to collect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; everyone says yes, they paid, they're entitled. However, 80% of the people drawing these benefits will be capable of paying their own expenses. They are not poor. I am all for helping the economically disadvantaged, but why should the government steal money from productive workers and re-distribute it to people who are not needy?
I suspect that sometime in the next eight years, the money will be purposely inflated (making the benefits debt less expensive to pay out), taxes will rise dramatically, the retirement age will be pushed close to age 70, and finally, after all fails, the government will establish a means test, so that only the most desparate will be able to go to the front of the line for benefits.
Privatization of benefits actually worked for Chile. It could work for us, but it is almost too late.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
At least, I believe that's how the "thinking" goes.
"It was originally conceived as a fund where you'd pay in to as you worked, and your funds would be used to pay for your retirement."
No, it was never conceived that your money would pay for your retirement. Really how could it, unless you started the program collecting money and didn't pay out benefits until the people paying in retired. The Act was put together so that elderly people at the time wouldn't live in poverty. Remeber, this was after the depression, and what we call poverty now would probably make those people laugh at us.
Also, You are not "paying into" SS, you are paying the benefits for the current benefactors. Someday, if you collect, the current people paying SS taxes will be paying your benefits. SS is not an investment, it's a program.
Here's a quote from FDR:
"We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which gives some measure of protection to the average citizen and his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."
IMHO the only problem with SS today is the retirement age. When the Act was originally passed, the average time people collected SS payments was something like 3 years. Now it's like 15 years. The Act was not originally meant to support people for such a long time, and I don't believe it should.
Looking at your 401k and screaming about how life is unfair because you cannot do whatever you want, and live the perfect, uber-fullfilling life that Madison avenue told you was yours with the right investments, hair products and big ticket purchases. You think life is supposed to be fair? Wake the fuck up, and pay attention in biology class; nothing is fair about the world. It's juvenile to pretend that life is something that it isn't. It's a downright throwback to the sort of temper tantrums that one expects of a toddler, to demand that other people sacrifice what they have, so that you can have what you want, not what you need.
Healthcare eating at your 401k, and making you have to go back to work? Guess what, 200 years ago, you'd probably be losing years off your life instead of off of your 401k because there woudl be no medical services for you to buy that could take care of old age ailments. I swear, the elderly who complain about healthcare, as though it's the right to have cheap healthcare and luxury on their savings remind me of teenagers who say "what do you mean I have to choose between paying rent and buying video games?"
Wise men once said of the retiree, "idle hands are the devil's workshop." Few cliches come within even a mile of the haunting accuracy of that statement as it applies to most retirees.
Maybe if people didn't buy flat panel TVs, new cars, laptops and homes they cannot afford they could live "sufficiently". The inflation of the past 3 decades certainly doesn't help either, but a pension manager is supposed to grow the fund to deal with inflation. I guess you get what you deserve when you trust a stranger to manage your future.
The less you save the longer you must work. It's simple as that. Of course if you want to work later in life, then by all means go ahead. We need some more people to shoulder the social security burden.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Do people realize that SS has, since the first year, taken in more money each year than it's paid out? Where did all this money go?
As you probably know, it's not exactly "gone", it's owed to the social security fund by the Federal Government, which borrowed from it to pay for programs that apparently weren't funded fully enough by tax revenues and fees.
The thing is, when you think about it, this means that FICA has essentially become another tax, used to keep *other* taxes lower. And a rather regressive one at that, when you consider that it only applies to individual middle and lower class earnings.
I still think that a social insurance program is a fairly essential part of any really stable retirement system, and there seem to be other countries we might even call "socialist" here in the states that apparently manage to implement them effectively while still having higher average savings rates per household than we do in the U.S.
But you don't make it a winner by slowly transmuting it into a regressive tax. If taxes need to be higher, make 'em higher, so that people can enjoy well-funded effective programs. Or squeal if the tax rates are too high and the funding for programs needs to be cut.
Tweet, tweet.