Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Laboring Longer a Growing Trend For Americans

Posted by timothy on from the what-color-is-your-parachute? dept.

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."

43 of 603 comments (clear)

  1. Um, or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It could be that a lot of people are still healthy enough to continue working after age 65... and some people actually want to!

    1. Re:Um, or... by cptdondo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Think again.... Most people don't have the resources. I know people over 65 who work 2 jobs, 7 days a week, to pay medical bills, rent, and food.

      A handful of people work because they want to. Most work because they have no choice. Do you think the greeters at Wal-Mart are there because they want to? Or because they have to eat?

      Your statement is the sort of spin I'd expect from the neocons. Ultimately, people want to work because the alternative is starving, or not taking your meds, or living on the street....

      As someone who is nearing that age, I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to retire without working. It's not easy, and our broken medical system is a huge part of it.

    2. Re:Um, or... by daveime · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is health care related to old age pensions being insufficient ?

      Fix health care, and all you do is make old people live longer, thus further burdening the pension system.

      The fact is, in most western countries, the average age is increasing. The people on pensions now are being paid with the taxes you and I pay today. When 30 years down the road, we are pensioners, there simply won't be any money left to pay everyone a pension.

      I was advised as far back as 1987 that I shouldn't rely on the UK state pension, and should think about a private one ... here we are 21 years later, and oops, pension payouts aren't sufficient ... anyone surprised ?

    3. Re:Um, or... by everphilski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Either they choose to keep working, or they didn't put enough of THEIR OWN money away for retirement.

      Why should we trust someone else to plan retirement for us? Yes, yes, I know, 40 years ago was a different time, but for those who didn't work a cushy job that came with a pension (my paternal grandparents were farmers, my maternal grandparents knew the pension would be insufficient), you realize you need to sock money away for retirement.

      Myself, I plan on being financially independent by 55 (and have the plan to do it), although I have no intentions to stop working. At that point in time, work is no longer a necessity, you aren't doing it because you NEED it, but because you WANT it, and I can stop to take a trip with my wife whenever we feel the urge, or go visit the kids, etc. It's a good place to be in.

    4. Re:Um, or... by Amouth · · Score: 4, Informative

      my parents work to pay for health insurance.. their house and cars are all paid for - they have no debt - they have a savings.. but having to pay over 1k a month for insurance and still having 8 years till medicade kicks in .. yea they work just to have health insruance

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    5. Re:Um, or... by smilindog2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well said. At 44 years old, I expect to work until 70, and I expect to pay higher Social Security taxes along the way. It's not good or bad policy, just reality.

      There is only one thing that could help make a difference for most Americans - owning lot's of foreign investments that we could sell off for a while during crunch time. Unfortunately, we've become a debter nation, so that plain went to Hell in a hand basket.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    6. Re:Um, or... by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, my grandmother was in that situation until relatively recently. She kept working until she was about 75 and ill health forced her to stop working - note, not "retire".

      The reason for this? She is a lazy bitch who never worked a real job in her life and relied on whatever man she was with to provide for her. Her first husband (my grandfather) left her. Her second was a great old guy who finally died of Parkinson's and left her a wad of cash. the third guy was a bum and a hustler and took that money when he ran to Mexico - literally.

      She never really saved any money, never invested herself in a job with future, and never planned. She doesn't have a pension because she never had a career. Social Security is keeping her afloat, and the fact that she scammed her way into a religiously affiliated care facility. And when that runs out, my Dad will take care of her, because as neglectful as she was, she is still family.

      Yes, there are plenty of people who had bad luck, and perhaps don't "deserve" what they are dealing with in their old age. But that does not negate the fact that there are also those who squandered their good luck, and are now asking others to pay the price.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    7. Re:Um, or... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Informative

      IIRC in Europe its a pension whether it comes from a private employer or the govt.

      Private pensions aren't actually that good an idea. Lot of industries (steel, auto, airline) that gave pensions to employees are currently struggling under massive pension debt because of technological advances that have substantially reduced the workforces in those companies...Pretty much the same thing that's going to happen to the US in a decade or so.

      It'd be better to have a government-run pension plan that everyone pays into (than a private system) to help the system itself adapt to the changing workforce.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    8. Re:Um, or... by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My Dad is 78 years old and still runs his own accounting business. I truly suspect, as does he, that if he didn't, he'd be dead by now.

      He uses the extra money he gets during tax season to take expensive vacations, usually in the late summer or fall, with my mom.

      Nearly everyone my parents knew that didn't keep active have already passed on.

      That said, if people can't afford things, I'd say it's partial evidence of the giant failure of social security. Would those pensions have lasted longer if that extra 12% went into a 401k instead of the SS black hole? 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? There'd be trillions of dollars if they'd have saved and invested it (even at safe moderate rates of around 5%). So where is it? The federal government takes every penny extra and leaves a worthless IOU.

      When Bush pushes a spending deficit of $400 billion, he's not including $200 billion (yes, nearly $200 billion) that the federal government is "borrowing" from SS.

      Even people earning minimum wage would generally have sufficient retirement funds if they were saving 12% in a personal retirement plan.

      People also don't understand their pensions. They should be able to tell way ahead of time if they will receive an adequate amount of money.

      The band-aid solution that was SS is making less and less sense. A real goal would be to create an environment that allows people to save enough of their money for retirement. Get the government out of the SS boondongle, refine the tax structure so that people are encouraged to save. Hey, even make it mandatory if you have to, but at least allow people to decide for themselves how to do it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:Um, or... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Private pensions aren't actually that good an idea. Lot of industries (steel, auto, airline) that gave pensions to employees are currently struggling under massive pension debt because of technological advances that have substantially reduced the workforces in those companies

      That wouldn't be a problem if they had properly funded the pension plans to begin with instead of making promises that they had no intention of keeping.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Um, or... by cryptodan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fortunately for us, we're still in a position to attract skilled immigrants to make up the labor shortfall...That gives us the benefit of their labor, without having to have paid their costs as they were growing up. No, you're not. You make immigrants feel like criminals and second class citizens, people are afraid to come to your country on business these days.

      If only they came to this country to do things the right way instead of avoiding taxes and stealing peoples identities, then I would have no issues with immigration. As it stands the illegals need to either do it the right way or take the high way home. They are un-needed in our society as illegals. Illegal immigrants take jobs where they are paid under the table in with cash, so they are not taxed. My brother has his identity stolen by an illegal immigrant and fucked up his credit, and made him owe over 19K in back taxes to the IRS. He is lucky he wasn't arrested for tax evasion.

    11. Re:Um, or... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're wrong about immigration... people still come here in droves. The only unwelcomed ones are the ones that come here illegally, and that's always been the case and it's always been quite clear.

      On the rest... I have to agree. The federal government has phenomenally screwed things up for about the past 80 years or so. It's a bipartisan screwup that's been going on for generations.

      There absolutely needs to be zero deficit. I know some would argue about deficit as a percentage of GDP; I hear things like "Well, you bought a house, right? That was like 3 times your annual salary! Sometimes it's OK to have debt." Yeah, sometimes the government has a war [insert witty thing here] sometimes there's a natural disaster... but to go deeper into debt, year after year, with no end in sight, is just plain ridiculous.

      Anybody who has any financial difficulty right now (carrying debt, interest rates go up, spending too much of their income to repay debts) knows this... if you were the federal government's accountant, you'd quit at such reckless spending. And it's been shown time and again how if a private corporation or individual tried some of the accounting "tricks" the government pulls, they'd be spending time in jail.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    12. Re:Um, or... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Either they choose to keep working, or they didn't put enough of THEIR OWN money away for retirement.

      It is not possible for a significant fraction of the population to "put enough of THEIR OWN money away" so that they can sit on their asses for 25 years while enjoying a middle class lifestyle.

      At the end of the day, somebody has to produce the goods that will be consumed each year. If too many people try to make "investments" for an extended retirement, they'll find that when they try to redeem them that the investments will be devalued until it matches the available goods produced by active workers.

      The total goods consumed each year must be produced by people who work each year. The only way to manage this is to delay the average retirement age to maintain the overall ratio of workers vs. ass sitters. This really has nothing to do with whether the mechanism of supporting idle retirees flows through government paper notes or private paper notes.

    13. Re:Um, or... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can be financially secure by the time you're 60, though. All it takes is living below your means, something Americans just simply refuse to do. You are absolutely right that we've become a debtor nation, but as individuals as well as a whole country.

      You know what? I don't care what anyone says; 99% of you don't need $100/month cellphone plan. If you are leasing your vehicle, you've likely made a really bad choice. I could go on and on... it's quite possible to save enough money to live purely off the interest (not touch the principle... and have a really nice "gift" to leave your children or favorite charity) if you make it a goal. Unfortunately, for most people, their lifestyle choices come first.

      As we've delayed the maturing process in this country for so long, many people don't ever "grow up" and become responsible people. A nation of instant-gratifiers who whine that the government needs to help them out because they spent all their money on expensive cars and trips, put it all on credit so that they've ended up spending twice as much for something than they would have if they paid cash, and end up retiring with a buttload of debt that takes up half their retirement income.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    14. Re:Um, or... by everphilski · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or perhaps the company that they put their OWN MONEY into raided the retirement fund and there's nothing left.... Or it went belly up. Or it managed to pawn the retirement fund off on the taxpayers. Or the stock market crashed.

      You don't put all your eggs in one basket and you never count your chickens before they hatch. One in the hand is worth two in the bush. Etc. You diversify your investments. This in investment 101.

      Retirement should not be a crapshoot. It should be managed by an entity with the resources and accountability to actually pay what it promises.

      Find an investor you trust. For me, I work with my dad (an insurance agent who has a finance background) and we make a financial plan. I don't want the government managing my future. I believe I can do better, I know I can do better - my Roth has had positive returns this year.

      Heck, the contribution cap for an IRA hasn't changed in 20 years...

      That's why you don't put all of your money in an IRA ...

      It's pretty hard these days to 'save up' for retirement. Not because people are living frivolously, but because wages have essentially been flat for the last 20 years in the broad mid-career band, while everything else has been going up, including the number of hours worked.

      I don't get a pension. I don't factor social security or any other government program into my retirement plan - I assume they will not be there for me. No tricks about it, I put over 20% of what I earn into interest-bearing accounts. Spread the wealth. 401(k), Roth IRA, a little in a money market. If you are filling all those buckets then move to "hard" investments like land, buildings and businesses. There are always mutual funds, index funds and stocks too. Yeah, you live a little below your means, you live in a little smaller house than your coworkers. So what?

      You have to start investing when you are young so that the money can grow with time. Don't wait. I'm 26 and have been saving for retirement since I was 23 and graduated from college. Now sum up 20% of my income power by 30 years or so, in interest-bearing accounts, minus inflation and it's enough to retire off of around 55-60 if you are determined and have your debts paid down.

    15. Re:Um, or... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, but living for today doesn't mean not planning for the future.

      What's irresponsible to is to put yourself in a position where other people must take care of you.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    16. Re:Um, or... by initdeep · · Score: 4, Informative

      then there is this little thing called math......

      say you work from the age of 20 until 65.

      say you invest $6k / year during those working years.

      say you get a measly 5% return on your investment and you have an investment that calculates it's interest once per month.

      do the math.

      that's $1,017,440.39 at the end of the run.

      not very difficult to imagine.

      yes the initial years of $6k year might be tough, but then again, so is not having any money at the age of 65

      Don't like those numbers?
      use $4k/year and work till 70.
      you end up with $893,257.12

      it's not rocket science.
      it's compound interest.

      and if you invest it wisely, you don't even have a tax load on the earned interest and principle.

    17. Re:Um, or... by penguin_dance · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fortunately for us, we're still in a position to attract skilled immigrants to make up the labor shortfall...That gives us the benefit of their labor, without having to have paid their costs as they were growing up.

      Some are skilled, some are not and many are here illegally. There is no labor shortfall--only a wage shortfall. When you've got companies that are allowed to take their business overseas to use what amounts to slave labor without fear of tariffs. Or using illegal labor here, which has driven down wages. These are not jobs that American's won't take. These are jobs that Americans expect a fair wage to be set.

      And illegal immigrants are hardly cost-free. We're paying for their medical, their children's education and medical. They're paying no income tax, they send the bulk of their money back over the border and have no plans to become American citizens. That's hardly a recipe for a successful country.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    18. Re:Um, or... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Jackbird just has this defeatist attitude that I find a lot of people (who want to justify not planning for themselves) have.

      If people were allowed to invest that 12% the government takes, they'd find it a lot easier to save enough for retirement, and unlike SS, you get to leave it to your kids when you die, which helps them reach their retirement goals (unless they're stupid morons and blow it on gold plated furniture or something).

      This is one of my complaints with SS: if the goal of the welfare system (including SS) is to lift families out of poverty, SS it completely detrimental to the cause, as it denies families the generational accumulation of wealth.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    19. Re:Um, or... by duffbeer703 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you're saying is that laissez faire economics that favors the plutocrats is preferable to are more logical nationalist or even socialist system.

      Thousands of highly skilled workers made shoes in Maine in the 1980's. Today they are chronically underemployed and their communities are in disarray because our society allows Chinese children with an inadequate standard of living to manufacture them instead.

      The fallacy that Chinese are only fit for stupid assembly work is just as racist as the notion that African-Americans should be restricted to the fields that was common among white folks in the 19th and early 20th century.

      The United States imports millions of laborers from places like Mexico and Guatemala specifically because they are easy to exploit. There are thousands of unemployed, low-skill workers languishing on the streets or eventually in prisons because they have no place to work.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    20. Re:Um, or... by Sheafification · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Would you want to pay $10 for a gallon of milk?

      Interesting that you should mention that. In Hawaii, where almost everything is "off-shore", a gallon of milk costs about $10.

      Off-shoring only works as long as you have goods to trade back. If a cargo ship can't haul goods both ways on the route, then the route isn't worth as much of their time, and shipping costs go up. WAY up.

    21. Re:Um, or... by duffbeer703 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, you're wrong.

      It benefits the offshore trading partners when a country like the US stops adding value to products and instead simply consumes. One way trade isn't trade, it's wealth transfer. The Europeans called it colonialism.

      When you bought a widget for $1 made within your country, that money contributed to the US economy. The workers, the people who build factories, the people to harvest raw materials, power companies, the sandwich cart, the uniform supplier, etc. You're creating value.

      When you buy the same widget for $0.10, you're injecting capital into the offshore trading partner's economy and gaining nothing in return. The offshore economy is adding value and creating wealth.

      Just like the other guy who responded to me blaming the unions for all of our ills, you're misidentifying the symptoms with the disease. Immigrants aren't a problem, the problem is that government policy has made it increasingly difficult for low-skill Americans to get appropriate jobs.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    22. Re:Um, or... by WindowlessView · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Someone has a child; how does that put themselves into a position of dependency? And if it does, they shouldn't have had a child to begin with.

      Wow. You really need to consider that life is a lot more complicated and messy than a couple of econ books.

      First, 80% of the US population would have to wait beyond child bearing years, if ever, to be assured they have enough resources saved to have children. Do we really have to belabor what that does to society?

      Second, there is no such thing as assured even when you have created a pile. People get sick or injured. Investments go sour. Jobs are lost and industries go away. It can be shocking how quickly a nest egg evaporates.

      I am not suggesting that your message of responsible behavior is bad. It just needs to be tempered with reality and maybe a little compassion. I have met any number of people singing that song over lunch one day and quite a different song five years later.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    23. Re:Um, or... by snowraver1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, but I would dispute some of the finer points:

      Would you want to pay $10 for a gallon of milk?
      Your milk is produced domestically. Milk is collected from farmers in big trucks, where it gets boxed or bottled by domestic workers. My milk costs less than $1/L.

      [...]$50,0000[sic] for that basic car[...]
      Domestic cars are currently quite inline with foreign. Granted, many of the parts still come from overseas. The real reason foreign cars do so well is because they are reliable (domestic is working on this).

      [...]unions were needed back in the 1920s and 1930s. But they have out lived their usefulness.
      I would argue that things are moving back towards the way they were in the 20s and 30s. We have large companies (walmart for example) that pay peanuts, and rake in huge profits. Could they afford to pay thier employees more? What about provide health insurance? It seems to me that there is an unequal distribution of wealth. Unions are not the sole answer, but a start in the right direction. Also, the Unions aren't bringing down the company, it's the pension plans that the companies agreed to pay out.

      [...]Unions[...]almost always cost more to the company forcing it to either raise prices or look else where to cut costs.
      Agreed. Unions increase labor costs. What does that mean? It means that Joe trucker makes and extra 3/hr and gets a pension and possibly minor health care. It means that apples cost $.85 vs $.75, but the trucker has a better chance to support his family. The trucker also has more money to spend, thus investing in the local economy. Moving jobs outside the country also moves all the money outside as well. Instead of paying 1000 workers $100/day they pay 2000 workers $2/day and one big wig a $25,000,000 bonus, which will get deposited in an offshore account and never get taxed.

      ,The loopholes are huge. Look at GM's $17 million a year just on Viagra
      One day you will need Viagra. These people are old, give them their pleasures. If you want to cut out loopholes, how about start with the tax system. It seems that the more money you make, the more exemptions are available to you. IMHO, off shore bank accounts that are used for tax evasion are one of the biggest prolems right now. These criminals are stealing from the less fortunate (you and me) by not paying their fair share of taxes and rely on the average citizen to make up their shortcomings.

      The world is (and always has been) ruled by the elite, for the elite. I would like to have it run by the elite(i'm a realist), for the people.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
  2. If only... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
    1. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If only people didn't look to government solutions and planned for own retirements.

    2. Re:If only... by gentimjs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If only people could afford too.

  3. Investments! by gentimjs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Investments! by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Make it optional. I am smart enough to save for my retirement, so let me do it myself. I've already realized that there won't be any social security for anyone my age so I'm already saving with that in mind. Lets go ahead and take the next step and let me opt out of paying the social security tax completely. Obviously this won't happen since SS was never a 'savings' program anyways. SS was always designed as a wealth transfer program. A way to take care of the old by taking money from the young. The problem is that this plan only works when you have enough young people to take care of the old people.

    2. Re:Investments! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no such thing as "free medicine". There is medicine you pay for when you use it (Uninsured), medicine you pay for whether you use it or not (State-Sponsored/Taxpayer-Funded medicine), and hybrid models (most Health Insurance Plans with deductibles). I'm not advocating any of these, just pointing out the inaccuracy of pretending that there is such a thing as free medicine.

    3. Re:Investments! by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Make it optional.

      Bad, bad, bad idea.

      Social security is supposed to be the bare minimum income to subsist post retirement. By definition, anything less than that means you're can't survive. (If you really think social security today provides for luxuries, then we could debate reducing the percentages and payments.)

      If you make social security optional, many people will chose to opt out (like you). Of those, some will invest on their own and earn more than social security would get them. Some though will earn less. By definition, the people who earn less can't survive.

      What happens to all those people who lost their self-invested social security money and can't afford to survive? Simple. Government handouts . Just look at what's been happening recently with mortgages or the financial industry. You'd be foolish to think that the government wouldn't rescue any large group of destitute Americans whether those Americans did it to themselves or not.

      Let me summarize then: Optional social security costs taxpayers no less than mandatory social security, because the government will have to pay for it all one way or another.

      Oh, and producing large groups of destitute Americans is bad for social stability - and unstable societies protect its wealthy citizens far less than stable ones. It's sound planning to keep the masses subsisting regardless of your wealth.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  4. Sure, blame the income by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.)

  5. If only... by hemp · · Score: 4, Funny

    If only you got a pension for reading Slashdot. I could retire now.

    --
    Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
  6. "Quite evident"? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Most pensions and retirement were based on by networkconsultant · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  8. So what? by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:So what? by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, I too blame this problem on the "entitlement attitude."

      It's not like people running out of retirement money has anything to do with people living much longer than in the past, or the skyrocketing cost of health care.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  9. Laboring longer . . . as we should be by defile39 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Italians have spent pensions funds already by what+about · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

  11. Indeed - sitting at home doing nothing, very dull by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?)

  12. Re:One more way it could be. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For a lot of us, the distinction isn't really there. I'm a freelancer, so the boundary between working and not-working is quite fluid. Sometimes I'm working on things I definitely know I will be able to sell. Sometimes I'm working on things I'm fairly sure I won't be able to sell, but which are fun. Sometimes I'm working on things that are fun, but I might be able to sell later. From some perspectives I work most of the time, but since a lot of it is stuff I never expect to be paid for it's not always such a clear-cut boundary. I'm not sure what retirement would really mean for me. Possibly that I'd stop expecting to be paid for anything I did, but since being paid isn't really the motivation for any of it I don't see that it would make a huge difference.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Uhhh, what the hell are you talking about? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Uhhh, what the hell are you talking about? by R2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You need to look at history, not present day. It's not that the boomers didn't have kids - they *delayed* having kids, and had fewer of them. There is a significant dip in the number of births in the late 60's (i was born in '68). I noticed when I was a kid that there seemed to be a lot fewer kids in my grade than the higher and lower grades; their response was that, when I was born, it was very "unfashionable" to have children.

      So now the boomers are starting to retire, and their kids are in their 20's, maybe early 30's - not peak earning years. the bulk of the taxes comes from those later in their careers, and there are a lot FEWER of them than there needs to be. So, IF we can get through the next 20 years without bankrupting the system, the boomer's kids will be supporting me. I'm not holding my breath.

      As for population growth in the US, it is mostly due to immigration and higher birthrates among immigrant populations. Xenophobia aside, this is a GOOD thing - Japan and Europe are about freaking out right now because they are simply not reproducing enough to support their aging population, but they won't accept immigrants into their society in any meaningful way. Americans are going to have to deal with their caregivers probably speaking a foreign language and having different color skin, but they will deal. Japan is placing their hopes in robots - anything but outsiders. And Europe is placing their faith in...?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson