U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2015, 09:46 AM
 
3,333 posts, read 3,285,961 times
Reputation: 2834

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
Under the old model persons retired at 62 or 65 and were dead by 70.

One of the worse things for many was to go from being actively employed to sitting around the house 24/7 letting their minds and bodies go.

With advances in modern healthcare and lifestyles many persons are still sharp as a whip well into their sixties or even seventies. If they want to continue working why shouldn't they?
Why do people peddle nonsense?

It's biologically impossible for most sixty or seventy year olds to be as sharp as a whip. This is not debatable. With advanced age, mental faculties deteriorate (we're not talking about outliers here just the general population).

After working for 3 or 4 decades most cannot fathom that their self worth can be tied to something other than a paycheck. You'd be surprised to find how many people don't have hobbies or interests.


Add to this the fact that it gets more and more difficult for an older worker to acclimate to the changing technological landscape and it is even more difficult to see how older workers are "sharp as a whip".

You're correct that most are scared to go from a lifetime of work with at least the feeling that they're useful, to sitting around the house without much to do and feeling useless.

Last edited by wawaweewa; 10-11-2015 at 09:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2015, 10:06 AM
 
64,710 posts, read 66,206,532 times
Reputation: 43118
and your point ? the only point i am making is people are working longer . many have to financially since they can't afford to stop , some want to work bcause they like what they do and some work out of boredom .

but whatever the reasons there are now more and more folks not leaving the work place at 62 like they used to .

The average age of retirement is 64 for men and 62 for women, according to an analysis of Census data by the Center for Retirement Research. Census data also show the number of Americans living to age 90 and beyond has tripled in the past three decades to almost 2 million and is likely to quadruple by 2050. not t hat the has much to do with those working but folks do have to be able to afford to plan longer than they did .

unless you are an insurer statistics are only good when you know who . the rest of us do not know which side of the statistic we are on and have to plan it will be us .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 10:51 AM
 
3,333 posts, read 3,285,961 times
Reputation: 2834
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
and your point ? the only point i am making is people are working longer . many have to financially since they can't afford to stop , some want to work bcause they like what they do and some work out of boredom .

but whatever the reasons there are now more and more folks not leaving the work place at 62 like they used to .

The average age of retirement is 64 for men and 62 for women, according to an analysis of Census data by the Center for Retirement Research. Census data also show the number of Americans living to age 90 and beyond has tripled in the past three decades to almost 2 million and is likely to quadruple by 2050. not t hat the has much to do with those working but folks do have to be able to afford to plan longer than they did .

unless you are an insurer statistics are only good when you know who . the rest of us do not know which side of the statistic we are on and have to plan it will be us .
It's not "...whatever the reason..." That's what I'm challenging. The reason is that non-manual labor allows for more working years.

We'll see more and more forced retirement by corporations in the coming years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 12:06 PM
 
64,710 posts, read 66,206,532 times
Reputation: 43118
it isn't a challenge it is just another reason .

it is still just one of many reasons . most of my buddies in trades have migrated through the years to cushier jobs.. my electrician buddy's went from slinging pipe and wire over to either the data end or control and PLC end where the work is alll light weight .

i did the same , starting life as an hvac tech lugging heavy compressors and refrig tanks up to ropfs ,

from there i went in to trouble hooting mall climate control systems and finally a salesman and designer of motor control systems for controlling pumping station water pumps and sewage treatment plants .

the work got less physical but more mental over time .

today i just do consulting 2 days a month and retired at 62 .
.

a big factor is also if you retire at 62 medical coverage can be brutal today . most of my co-workers my age are still going to work just because of the medical insurance .

with 3 years to go before medicare coverage just for an individual can run 12k if you should be so unlucky as to have a hospital stay that runs up the out of pocket .

i cobra'd on my exchange plan from work since it has better terms then an individual plan and it cost me 6k with an exposure of 3500 more out of pocket per year .

the individual plan off the exchange is about 6k with a 6k out of pocket , per person .

for myself and my wife our health insurance runs 17k a year with our LTC POLICY . that is after tax dollars too unlike when paying medical through an employer while working .


waiting until 65 can bring that down to about 10k for a couple with medicare and an f-plan supplement .

so for a lot of folks medical coverage pre 65 keeps them working .

Last edited by mathjak107; 10-11-2015 at 12:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Manhattan
20,158 posts, read 26,453,489 times
Reputation: 9034
Quote:


but whatever the reasons there are now more and more folks not
leaving the work place at 62 like they used to
And many being tossed out after they hit 50 or 55 because their wages have climbed too high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 12:41 PM
 
64,710 posts, read 66,206,532 times
Reputation: 43118
but many more are still staying for whatever their reasons . census data shows 64 is the new median retirement age not 62 .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 04:39 PM
 
6,909 posts, read 9,041,121 times
Reputation: 2861
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
a big factor is also if you retire at 62 medical coverage can be brutal today . most of my co-workers my age are still going to work just because of the medical insurance .

with 3 years to go before medicare coverage just for an individual can run 12k if you should be so unlucky as to have a hospital stay that runs up the out of pocket .

i cobra'd on my exchange plan from work since it has better terms then an individual plan and it cost me 6k with an exposure of 3500 more out of pocket per year .

the individual plan off the exchange is about 6k with a 6k out of pocket , per person .

for myself and my wife our health insurance runs 17k a year with our LTC POLICY . that is after tax dollars too unlike when paying medical through an employer while working .


waiting until 65 can bring that down to about 10k for a couple with medicare and an f-plan supplement .

so for a lot of folks medical coverage pre 65 keeps them working .
I heard one can get cheap medical care by showing up at Elmhurst Medical Center and claiming inability to pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 04:41 PM
 
64,710 posts, read 66,206,532 times
Reputation: 43118
is that something you really want to do ? not me .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 04:59 PM
 
18,298 posts, read 11,693,181 times
Reputation: 11946
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawaweewa View Post
Why do people peddle nonsense?

It's biologically impossible for most sixty or seventy year olds to be as sharp as a whip. This is not debatable. With advanced age, mental faculties deteriorate (we're not talking about outliers here just the general population).

After working for 3 or 4 decades most cannot fathom that their self worth can be tied to something other than a paycheck. You'd be surprised to find how many people don't have hobbies or interests.


Add to this the fact that it gets more and more difficult for an older worker to acclimate to the changing technological landscape and it is even more difficult to see how older workers are "sharp as a whip".

You're correct that most are scared to go from a lifetime of work with at least the feeling that they're useful, to sitting around the house without much to do and feeling useless.

Excuse you?

Show me one scientific and proven study that clearly states it is a "biologically impossible" for most sixty or seventy year old persons to remain mentally on top of their game. You won't because there isn't any such thing. The aging process affects persons in different ways depending upon a host of factors including overall present and past health, genetics and so forth.

Speaking of peddling nonsense, your post trotted out litany of assumptions that have been used for decades against older persons including the employment of same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 06:59 PM
 
18,298 posts, read 11,693,181 times
Reputation: 11946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy View Post
I heard one can get cheap medical care by showing up at Elmhurst Medical Center and claiming inability to pay.
Medical insurance for themselves and or spouses/family is one of the big reasons many "older" workers remain on the job. That is a pure fact. More so since Obamacare mandated coverage for children under a certain age living at home and other provisions.

As for Elmhurst hospital comment; yeah you can to got any City hospital such as Lincoln, Harlem, Metropolitan, Woodhull etc... and get "cheap" medical care. If you want to take those sort of chances with you and yours have at it.

Finding a physician especially specialists is hard enough on Medicare, however Medicaid is even worse. As for hospital care the large and wealthy private systems really aren't thrilled with either payment system but Medicare at least gives better reimbursement rates. If you are injured and call for an ambulance in Manhattan unless it is urgent/severe and you are likely on Medicare or Medicaid you'll likely end up at Bellevue instead of say NS-LIJ/Lenox Hill even if you only live a few blocks from the latter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top