U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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 10-24-2015, 05:02 AM
 
71,587 posts, read 71,751,865 times
Reputation: 49194

Advertisements

only about 35% or so of seniors are taking ss now at 62 . it is a trend . back in the 1980's more than 50% took it at 62
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-24-2015, 05:24 AM
 
13,912 posts, read 7,405,593 times
Reputation: 25408
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
only about 35% or so of seniors are taking ss now at 62 . it is a trend . back in the 1980's more than 50% took it at 62
That is inconsistent with anything I've read on the topic. The trend is clearly downwards but it's not 35% yet. With the death of the defined-benefit pension for pretty much anyone not employed in the public sector, most people still able to work do the math and conclude they have to keep working.

Citation from US News & World Report June 1, 2015:
The Most Popular Ages to Sign Up for Social Security - US News
Quote:
Some 48 percent of women and 42 percent of men signed up for Social Security at age 62 in 2013, down from around 60 percent of women and 55 percent of men in 2005, CRR found
I'm not likely to do it but my numbers look great if I continue to work until age 70. I basically have no hit at all to my cash flow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2015, 05:56 AM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,878,614 times
Reputation: 6291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Necessary? No. Nothing any of us write or do here is necessary.
I don't know; sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do...

I think there was a point to resurrecting an old thread that matches a new one as the new one does seem to imply that this is new and we weren't being pushed to work longer before. In the old paradigm, it was often more about years of service than age. Still is if you have a pension.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2015, 06:29 AM
 
7,980 posts, read 11,663,426 times
Reputation: 10473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingler View Post
I was hoping for an explaination of why the media is promoting (hyping) late retirement, not people's own stories of poor financial planning.
I'm not sure where you see the media promoting later retirement. Unless by media you mean financial "celebrities" like Suzy Oreman and such? When I hear media I think news, journalist which of course have all but disappeared in this new era of pay no one anything, put out free crap content.

Journalists, at least good journalists, need facts to write on. They report those fact but don't advocate anything. So I see a lot of articles on the fact that people don't have enough saved to retire. These crop up a lot because the govt puts out those figures. I also see articles on increasing life span, health insurance costs etc. Facts based on numbers the govt puts out and the journalists write up.

You read all those articles repeatedly and its not much of a jump to people will need to retire later. And some op ed pieces probably talk about that. Or maybe that gets raised as a potential issue in a fact based piece.

So maybe it seems like the media is hyping later retirement but I don't know that news outlets are really hyping it so much as bringing up the issue based on factual reporting.

For lower income type jobs which require a lot of standing on cement and other perhaps higher wage physical labor jobs I don't see how those people can work much longer as it tends to really break down your body. I see a lot of white collar workers working somewhat longer but that's mostly because the people I work with are paying for college for their kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2015, 06:38 AM
 
Location: NC
6,555 posts, read 7,977,981 times
Reputation: 13460
Agreed. If we are living longer we need to work longer to pay for it. Seems obvious.

Look at it this way. Most people work at high capacity for 30 years. If that 30 years is meant to support 30 years of retirement that is a whole lot of savings needed. Every extra year worked is a big help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2015, 06:51 AM
 
4,481 posts, read 4,743,979 times
Reputation: 9940
[quote=Escort Rider;41670300]Here's an old thread - eight years old - that reads almost like a current one! Very little is ever new in the Retirement Forum.[/quo



But still amazing that people feel compelled to reply as if it is something new. Again all repetitive.

Last edited by brava4; 10-24-2015 at 07:08 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2015, 07:08 AM
 
1,440 posts, read 723,802 times
Reputation: 3729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingler View Post
I have seen an increasing number of stories in the media about how many people who reach retirement age are continuing to work. I always wonder if this is a form of social engineering on the part of powerful forces within our government, media and the investment industry, to try to convince older Americans to keep working.

I do not believe people in good health between 55-70 should just quit their jobs and sit around all day doing nothing, but I wonder if America really needs people in their 60s and 70s working full time when there is so many younger workers looking for a job.

Who is promoting Americans working full time into their 70s, and why?
Totally agree.....that's why I retired at 50

IMO....It is definitely social conditioning in order to keep people in the workforce as long as possible so as to delay them taking from the SS coffers or dying before they ever can collect while also continuing to put money in their 401Ks, etc so the vultures can skim their percentages for as long as possible.

The scare tactic of "if you retire, you die" is childishly ludicrous but a good sound bite and fear marketing in order to brainwash people that they must keep working if they want to live. LOL.....as if job stress, poor sleep, lack of exercise, stress of commuting, etc. is great for your health.

I'm getting much more exercise and I'm in better health than when I worked.....but, according to the conventional wisdom I should have stayed working at a mostly sedentary job with long hours, lack of sleep and the stresses mentioned (every one negative towards one health) which would one day lead me to the path of enlightenment......yeah, right....glad I wasn't buying that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2015, 07:25 AM
 
71,587 posts, read 71,751,865 times
Reputation: 49194
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
That is inconsistent with anything I've read on the topic. The trend is clearly downwards but it's not 35% yet. With the death of the defined-benefit pension for pretty much anyone not employed in the public sector, most people still able to work do the math and conclude they have to keep working.

Citation from US News & World Report June 1, 2015:
The Most Popular Ages to Sign Up for Social Security - US News


I'm not likely to do it but my numbers look great if I continue to work until age 70. I basically have no hit at all to my cash flow.
much of what you read that shows greater then 1/2 is skewed or old data . most of the figures that show overwhelming numbers at 62 as you saw in my pie chart are cumulative so they reflect all those before 62 .

the actual numbers for retirees this year are 35% of MEN and 38% of women file at 62 now with numbers dropping each year as americans take it later .

women will be higher because of strategy's like they take it early while the husband delays . many use the 62/fra strategy who are married .

if you read your link it shows back in 2013 only 42% of men took ss at 62 , and 48% of women . that is still less than 1/2 but the numbers are even lower today as folks are delaying more and more .

there is far more awareness today about the different strategy's couples can do by delaying then prior years . many are delaying because of the perks they recently learned about .

you can pick up an extra 100k in benefits by manipulating spousal benefits at fra .

.


Last edited by mathjak107; 10-24-2015 at 07:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2015, 07:36 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,165 posts, read 1,266,382 times
Reputation: 4456
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyram View Post
Totally agree.....that's why I retired at 50

but, according to the conventional wisdom I should have stayed working at a mostly sedentary job with long hours, lack of sleep and the stresses mentioned (every one negative towards one health) which would one day lead me to the path of enlightenment......yeah, right....glad I wasn't buying that!
Lucky is the man that can retire at 50 and live the lfe he wants! But most people would have to live a life they don't want to do that, or its not a choice at all. Never ever seen any "conventional wisdom " that stated the above. In fact, "conventional wisdom " normally is to find a vocation you enjoy and is fulfilling so work is not a chore at all, but a source of mental and/or physical exercise and social interaction, that also pays well and assures you a rich retirement on your terms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2015, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,916 posts, read 14,238,717 times
Reputation: 16096
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyram View Post
IMO....It is definitely social conditioning in order to keep people in the workforce as long as possible so as to delay them taking from the SS coffers or dying before they ever can collect while also continuing to put money in their 401Ks, etc so the vultures can skim their percentages for as long as possible.
But the reality is far different.

My life expectancy is not based on when I take Social Security.

If I retire at 62, then I'm permanently penalized at a reduced payment of 70%, or $863.10/month Through age 85 I receive a total of $238,215

If I wait until 67, then I get $1233 and living to 85 is $266,328.

If I wait until 70, then I'd get 124% of my benefits or $1528.92 and until 85 works out to $275,205

Waiting until age 70 costs the SSA more money.

Clearly it is in the best interest of government to advocate taking Social Security at age 62, since SSA would pay less.
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 > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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