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.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,565 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57767
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
There are more than 18 Million Americans between the ages of 65 and 69.
You'll need to create 18 Million jobs in order to create job openings for 20-24 age group.
If you fail to do that, you will have a perennial Unemployment Rate of 14.2%
Why would there need to be new jobs? Just stay longer at the one you have. I'm almost 66 and plan to stay until 68-70, as long as I enjoy the work. It will add to my SS, pension, 401K. For those of us working in a good job for years with promotions and annual raises the pay goes up all the time. While my work is mostly in an office, I do walk about a mile each way between the bus stop and office most days, which is healthy exercise. Of our recent retirees, several were 70-73.
Why would there need to be new jobs? Just stay longer at the one you have. I'm almost 66 and plan to stay until 68-70, as long as I enjoy the work. It will add to my SS, pension, 401K. For those of us working in a good job for years with promotions and annual raises the pay goes up all the time. While my work is mostly in an office, I do walk about a mile each way between the bus stop and office most days, which is healthy exercise. Of our recent retirees, several were 70-73.
Do we have to say again that some of us DID have physical jobs? And often THOSE employers don't even want the older workers. Not everyone has the option to STAY....in their cubicle!
^^ I get what you are saying. Look around, some young people built these buildings, houses, etc. So many jobs need to be held by the young just cause they are back breaking work. I'm sure there are plenty on here that at one time held those jobs. I thank you for doing them.
Engineers, computer guys, accountants, business owners can basically go till they die if they are in good health. Not eveyone is so lucky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs
There's someone on this forum that semi-retired at 40 and fully retired before 50.
Are you finding that unusual? Start thinking outside the box, there are millions out there who were successful with their own businesses.
I was fuly retired at 43 and hubs at 53. We both were so bored, you can only travel so much, we took back control of our company and moved it to be near us.
Now hubs is 70, semiretired although he won't say that and I'm 60 pushing our business into a related field to our existing one.
I feel 40! Its given me a new renewal on life. I want to go to at least 70. And this work is not sitting on one's butt. Its sort of physical, moving around a lot and telling others what to do. No heavy lifting, etc.
I do believe there is discrimination on older applicants. A fact in my field. (I look younger, good gene's and having money to take care of myself) people guess me between 40 and 45.
I did meet with an owner of a company about someone I was presenting and showed him a you tube video. Owner said oh an old guy. (Which this owner is about the same age. Doesn't look as good. )
This 'old guy' played basketball till he was 60, is still in very good shape. Has a young man's business and mind.
I don't want to work with people like that are ageist, there are people out there who aren't. If this jerk knew my real age he probably would say 'old lady." His age issues are his problem. Not mine.
But I know not everyone is so lucky. I have friends who retired late 50's, sorry they did, and thank God retail values them. They have a good pension, health care. So working retail bring in extra cash and gives them something to do part time.
If you have a in demand niche background, you can find work. But I do understand not everyone has that. A friend's husband is 60, worked for misrosoft, google etc. He took retirement from one company and now has other internet companies fighting for him. He has a niche that is needed, beyond my computer understanding. He also wants to work till 70.
I have a 75 year old book keeper, mind is sharp, full charge book keepers are in demand. Never makes a mistake. Has worked for us since 2002. She isn't full time, some weeks working more than others. Something happened to her, I would not hesitate getting another 70+ if they can do the job like her. Excellent work ethic, doesn't tell us how to run our business with 25 years of life under their belt.
I retired at 72 and 8 months. But I can see the OP's point for many people. The only counter-argument I can give is that many people will adjust to this, over time. In Europe, increases in the pension age have been going up slowly and with relatively long time lags to help make this happen.
The real answer, it's the cheapest solution for government and taxpayers, but I do believe there should be safety-net underneath the increases in retirement age for those who can't adjust, through no fault of their own. However, the way things are going in the National government, if we are poor or become unealthy, it's considered our fault.
Hasn’t anyone noticed that all these “work in to their 70’s†types all don’t NEED to work, they just want to? Money is not the overriding factor here, but doing something they enjoy/are good at/provides satisfaction are the main reasons. Typically those same people have gotten paid well doing just that and handled their money and planned well. They enjoy making it and always have. For some of them, the growing portfolio is the reason, others, an expensive 2nd or 3rd home.
But I would sure say that is NOT the case for the far larger population. The ones pointing out that most people can’t do that are also usually the ones that do not have a care free financial retirement or know many in similar straits.
The key issue is how long does one live after reaching 65 years of age.
Yep. And then adjust for socioeconomic class and genetics. Most of the people on this message board are fairly affluent. They have higher odds of living well beyond those averages than the typical 65-year-old. For male 1%ers, it's 87.3 years. The top-10% have added 8.1 years to their lifespan over the last 30 years.
In all my retirement contingency planning, I kind of have to assume I'll make 90. It kind of forces the decision to defer collecting Social Security until age 70 because I could run myself out of money if I make it into my 90's. My mom is 85. My father lived to 85. Medicine keeps improving.
You forgot to include the cite to the source for that information: 18 million jobs will be needed; unemployment rate of 14.2%.
All my data comes from BLS, the Census Bureau and Social Security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen
Are you saying that young people are more important than older people? So they have priority for job openings?
I'm simply pointing out the fact that your unemployment rate will be 14.2%
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen
But you propose that it be institutionalized, and taxes go up to PAY for the seniors not to work?
Taxes do not increase, if seniors don't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen
Seniors won't work for decades, obviously. They'll work for maybe a decade.
In that case, your unemployment rate would be 19.5%, if you're going to insist that seniors work until age 75.
You ought to consider that if those under age 35 are living at home with their parents because they don't have a job, no one will be demanding new or existing housing, which will cause housing values to decline.
And then you'd be right here whining about the fact that your house is worth less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140
Why would there need to be new jobs? Just stay longer at the one you have.
There needs to be new jobs so people can enter the job market. The vast majority of jobs are "created" through retirement, and not the expansion of existing businesses or the start of new businesses.
There needs to be new jobs so people can enter the job market. The vast majority of jobs are "created" through retirement, and not the expansion of existing businesses or the start of new businesses.
Hmmm.
Clinton: 8 years, 19.6% increase in total jobs
Obama: 8 years, 12.8% increase in total jobs
Ronnie: 8 years, 17.6% increase in total jobs
So 2%-ish per year historical new job creation
If you assume people work 35 years, 3% of the labor force retires every year. There are roughly as many Boomers as Millennials so it's roughly 3% entering and 3% exiting. OK. Your statement above passes the cocktail napkin analysis test.
But it's only for 3 years, right? The people who would have retired at 67 retire at 70. After 3 years, you're back to 3% of the job force retiring every year.
there were polls taken over and over on the various forums and the results tended to show many here are not middle america in wealth .
but don't forget , usually if you are interested enough in investing or financial polls it is not because you are poor .
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.
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.
Doesn't look as good. ) 
