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)
View Poll Results: People are living longer, so they should work a full time job longer.
Yes, in most cases, I think that is true 27 24.32%
Maybe but only people who work in white collar non physical jobs 23 20.72%
NO! Because there is a shortage of jobs and lets give the young people a chance to work at them 61 54.95%
Voters: 111. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2017, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Central Massachusetts
4,800 posts, read 4,852,811 times
Reputation: 6379

Advertisements

I voted 3 but only because there should have been a 4th option that there should be no change at all. I think that it is fine as it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2017, 05:39 PM
 
2,132 posts, read 1,007,573 times
Reputation: 8673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
<snippage> ...

Life-expectancy is declining due to Life-Style, largely obesity, Type II Diabetes and chronic heart problems due to a self-indulgent hedonistic and inactive Life-Style.

<snippage> ...

No amount of healthcare will stop people from porking up and getting Type II Diabetes or chronic heart problems.

.
Apparently you are unaware of the correlation between Human Adenovirus 36 and obesity. And the fact that Human Adenovirus 36 is not the only virus known to be associated with obesity, its just the one that has been most studied in the USA.

The virus causes damage to the metabolic system that results in your glands telling your body to store fat at inappropriate times.

The "obesity crisis" exactly correlates with the increasing prevalence of antibodies to the virus in the bloodstream in the general population.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517116/

Time to give up the last acceptable form of bigotry - the denigration, dehumanization, and revilement of "fat"

As for your incorrect understanding of the way SS is funded - the truth of the matter is that however many "updates" you think there have been to the SS tax, it has NOT kept up with inflation.

Seriously. 23 updates in 80 years, even if that were factual, doesn't come close to it keeping pace with inflation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 05:52 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,154,879 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Investor View Post
The media tells us we are all living longer. There has also been lots of news stories about the glories of working until your 70s. It use to be the media loved to talk about the glories of early retirement but their narrative has changed and now they glorify people who work in their retirement. Their logic is: People are living longer so they should work longer.

On an intellectual and emotional analysis, what do you think about the viewpoint that because people are living longer, they should work full time longer?

And do you think the most Americans have the energy and general heath to work full time into their late 60s and early 70s?
It's not just that people now live longer than when these programs were started. It's also demographics. The birth rate increased dramatically between the mid - late 1930s and the late 1950s. Then it hit an inflection point. After the inflection point, it declined steeply until the 80s. It picked up slightly during the 80s and 90s, then started a renewed decline. It's basic math. An aging population and an overall decline in revenue collection from Social Security taxes on current paychecks and employer contributions. Guzintas and guzoutas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 05:55 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,154,879 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnow View Post
This assumes the trend of living longer will continue. And that's doubtful because the majority of the people in the US have marginal access to healthcare. Our standard of living is also going down because more people are barely surviving, financially. They have little discretionary income. Technology and globalization are genies you can't put back in the bottle so it's a fair guess these trends are going to continue.

For the first time in decades, life expectancy was reported down in 2015. U.S. Life Expectancy Declines : Shots - Health News : NPR

I would be against changing the retirement age to force people to work longer. We no longer have enough decent jobs to go round. And how long would it take to lower the retirement age if we start dying younger???
Main things driving the more recent declines amongst whites are suicides and overdoses. Not age related issues. Such things are second order socioeconomic effects. Remove those factors and there is probably continued increase in longevity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 06:05 PM
 
Location: VT; previously MD & NJ
2,206 posts, read 1,351,512 times
Reputation: 6344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyewackette View Post
I can't participate in your poll because it is too restrictive. The answer is - it should be taken on an individual basis.

Some people are physically totally broken down by the time they are 60. Some are physically fine well into their 80s and 90s. Some people are sharp as a tack until the day they die, and others start losing it in their 50s.

I think the people who have the toughest physical jobs are hurt the most by the idea that they must continue to work until they die. All that attitude does is make sure they die sooner.
My thoughts exactly. Very restrictive poll. There are many reasons a person cannot delay retirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 06:07 PM
 
Location: VT; previously MD & NJ
2,206 posts, read 1,351,512 times
Reputation: 6344
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
I think it's interesting that the poll results (so far) are overwhelmingly for option number 3 - NO! Because there is a shortage of jobs and lets give the young people a chance to work at them - and yet I see younger posters here all the time saying that they don't want to have to pay into Social Security to be paid to Baby Boomers. If Baby Boomers can't afford to retire, it goes without saying that they are going to continue to work.

I think Social Security is way too low. Why are railroads able to pay their employees 80 percent or so of their final working salary after they retire, and they can retire at age 60 or so, and people on Social Security get nowhere near that and have to work longer? Maybe the government should model Social Security after railroad retirement programs.
Here's an alternate scenario: if baby boomers can't afford to retire [and can't physically continue to work], they will move in with their children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,697 posts, read 23,681,631 times
Reputation: 35449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyewackette View Post
I can't participate in your poll because it is too restrictive. The answer is - it should be taken on an individual basis.

Some people are physically totally broken down by the time they are 60. Some are physically fine well into their 80s and 90s. Some people are sharp as a tack until the day they die, and others start losing it in their 50s.

I think the people who have the toughest physical jobs are hurt the most by the idea that they must continue to work until they die. All that attitude does is make sure they die sooner.
Same here. Also it's pretty slanted towards a specific response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 06:42 PM
 
6,625 posts, read 3,756,268 times
Reputation: 13703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Investor View Post
The media tells us we are all living longer. There has also been lots of news stories about the glories of working until your 70s. It use to be the media loved to talk about the glories of early retirement but their narrative has changed and now they glorify people who work in their retirement. Their logic is: People are living longer so they should work longer.

On an intellectual and emotional analysis, what do you think about the viewpoint that because people are living longer, they should work full time longer?

And do you think the most Americans have the energy and general heath to work full time into their late 60s and early 70s?
My answer is one you don't have a selection for. It is:

Yes, but it's usually not up to the employee. It's the employers who decide how long to keep older workers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 06:43 PM
 
6,625 posts, read 3,756,268 times
Reputation: 13703
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90 View Post
Here's an alternate scenario: if baby boomers can't afford to retire [and can't physically continue to work], they will move in with their children.
What about the ones w/o kids?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Exeter, NH
5,303 posts, read 4,405,592 times
Reputation: 5698
The government actually only has control over one critical thing here: the Social Security retirement age (the age when partial and full benefits are awarded). Even if Americans on average live 5 years longer than they did when Social Security was adopted, that doesn't mean we should just push the SS retirement age forward 5 years. For one thing, we didn't add 5 healthy years to the average American lifespan.

Only 20% of Americans are still working (even part-time) when they reach the age of 65 (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...orking-past-65). It should be pretty obvious that most Americans don't retire because they are financially secure, and for those who were forced to retire, simply pushing back the retirement age doesn't mean they'll work those extra years. Most people I know retired because they were no longer able keep up the grueling pace demanded of modern workers--not because they were financially secure.

Factoring out infant mortality, about 46% of American men die before collecting any Social Security benefits (https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html). And for the average working couple retiring in 2010, they will pay more in SS taxes than they get back in benefits (Social Security: Many pay more in taxes than they'll get in benefits - Apr. 14, 2013). Social Security has turned into a disaster for the working class, on top of locking us into dependency on a Big Government so bloated and intrusive that permanently cripples our economy.

Keep in mind that the Social Security program, as initially adopted, was designed by politicians for political reasons: it was all "gain" (full benefits for retirees who had paid virtually no SS taxes) and virtually no "pain" (only 1% tax on the first $3,000 in income) for Americans at the time. Over time, the gain was continually reduced, and the pain continually increased, until we get to the current retirement age of 67 and massive tax burden of 12.4%. Neither the initial retirement age and tax rate, nor the current, have any basis in rationality or sustainability. This Ponzi Scam is so fundamentally flawed that we need to transition to a system that has a future. Continuing to increase the pain and reduce the gain for American workers is the worst possible path.
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