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 01-12-2017, 06:45 AM
 
Location: Central IL
15,242 posts, read 8,532,850 times
Reputation: 35674

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
our food bill here in ny jumped up drastically once i had to go on a more healthier diet being diabetic .
Good to know! So many people actively dispute that a good diet is any more expensive than a bad one....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2017, 08:18 AM
 
Location: plano
6,573 posts, read 8,105,591 times
Reputation: 5812
Shortage of jobs is solvable, despite what one party says...

Assume jobs are going to grow faster with different policies, it happens at a state level, those with pro business policies grow number of jobs both organically and by jobs relocating.

So it is logical that people living longer should mean they work longer in general, I agree it is up to the individual and situation. If you learn anything from medicare and social security its that you can not trust government promises and they have to change the rules even to make these Ponzi schemes survive. My recollection was no means testing when both begin but look where we are now.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 01:03 PM
 
3,615 posts, read 1,560,306 times
Reputation: 2530
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?
If they work longer, they

-pay taxes longer
- pay premiums longer
-eat and shop longer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 02:40 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,233 posts, read 6,335,450 times
Reputation: 9854
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Good to know! So many people actively dispute that a good diet is any more expensive than a bad one....
You have to know where to shop. Low income poor Mexicans shop at Food 4 less. Vegetables are dirt cheap there. They are not all organic. They are fresh. Organic vegetables are more expensive. So many people actively dispute that it costs more money to have a good diet, it doesn't. Not in California anyway. That's the state I have most experience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 02:42 PM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,871,258 times
Reputation: 11705
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?
The other side of the coin is people living longer and able to afford retirement early. Perhaps we are moving in two different directions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 03:02 PM
 
6,376 posts, read 3,582,535 times
Reputation: 7306
I quit working at 62 in public school because I wanted to and could afford to; working with children with disabilities, pushing wheelchairs, lifting, changing diapers, etc., in public school. Other issues were involved, precisely their Wellness Program which I was getting more and more heat over non-compliance with.

When I put in my resignation, I recommended a young 20 something woman who worked part time who I knew needed full time work and the entire staff liked. She was hired immediately. I had no problem giving up my job to a young, qualified person who needed the position. Ideal situation for all concerned

My husband and I were just talking about "living longer" today when I went for an eye exam for glasses. My last eye exam was 10 years ago before I had problems. He said to me, "If this script last 10 years, that should be enough". I agree but probably from a different perspective. He has had a lot of health issues, including a heart attack, while I haven't. I suppose he expects to not live 10 years to 78. Me? I do not think I WANT to live to that age if it means constantly seeing doctors, this/that procedure, pages of medications, etc. I do not want to live longer if that is what it takes. Actually, I never expected to live to the age I am now and haven't seen a doctor in over 30 years.

What I am saying is that "living longer" means different things to different people whatever their individual reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 03:52 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,144,092 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
He may be uncouth3, but he isn't wrong.

Many of us have desk jobs these days. I got up at 7:15 this morning. Aside from a few steps I took to the restroom and the fridge when I woke up in the middle of the night, I had less than 500 steps by noon. That's walking around the house this morning, getting in my car, car to office building, and probably one break in the morning. I could literally do less than 1000 steps and get through a day.

I see lots of staff in the same sedentary job situation I'm in bring in Hardee's and McDonald's biscuits in the morning, along with a can of classic Coke loaded with HFCS from home. That could easily be 1000 calories by the time they get in at 8. You'll often see those same people with fast food take in at lunch.

We're fortunate in the sense that we have a paved city trail behind the office which runs for miles. If you walk across the KMart lot beside our office, eat at McAllisters Deli in the next shopping center, then walk around the back of the shopping center on the paved trail back to the office, that's 1.5 miles with a healthy lunch if you choose. You can order, have your food, and have eaten in thirty minutes. If you go outside of the noon lunch hour, there is an Olive Garden, Chili's, Fazoli's, and Buffalo Wild Wings that are generally easy to get in and out of, and I can walk to each of them.

Almost no one in my office takes advantage of these walking opportunities. People are unbelievably sedentary anymore. We drive to work, sit all day, then come home and sit more in front of the tube or PC. It's no wonder we're fat.
Supersized soft drink or Slurpee for the drive in to work ...

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 03:55 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,144,092 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
not really for the purpose of this discussion . life expectancy fell a few months from being tracked at birth . but it has increased among seniors and has been increasing . if you take a 65 year old life expectancy is very different than from birth . it goes out much longer the older you start tracking it .
The younger men dying from meth, gunshots, opiods, etc, are dragging down the stats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 04:00 PM
 
71,616 posts, read 71,751,865 times
Reputation: 49222
there are all sorts of reasons , but the point is discussing life expectancy from birth does not relate to what is going on with life expectancy in retirement .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 04:03 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,144,092 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Because the railroad industry is very different from your local C-store, fast-food joint, or similar "post-industrial" employer.

Railroads, like utilities and oil-and-chemical plants, involve a huge amount of capital invested per worker, and the nature of the business, with a high potential for serious injury in the event of an accident, makes the industry very safety- and discipline-conscious. Few railroaders earn less than $50K, and often, two or three times that, but in return, an operating railroader sacrifices much of his (the work force is overwhelmingly male) personal life to a regimen that makes him available for duty on two hours notice, at any hour of day or night.

In addition, this schedule tends to take a toll on health -- until fairly recently, railroaders were notoriously heavy smokers; the irregular schedule made for unhealthy eating habits, and sometimes, use of liquor or medication in order to sleep. Over-the-road truckers face similar problems -- but not quite as much since hours-of-service regulations were reformed in the late 1980's.

Finally, it should be noted that present-day railroad employment is only about one-third of what it was in 1965, and one eighth of the 1945 figure. A rapidly-shrinking labor force which is prone to dying off without collecting benefits for too long leaves a larger pool of funds for a much smaller group of future retirees.
Similar to railroaders ... harbor pilots. Saw an interview with one a few years ago. He has some key rules. No smoking, no drinking, no meds, no caffeine .... ever.

He noted that in order to be able to fall asleep quick at any time of the day, for any length of time, and, to wake up feeling as good as possible even with short interrupted sleep ... that lifestyle was essential.
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