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, 02:40 PM
 
105 posts, read 94,033 times
Reputation: 230

Advertisements

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2017, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
13,907 posts, read 25,369,716 times
Reputation: 26445
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???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 03:03 PM
 
2,132 posts, read 1,013,437 times
Reputation: 8673
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Loudon, TN
5,825 posts, read 4,865,345 times
Reputation: 19576
If they have the resources, they should retire when they can, if and when they want to. If they don't have resources, unfortunately they will still just have to abide by the current SS rules. I don't think they should raise the FRA anymore than they already have. For folks in more physical jobs the FRA may already be too high considering the medical toll that many physical careers cause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 03:36 PM
 
13,057 posts, read 15,427,122 times
Reputation: 15315
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Sector 001
7,242 posts, read 6,487,665 times
Reputation: 8297
social security is a ponzi scheme that will go insolvent in it's current state, so it's not a matter of if they raise the retirement age, but when... by the time I get there the age will be at 75 if it's even solvent at all. There's a mass number of upcoming retirees versus the number of replacement workers to put money in to fund the system.

My father is currently 60.. he better hope Trump doesn't go raising the age in the next year or two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 04:01 PM
 
2,132 posts, read 1,013,437 times
Reputation: 8673
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockwiz View Post
social security is a ponzi scheme that will go insolvent in it's current state, so it's not a matter of if they raise the retirement age, but when... by the time I get there the age will be at 75 if it's even solvent at all. There's a mass number of upcoming retirees versus the number of replacement workers to put money in to fund the system.

My father is currently 60.. he better hope Trump doesn't go raising the age in the next year or two.
Oh bull. SS was set up to be self-funding indefinitely. If it hadn't been constantly raided to fund other things on the sly for the past 80 years, there would be no doubt of its continued solvency.

Also, contributions haven't kept up with inflation. The "cap" on income that is subject to the tax is way out of proportion to what it was when SS was first instituted. Frankly I think the cap should be removed and ALL income should be subject to the tax.

This is coming from someone who was in the top 10% for income. Yes, I feel that all of my income, and all of my husband's income, should have been subject to the SS tax.

Let me qualify that - I feel that there should be a LOWER cap, eg an amount of your first so much of earnings that is NOT subject to the tax. I'd say you shouldn't have to pay the tax unless and until you are making more than 25K as a single person. That should be adjusted for families.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 04:26 PM
 
663 posts, read 481,913 times
Reputation: 1700
Why is "work more" the answer? Americans can't seem to see another answer. Why not go to school longer? We could sure use some schooling in finance. Maybe everyone should have another 2 years of financial education: budgeting; investments, and, for that matter, insurance. And parenting.

[mod cut]

Last edited by volosong; 01-10-2017 at 09:01 PM.. Reason: removed off topic conjecture about another forum member
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,133 posts, read 20,852,364 times
Reputation: 8293
I retired at 53 and haven't done anything since. I did my part
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 05:28 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,992 posts, read 14,277,179 times
Reputation: 16159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Investor View Post
There has also been lots of news stories about the glories of working until your 70s.
Yes, that's called propaganda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Investor View Post
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 real question is what is the purpose/function of retirement?

A wealthy benevolent advanced State would allow its people to retire at 65, if they choose to do so.

You school for 12 to 16 years (or longer), and work for 40+ years, so having 10-15 years on Easy Street isn't asking much.

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
Your analysis and conclusions are all wrong.

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.

Quote:
Maternal Mortality Rate in U.S. Rises, Defying Global Trend, Study Finds

Another analysis this month looked at increases by state and found particularly high rates in the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Georgia and Arkansas, especially among black women.

***

Instead, the increase in recent years has been driven by heart problems and other chronic medical conditions, like diabetes, which has increased sharply in the population. Researchers have theorized that an increase in obesity particularly acute among poor black women, who have much higher rates of maternal mortality than whites may be contributing to the problem.
[emphasis mine]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/he...mortality.html

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyewackette View Post
The answer is - it should be taken on an individual basis.
Great, we can have another tax-payer money-sucking government bureaucracy wielding power over the lives of people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyewackette View Post
Oh bull. SS was set up to be self-funding indefinitely.
And yet, the FICA Payroll Tax has had to be increased 23 times, and the Social Security Trust Fund is still insolvent, according to the Trustees.
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