Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [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 02-17-2010, 07:07 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,803 posts, read 41,031,367 times
Reputation: 62204

Advertisements

There is talk all around the globe, now, about raising the retirement age in countries, counties, cities, states.

You've probably heard the "raising the retirement age" arguments that people live longer and governments can't afford to be paying out retirement benefits for such a long period of time. The systems are going broke. There are fewer younger working people funding retirement. It has been said that some people may be retired for as long as their working years.

On the other hand, if the retirement age is raised that means less jobs will be freed up when we're in an unemployment crisis because older workers will stay on the job, longer.

In Europe and Asia, raising the retirement age is a big issue right now. Just do a search on Europe "retirement age" to see all of the articles on the subject.

So, should The US raise the retirement age for federal workers and social security? Should state and local governments raise the retirement age for their government employees?

Consider federal, state, county, city government pensions, social security and private retirement age eligibility requirements when responding and tell us if you are still in the workforce or already retired or whether you are still in the workforce but close to retirement. If you will not be collecting social security or a pension, and your company has no mandatory retirement age (meaning you can go whenever you're ready) tell us that, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2010, 07:41 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,706,964 times
Reputation: 9980
Absolutely NOT, look at the Senate, there's an example of what you advocate.
Mandatory retirement at 65
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,050 posts, read 34,613,990 times
Reputation: 10616
Here's a potentially radical idea: why not let people work as long as they are willing and able? There must be millions of people in their late 60s who'd be better workers than some others in their 20s and 30s. If you've got a good worker who happens to be 65, why cut him or her loose?

Of course, what would I know about such things? I'm not a corporate bigwig or a government official.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Blankity-blank!
11,446 posts, read 16,191,559 times
Reputation: 6963
Retirement age should be 80. This would save much money: people working until 80 would continue to pay into the system and hopefully die before they can draw any money out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 09:27 AM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
8,182 posts, read 9,217,313 times
Reputation: 3632
I am against forced retirement but moving the entitlement age to 75 would be fine with me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 11:14 AM
 
14,400 posts, read 14,318,816 times
Reputation: 45732
The age for receiving social security retirement benefits should be moved sooner rather than later to about age 70. If we were to do this one simple thing, the social security system would probably return to actuarial solvency in a short period of time.

It makes sense too. When social security was enacted in 1938, the average man lived until age 62, the average woman until age 65. In other words, the program was set up with the notion that less than one-half of the people in this country would live to obtain benefits. In 2010, the average life expectancy for a man is 76 years old. The female life expectancy is 82.

People who think social security can just continue paying out benefits without any changes given the increase in life expectancy are either dumb or delusional.

I think some thought may have to be given to the person who has a very physically demanding job. Perhaps, a provision for early retirement should exist for him/her. And, retirement on disability could be an option for others. For the most part though, we all need to buckle down and understand that there is no God-given right to a government funded retirement that lasts 20 to 30 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 11:20 AM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,431 posts, read 60,623,477 times
Reputation: 61048
The SS age has already been moved up:

Retirement benefits by year of birth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Back in the gym...Yo Adrian!
10,172 posts, read 20,788,602 times
Reputation: 19869
Social Security should not be looked at as a sole means of income. It's not a pension. People should better prepare themselves for retirement so they don't have to struggle with shrinking SS benefits.

I think all civil service jobs should have a minimum 30 years of service before you can retire with a pension, and allow the employee to continue working for as long as they can. I don't believe in forced retirement by a certain age, some folks age better than others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,706,964 times
Reputation: 9980
There are plenty of young people waiting to do those jobs, move over and let them have a chance, they have families to support
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 07:34 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
8,182 posts, read 9,217,313 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
There are plenty of young people waiting to do those jobs, move over and let them have a chance, they have families to support
Actually there is not. We hardly have enough new workers in the pipeline to take over for the old ones. Our labor force growth rate is almost zero.
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 > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top