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.
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?
I am 51 and hope to be working till I hit 93. That will give me just over 60 years here at the Hospital.
Maybe we are living longer, but we are still limited by plain physiology. The body wears out, it wasn't made to last forever. Eyesight, hearing, knees, and hips all fail. If I can become the Bionic Woman, ok, I'll work.
But, even if I am the Bionic Woman, employers still don't want you after around 55.
Maybe we are living longer, but we are still limited by plain physiology. The body wears out, it wasn't made to last forever. Eyesight, hearing, knees, and hips all fail. If I can become the Bionic Woman, ok, I'll work.
But, even if I am the Bionic Woman, employers still don't want you after around 55.
I had a good friend who was a union carpenter on big projects.
He was early 60's, strong, in great shape.
He stated 30 years ago ( in his early 30's) he would be the last union carpenter laid off in fall and the first called back in spring ( Minnesota)
Now, in his 60's, he stated he is the first laid off in fall and the last called back in spring.
He may be smarter than when he was in his early 30's but he doesn't move as fast as he did in his 30's.
It will be hard for him to make today's current retirement age............let alone adding a few years.
People "should" not do anything other than what works best for them. There is no "should" here. If they need to work longer due to financial issues, than work longer. If not, then don't.
If people are living longer than it will affect the economy which will then affect everyone in various ways. The system is largely self-regulating and it will be obvious to each individual what is best for that person's so-called utility function, i.e., best balance of economic and personal factors.
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.
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.
And the Railroad industry is not the poster child for fiscal superiority either. They are always on the verge of bankruptcy. Their generous (if you live long enough) benefits harken to an age when people used to use the word "harken".
The government already told me I need to work longer, my full retirement age for social security is 67, so that already puts me into my late 60s. Not going to cut my benefits and stop earlier just because someone else thinks they are entitled to my job. Plus I enjoy my work. It's an office job so not physically strenuous but provides mental stimulation.
While recognizing things can change, I hope to work until 70 and then do some part time/consulting work after that.
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.
