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 article talks about workers taking "early retirement" but only actually talks about those 65+ retiring and also the prime year workforce 25-54. I'd say there is a mighty huge difference between a 54 year old and a 25 year old. A 54 year old might very well be in the position to retire early, a 25 year old who stopped working would simply be someone who is unemployed.
It would be nice if they would break down the numbers of actual early retirees which would be somewhere between the ages of 50 and 65. No way is 65 an "early retiree".
If someone is already eligible for Social Security, a couple more years of working doesn't raise the payback very much. It would take three more years at a substantially higher rate of pay (and bonuses are taxed heavily...a $1000 bonus almost isn't worth it). People who have retired and found themselves able to live decently on their Social Security aren't likely to go back into the 9-5 grind for just a few bucks more.
I retired the year before Covid, and I sure wouldn't.
If someone is SS retirement age, and already has 35 or more years worth of contributions into SS, then it's pretty much just delayed credits that will increase their SS payout when they start collecting benefits. Working extra years beyond that point can provide an income while they delay, but it won't increase their SS payout over what it would have been if they had just quit working and delayed, in most cases.
The article talks about workers taking "early retirement" but only actually talks about those 65+ retiring and also the prime year workforce 25-54. I'd say there is a mighty huge difference between a 54 year old and a 25 year old. A 54 year old might very well be in the position to retire early, a 25 year old who stopped working would simply be someone who is unemployed.
It would be nice if they would break down the numbers of actual early retirees which would be somewhere between the ages of 50 and 65. No way is 65 an "early retiree".
I agree, I wouldn't call retiring at age 65 an "early retiree". For one, although that age isn't FRA for Social Security (it used to be), they are still eligible for SS retirement benefits. 401/IRA withdrawals can be taken at that age, without tax penalties. Another important factor at that age, is you become Medicare-eligible. For many workers, options for health insurance outside of an employer plan, would otherwise be limited and cost-prohibitive.
I think more people should admit that many older people have (or can have) diminished capacities in various ways.
A good number have less physical strength. Some have less physical energy.... or less ability to carry on tasks productively for many hours per day.
Some have physical ailments which impede their life. Some have less mental acuity.
Also, the author of the Marketwatch article should stop using the words 'elderly' and 'elderly workers'.
He should say 'older' or 'older workers'. I feel that elderly is age 80 or 85 - not 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 78.
Example: a very young associate of mine was complaining that his former professor mumbled and gave lethargic lectures, written in poor handwriting. "Man, that dude is so old! He should retire!" "OK", I asked. "How old is that guy"? Answer: "Man, he must be like 60 or something... totally ancient!". Upon examining the professor's university web-page, I found that the fellow graduated from college in 1955, so likely he was born in 1933. Instead of being "like 60 or something", he's 88... and still working full time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
... Bottom line is that people are employed to do the tasks requested by their employer. Who are you to judge those tasks? There's nothing wrong with decent honest work regardless of what it entails.
While there may be "nothing wrong with decent honest work" from a bench-level employee's personal viewpoint, senior people who have a stake in the employer's vitality can and should advance their opinions on strategic questions. Yet it is precisely these senior people who tend to be given nonsense and redundant directives, that it becomes their responsibility to enforce. Well, upon reaching such impasse, the decision to retire - maybe to retire early? - is very much affected.
The result is a bifurcation. Those folks in the professions, who like their jobs, tend to linger for decades, far exceeding anything like canonical retirement age (see above). Others, who become disaffected, resign (or "retire") a decade before SS-eligibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
Few who were earning 100k here are not working because they get 25k
One presumes that the worker-shortage is not among lawyers who'd rather sit at home reading the newspaper all day, but among menial workers whose work is unremunerative, boring and low-prestige. It is these people - whose work supposedly was to be replaced by automation! - whom the market is having a hard time replacing.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,690 posts, read 57,994,855 times
Reputation: 46171
Quote:
Originally Posted by matisse12
I think more people should admit that many older people have (or can have) diminished capacities in various ways.
A good number have less physical strength. Some have less physical energy.... or less ability to carry on tasks productively for many hours per day.
Some have physical ailments which impede their life. Some have less mental acuity.
Also, the author of the Marketwatch article should stop using the words 'elderly' and 'elderly workers'.
He should say 'older' or 'older workers'. I feel that elderly is age 80 or 85 - not 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 78.
less mental acuity this can be a plus for many jobs!
Physical activity can be avoided with most office and even some factory jobs. (Retail can be tough to be on your feet all during the shift)
Even Truck Driving, construction, and farming is a whole lot easier today than it was 40 yrs ago.
There is likely a good spot for elderly workers (or 'older workers', if you prefer)
I left employment at age 49 because I was elderly. (Had just started to wear reading glasses, which quite hindered my specific career and work responsibilities). I'm fine with being elderly, because I AM ... YMMV
"older' is like that older sister, who at age 10 was brutal to us younger siblings.
If you are talking about federal employees, then yes, I agree. They are worthless and should be eliminated. The federal payroll is probably 40% larger than it needs to be, and that adds up to billions of dollars every month.
I have a different take on this.
The role of government jobs, by nature, are different than private sector jobs. The overall objective of private sector jobs is to create profits, hence every job is defined by how you contribute to the bottom line.
The role of government jobs is not so straightforward. The last thing on Government job's objective is to make a profit. Therefore many metrics used in the private sector do not apply, such as productivity, efficiency, cost effectiveness, etc. To give an example, imagine the objective of the US military is to make money? Surely you can appreciate how ridiculous it sounds. Now let's apply it to the State DMV, Social services, etc. How about the local police department? You get my drift.
In fact, a certain Federal agency main function is to give away money. For example, NASA gives away 80% of its annual funding to industry to encourage high technology research & development ranging from go to space, aviation, and sponsors university professors & graduate students in advanced research. As result, the US maintains its technology leadership over China & Russia.
Does that mean a government agency can not find a better way to operate? Be more efficient? Make employees better moral? Sure. But you need to understand where the management get their motivation from. They don't get rewarded for taking risk, grow the agency revenue, improve employees morals. No sir, they get punished for trying to do all the above. Instead they get rewarded for not making mistakes, don't rock the boat, dotting i's and crossing t's. Another word, COMPLIANCE is far more important than taking risks. In the government, the end does not justify the means. Exactly opposite of the private sector.
The role of government jobs, by nature, are different than private sector jobs. The overall objective of private sector jobs is to create profits, hence every job is defined by how you contribute to the bottom line.
The role of government jobs is not so straightforward. The last thing on Government job's objective is to make a profit. Therefore many metrics used in the private sector do not apply, such as productivity, efficiency, cost effectiveness, etc. To give an example, imagine the objective of the US military is to make money? Surely you can appreciate how ridiculous it sounds. Now let's apply it to the State DMV, Social services, etc. How about the local police department? You get my drift.
In fact, a certain Federal agency main function is to give away money. For example, NASA gives away 80% of its annual funding to industry to encourage high technology research & development ranging from go to space, aviation, and sponsors university professors & graduate students in advanced research. As result, the US maintains its technology leadership over China & Russia.
Does that mean a government agency can not find a better way to operate? Be more efficient? Make employees better moral? Sure. But you need to understand where the management get their motivation from. They don't get rewarded for taking risk, grow the agency revenue, improve employees morals. No sir, they get punished for trying to do all the above. Instead they get rewarded for not making mistakes, don't rock the boat, dotting i's and crossing t's. Another word, COMPLIANCE is far more important than taking risks. In the government, the end does not justify the means. Exactly opposite of the private sector.
I work for the state and this exactly describes my boss, and it bugs the hell outta me! He completely doesn't appreciate innovative thinking or coloring outside the lines. He's from military, so it make it doubly worse. Government mule through and through.
I spent most of my career in the private sector and I've never been able to get that out of my blood. My boss and I are incompatible, but he stays out of my hair and has a pleasing demeanor. Otherwise I couldn't work for the guy. But he doesn't really value my contribution because my job is web & graphics related; more of a creative role, which he has a hard time understanding.
You have perfectly summed up the difference btwn private sector vs. public sector. Reward vs. compliance. Two completely different motivators. Compliance has never been my strong suit in life, and when I color, the lines are nonexistent. Two years and counting.....
Example: a very young associate of mine was complaining that his former professor mumbled and gave lethargic lectures, written in poor handwriting. "Man, that dude is so old! He should retire!" "OK", I asked. "How old is that guy"? Answer: "Man, he must be like 60 or something... totally ancient!". Upon examining the professor's university web-page, I found that the fellow graduated from college in 1955, so likely he was born in 1933. Instead of being "like 60 or something", he's 88... and still working full time.
While there may be "nothing wrong with decent honest work" from a bench-level employee's personal viewpoint, senior people who have a stake in the employer's vitality can and should advance their opinions on strategic questions. Yet it is precisely these senior people who tend to be given nonsense and redundant directives, that it becomes their responsibility to enforce. Well, upon reaching such impasse, the decision to retire - maybe to retire early? - is very much affected.
The result is a bifurcation. Those folks in the professions, who like their jobs, tend to linger for decades, far exceeding anything like canonical retirement age (see above). Others, who become disaffected, resign (or "retire") a decade before SS-eligibility.
One presumes that the worker-shortage is not among lawyers who'd rather sit at home reading the newspaper all day, but among menial workers whose work is unremunerative, boring and low-prestige. It is these people - whose work supposedly was to be replaced by automation! - whom the market is having a hard time replacing.
Most skilled jobs in our area are 80-100k not lawyers ….my son is an attorney here and they are multiple six figures.
A inside salesman in my industry is good for 100-120k
The article talks about workers taking "early retirement" but only actually talks about those 65+ retiring and also the prime year workforce 25-54. I'd say there is a mighty huge difference between a 54 year old and a 25 year old. A 54 year old might very well be in the position to retire early, a 25 year old who stopped working would simply be someone who is unemployed.
It would be nice if they would break down the numbers of actual early retirees which would be somewhere between the ages of 50 and 65. No way is 65 an "early retiree".
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.
