Posted on 04/30/2012 6:20:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Social Security is slated to run out of money in 2033, three years earlier than expected. So maybe it's time for politicians to stop pandering when it comes to shoring up the system and instead rethink the retirement entitlement altogether.
Maybe we just need to look back at our history.
In the early 1900s, nearly 80 percent of Americans over the age of 65 had a job. Dora Costa, an economic historian at UCLA, says people stopped working only if they were no longer physically able to. They expected to work as long as they lived.
Is that really such a terrible idea?
Look at our labor force. It's changed dramatically since Social Security was enacted in 1935. Most of us are no longer spending our time working on farms or in heavy labor. Most of us are retiring from office jobs. Should we really be funding retirement at 65 just so we can live a life of leisure for the next 15, 20, or 25 years? Some financial advisers are even suggesting that when planning for retirement, we plan to live to 100, or at least another 30 years.
Aging just isn't what it used to be. Carroll O'Connor was only 47 when All in the Family premiered -- younger than Brad Pitt. And look at Mitt Romney. He's 65; he's fit, and he surfs. While wealthy, he's hardly an outlier. The majority of us aren't sitting in rockers in our 60s. We're physically active -- playing tennis and golf, hiking, traveling. We're living longer, healthier lives than ever before.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
RE: Maybe they want to spend time with their family, especially grandchildren?
Of course, that’s what a lot of seniors want.... however, the author is talking about SAVING social security ( i.e., delaying payment of it for as long as the senior can work ).
There are many seniors who want to spend time with their grandkids, but still need the income, which in our present (sorry ) economic and fiscal situation, is quite dependent on social security.
Barter ‘til ya drop! Barter like it’s 1012 A.D.
I like to work. I don’t see myself ever retiring.
Yup, or your kid's teachers are all in their 80's. Is that what we really want?
No thanks.
A comptroller for a major company said that either we move to a public option, or employer paid health benefits will end. I don't know if he is right, but I do know at my plant health costs are very, very high.
RE: I like to work. I don’t see myself ever retiring.
By “work”, are you referring to employment? Or are you referring to something else?
Yup. That important point is missed by a lot of people. Hey, I like modern medicine as much as the next guy. Anti-biotics are good. Dialysis is good. Lots of modern medicine is very nice to have. But the fact is: infant mortality is where we’ve really made the gain. Average life expectancy has increased because fewer babies die young. As you say: 100 years ago there were plenty of elderly folks. And they were working.
Which is a noble goal, but if you can’t afford, then what?
Based on their growth to date, I’ll have a double handfull to sell in about 25 years.
Ha ha! I'm doing the same with some apple trees. The only ones benefitting so far are the deer, who have killed 3 trees and nibbled all the lower branches off!
RE: I am not doing software development into my 60’s. I want to get off of the technology treadmill.
___________________________________________
In relation to this, read this article:
KEY EXCERPT:
__________________
Employers dismiss them as either lacking in up-to-date technical skills — such as the latest programming-language fad — or “not suitable for entry level.” In other words, either underqualified or overqualified. That doesn’t leave much, does it? Statistics show that most software developers are out of the field by age 40.
Employers have admitted this in unguarded moments. Craig Barrett, a former chief executive officer of Intel Corp., famously remarked that “the half-life of an engineer, software or hardware, is only a few years,” while Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook has blurted out that young programmers are superior.
Vivek Wadhwa, a former technology executive and now a business writer and Duke University researcher, wrote that in 2008 David Vaskevitch, then the chief technology officer at Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), “acknowledged that the vast majority of new Microsoft employees are young, but said that this is so because older workers tend to go into more senior jobs and there are fewer of those positions to begin with.”
More than a decade ago, Congress commissioned a National Research Council study of the age issue in the profession. The council found that it took 23.4 percent longer for the over-40 workers to find work after losing their jobs, and that they had to take an average pay cut of 13.7 percent on the new job.
Why do the employers prefer to hire the new or recent grads? Is it really because only they have the latest skill sets? That argument doesn’t jibe with the fact that young ones learned those modern skills from old guys like me. Instead, the problem is that the 35-year-old programmer has simply priced herself out of the market. As Wadhwa notes, even if the 45-year-old programmer making $120,000 has the right skills, “companies would rather hire the younger workers.”
And squash and peppers and...
To those companies I have this one comment:
CHEAP || FAST || GOOD; Pick two, (the third is excluded by the other two).
Yes, age discrimination is alive and well in this country. It seems to start at about 50 and goes from there. Hardly anyone is going to hire you when you are 55 let along 65.
As someone has noted, 80% of the people over 65 were still working because most of them were already DEAD.
My Dad worked until he was 66 and lived another 10 years. They got a really good deal on him pension wise.
About the only way to continue working for a long time is to have your own business but that is getting harder and harder because of burgeoning regulation.
I don’t mind working but I’ve had 35 years of commuting and it is enough to kill any good man. Were it not for that, living in the chity and being away from the farm I would just keep going. It is however getting old. I have seen a lot of the problems before and have to keep inventing new and learning new things to keep it interesting. So it has always been though.
I’d like to do a little of that hiking, fishing, surfing is doubtful though. Maybe a little sailing?
Dang it, you made me do research. It may take some time for me to forgive you for that. I hope your happy.
According to the website called lonestar.edu the average lifespan from 1900 to 1910 was 47.3 years for men and 46.3 for womyn.
From 1910 to 1920 it was 48.4 for men and 51.8 for women.
From 1920 to 1930 it was 53.6 for men and 54.6 for women.
By definition, we move from "the early 1900s" to the mid 1900s after that so that's where my research ended. And none to soon I might add.
It would appear the trick was getting to 30 years of age in the first place.
—And squash and peppers and...—
It truly is like therapy. As a person who has been in IT since 1983 and sales before that, I’m more fully understanding the recomendation in the bible that we work with our hands.
I fixed a riding mower and a rather expensive weed eater while my wife was planting. Incredibly rewarding to see the physical world improved right before your eyes by your labor.
The garden of Eden had no cubicles.
Try planting “Rosemary” around your trees. The deer hate it, won’t eat it, and supposedly won’t go through it. Additionally, you’ll have a supply of an fragrant herb for culinary use.
In the early 1900s, nearly 80 percent of Americans over the age of 65 had a job.
Yeah and America was mostly rural with farming a huge percentage of employment. There were many semi skilled factory jobs in industries like textiles and the garment industry.
There were a lot of differences between the early 1900’s versus now.
As others have pointed out, AGEISM is a major issue. Convince some 30yr old that a 65 yr old will fit in the corporation’s vision...thats a tuff sell.
Terrible or not, most Americans around fiftyish and younger will be doing so. It is the norm throughout human history.
In today's business climate I would not even think about starting any kind of substantial small business. The only way I would go into business for myself would be as an independant consultant (I do healthcare billing interfaces), and I will probably do that part time when I retire. Having employees is not worth the hassle, and that is exactly the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.