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 ...
I don’t know about that.
Being self employed I work like a dog to pay all the taxes and both sides of SS.
Yet, every time I go to the store I see the welfare crowd kicking back.
Maybe after working like a dog for 50 years I should take a few vacations I’ve been putting off.
“...But people who are nearing retirement and have made plans based on SS and a pension system...”
There’s your trouble. Bad planning. Liberals want the government to see to the needs of those who plan poorly. That’s the original sin that created such a ponzi scheme social program as Social Security. It’s socialism, collectivism, communism, progressivism, or whatever you want to label it. It is not reflective of good old American self responsibility.
Better planning is to not rely on systems run by the corruptable; government and S&L types. Maintain good health, plan your spending, allow for hyper inflation by not having your money tied up in money.
And, oh yeah, work your whole life.
I plan to work (business owner) my whole life, but now in my fifties, I can take more days off to go fishing, hunting and traveling to visit relatives and friends. I live better than my retired friends whose income is limited (bad planning).
Also, life expectancy is a lagging indicator. As another poster pointed out, people born between 1900 and 1910 only lived an average of about 47 years. But we didn't know that until the 1950s and 1960s.
We are now seeing huge numbers of people in their 70s who are relatively healthy. These people were born in the 1930s - at at time when most folks thought they'd be lucky to make it to age 50.
It would stand to reason that people born in the 1950s can probably expect to make it to their 90s. As for people being born now, huge numbers of them will likely make to to by 100 or older - of course, we won't know for sure until the 2100s.
Lastly, I can't believe I'm older than Archie Bunker. Was he really 47 years old at the time of the show? He looked like he was 65.
Amen brother. My muscles are sore, aching and in shock. Between double-digging, weeding and moving rocks I have trouble getting up in the morning but I have to before the sun gets hot.
Don’t forget the downward bias of war in life expectancy.
Try planting “Rosemary” around your trees.
Make sure she’s dead first...
So that is societal progress? Work til you die? That's what the cave men did. Only in the make believe Utopian Communist world would anyone believe that is the goal of civilization.
The mortality rate was 47 years, but that was because of the high infant and child mortality rates. If you made it to 20, you had a good chance of making it to seventy. People didn’t automatically start keeling over when they reached their mid-forties.
I’m very suspicious of average lifespan statistics when not controlled for other factors. For example, what was the life expectancy of someone in 1910 who had already reached the age of, say, 18? That removes the downward force of high infant mortality rates and childhood deaths caused by disease. Those deaths are no less tragic, but the question is did people live longer if they survived those high risk years?
I was astonished to discover on a trip to Monticello that Jefferson’s family, with I think one exception, all lived into their 70s, 80s, and 90s. On a trip to Salem, Massachussetts, I saw dozens of headstones in a 17th century cemetery indicating ages in the 70s, 80s, and 90s; more than those in the 40s, 50s, or 60s.
My personal observations are not scientific of course.
And who is going to hire you when you're 65?
Yeah I found that out the hard way...try 70...
Was corresponding with a truck driver in North Dakota who told me:
"having a CDL A licence in ND is like having a golden token in Willi Wonka."
...and I got a job 3 days after getting my CDL-A (fastest time I ever got a job acceptance in 50 years)
Businesses are starting to realize they have no choice but to hire older workers. The new workers coming to market are increasingly poorly educated and lack a work ethic. Many businesses are being to see that “Old is Gold.”
Well said! (and exactly what we are doing here - we will remain masters of our own fate here)
I like to work as well. Sure wish I liked my job, but I guess you can’t have everything in life. I love my wife and kids and friends and home, so 2 out of three ain’t bad.
I’ll just work as long as I can. Additionally, I have to help raise tax money for my sisters, who both have sweet teaching jobs and they get to retire with a nice pension, while idiots like me have to pay for it with our tax dollars.
yep, I resent that.
Yes, that is societal progress. Cave men didn't do much working by the way. Unless you call hunting, gathering and trying to avoid being slaughtered by predators and/or other cave men work. They were also lucky to live 30 years.
I think they would trade places with us in a heartbeat. Live to be 85 years old and have all the food you want...are you kidding? And what we call "work" - the cave men would laugh at us for thinking we had it so hard.
Another question not asked is why should the private sector workforce be enslaved until death so that the public sector leeches can go home at 55 with full medical and salary?
You remind me of some idiot who once asked a senior man why he held such a big overtime job, why not let HIM have a chance at it. He answered him thusly:
“Let’s see. Your seniority number is what? Maybe 880, mine is 13. I’ve worked here my whole life to hold this job. Don’t you think between #13 and #880 there might be one other guy or two who would like my job also? NOW GET THE HELL OUTTA HERE, YOU IDIOT!”
My dad worked until he was 83. He didn’t “have to” he simply liked what he did. Why quit doing something you like? I will be 62 this coming Saturday and have no intentions of walking out the door any time soon. The kids are grown, the house is about paid for and once that happens the paychecks are all mine (ours) to do with as we see fit.
If you’re self-employed you can work to any age, as long as you can do the job. Plus, there are employers who like older workers. Not all of them, of course, but if you look, you can find them.
If you’re working for anything but cash or barter after you retire(if you actually can retire), you’re just feeding the croc in order to be eaten by it,IMHO.
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.