Retirement Age
22 Jun 2011, 11:22 am
As I do not know the inner workings of why retirement age keeps going up I ask:
Does it not make more sense to have the retirement age be set at around 55yrs of age?
I think 55yrs retirement age has a lot of benefits:
A retired person spends a larger % of his money than he does while employed. This means an increased money flow as well as increased creation of small businesses by retirees which would stimulate the economy even more and create more jobs.
The position the person retires from becomes available to a younger member. This would virtually eliminate the unemployment problem.
Family unity enhanced as retirees help take care of their families (watch the grand kids, etc).
Health issues/costs decline as stress and work related wear and tear on the body is significantly greater past your 50's.
In the past 6 months Ive seen too many people of my father's generation (including his twin brother) pass away just barely after they reach retirement. One woman I remember retired and 2 weeks later she passed away.. my uncle passed away just a year short of retirement age... a 72 yr old man that worked with my dad passed away after a year of retirement.
All in all the retirement age is nearly reaching the life expectancy age. Its insane to tell people they cant receive their retirement money until they have a foot in the grave... that the law forbids them to enjoy their old age for only the very wealthy for retirement check is the bulk income of what most people will have available for them at that time (private savings of the low income and middle class rarely match 401k and retirement check money).
22 Jun 2011, 11:26 am
Dantac wrote:
As I do not know the inner workings of why retirement age keeps going up I ask:
Does it not make more sense to have the retirement age be set at around 55yrs of age?
I think 55yrs retirement age has a lot of benefits:
Does it not make more sense to have the retirement age be set at around 55yrs of age?
I think 55yrs retirement age has a lot of benefits:
Lots of benefits and who shall pay for them? More and more people are surviving into their 70s, 80s and 90s. Add to that the cohort who are in their 60s and the population under 55 will have a devil of a time carrying the financial burden. The demographics make your proposal an un-good proposal.
Here is a thought for you: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch ---- Robert A. Heinlein
ruveyn
22 Jun 2011, 2:59 pm
Removing people 55 and over from the labor supply will reduce the supply of labor, thus putting upward pressure on wages, thus more income to tax to support people 55 and over.
Moreover, increased substitution of capital for labor means fewer labor required to produce a certain amount of goods.
22 Jun 2011, 6:46 pm
pandabear wrote:
Removing people 55 and over from the labor supply will reduce the supply of labor, thus putting upward pressure on wages, thus more income to tax to support people 55 and over.
Moreover, increased substitution of capital for labor means fewer labor required to produce a certain amount of goods.
Moreover, increased substitution of capital for labor means fewer labor required to produce a certain amount of goods.
More likely it will accelerate going off shore for cheap labor.
It will also push harder for automation.
ruveyn
Last edited by ruveyn on 22 Jun 2011, 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
22 Jun 2011, 6:47 pm
pandabear wrote:
Removing people 55 and over from the labor supply will reduce the supply of labor, thus putting upward pressure on wages, thus more income to tax to support people 55 and over.
Moreover, increased substitution of capital for labor means fewer labor required to produce a certain amount of goods.
Moreover, increased substitution of capital for labor means fewer labor required to produce a certain amount of goods.
The immense benefits of current technology to production has resulted in less demand for labor input per individual labor. This cuts the cost of unit production considerably. Management has responded, not by passing the gains to labor by cutting hours nor by cutting the price of goods but by firing employees and increasing the work load of labor retained. The overwhelming bulk of the gains has accrued to management who's compensation has increased hugely while wages have more or less remained static for decades.
By cutting employment management has more or less shot itself in the foot since wages are a major contribution to the power of the market to purchase goods. Beyond this, the export of much labor to cheap labor countries has also disempowered the market to a very large degree by cutting financial input to the market. It's a losing game and the airheads in charge are oblivious to their stupidity.
22 Jun 2011, 7:08 pm
Prior to the industrial revolution, the vast majority of the population was employed in agriculture.
Now, only about 1-2% of the population is involved in agriculture, and enough food is still produced. It's not as if we would gain anything if more people were to take up farming.
We are in an economic recovery with still about 10% unemployment. And, we have all of the stuff that we need. It's not as if we would gain anything by finding jobs for these people.
The harder we push for automation, and the more we send unskilled jobs overseas to people who need the work, the better off we will be.
The solution to the unemployment problem, or to anything else, is not to postpone the retirement age. People should retire earlier, and enjoy a little bit of the time they are allotted on earth.
22 Jun 2011, 7:38 pm
ruveyn's on the side of right here without much question.
Quote:
A retired person spends a larger % of his money than he does while employed.
So... investment goes down as 401k funds are looted? Isn't investment really more important for the long-run economy? After all, if we don't invest money into the economy, how is it going to grow? What's going to fund those projects? (What's going to happen is that interest rates go up, and so less investments will be taken, as those investments will then have a lower Net Present Value, thus stifling growth)
Quote:
This means an increased money flow
Irrelevant. Increased money flow only provides the short-term benefit of a jump in GDP, but the overall growth normalizes.
Quote:
increased creation of small businesses by retirees which would stimulate the economy even more and create more jobs
. The latter point only works if retirees tend to create a lot of small businesses. However, if these people go out and create small businesses, they wouldn't need to be retiring as running a business is still a form of work.
Quote:
This would virtually eliminate the unemployment problem.
No, it really wouldn't. I mean, sure, in the short-run you might eliminate some unemployment as jobs become easier, IN THE SHORT RUN. What happens though is that everything renormalizes, and the same issues keeping unemployment up will still go into effect.
Quote:
All in all the retirement age is nearly reaching the life expectancy age. Its insane to tell people they cant receive their retirement money until they have a foot in the grave... that the law forbids them to enjoy their old age for only the very wealthy for retirement check is the bulk income of what most people will have available for them at that time
????? The original retirement age WAS past the life expectancy age. When FDR put forward social security, it was set for AFTER the expected life span of an American would end. Americans were expected to only live to the age of 62. He set social security for the age of 65. What you consider INSANE here is itself INSANE. I mean, hell, the only real justification I see for retirement is health problems, otherwise, getting to eat without having to work for it is just a luxury, not some freaking privilege. I mean, seriously, if the intention is that we all go out and play and enjoy life, then why not set "retirement" for the ages of 18-30, or 18-25 or something like that? That way everybody who has "retired" has a lot more to enjoy while doing it, and this way we can make sure that everybody has their adult fun-time.
I am sorry, I don't see the point.
22 Jun 2011, 8:15 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
????? The original retirement age WAS past the life expectancy age. When FDR put forward social security, it was set for AFTER the expected life span of an American would end. Americans were expected to only live to the age of 62. He set social security for the age of 65.
Which meant that, yes, living long enough to be able to retire was quite a luxury.
Quote:
What you consider INSANE here is itself INSANE. I mean, hell, the only real justification I see for retirement is health problems,
People should just keep on working until they drop? What for?
Quote:
otherwise, getting to eat without having to work for it is just a luxury, not some freaking privilege.
How do you distinguish between luxury and "freaking privilege?"
Quote:
I mean, seriously, if the intention is that we all go out and play and enjoy life, then why not set "retirement" for the ages of 18-30, or 18-25 or something like that?
Sounds like a great plan to me. If we ever get to the point where capital can completely replace labor, then why should anyone "work?"
Quote:
That way everybody who has "retired" has a lot more to enjoy while doing it, and this way we can make sure that everybody has their adult fun-time.
Excellent point!
Quote:
I am sorry, I don't see the point.
But you made it beautifully!
22 Jun 2011, 8:20 pm
pandabear wrote:
People should just keep on working until they drop? What for?
If you want to take some time, even years off of work, go ahead. But, I don't see any reason for this to be considered a special right.
Quote:
How do you distinguish between luxury and "freaking privilege?"
Should have written "right" instead of "privilege". I am getting terrible at typos for some reason. In any case, if you substitute in "right", I think the distinction makes sense.
Quote:
Sounds like a great plan to me. If we ever get to the point where capital can completely replace labor, then why should anyone "work?"
That's outside the question though. We can't assume capital is completely replacing labor for setting current retirement policies.
Quote:
Excellent point!
If you want youths to retire, sure, go argue that. I don't think it is a *great* idea, but many college experiences are kind of like that already for offspring of the middle and upper classes.
Quote:
But you made it beautifully!
Thanks.
22 Jun 2011, 8:30 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
If you want to take some time, even years off of work, go ahead. But, I don't see any reason for this to be considered a special right.
And, why not? Maybe not a "special" right, but just a normal right.
Quote:
Should have written "right" instead of "privilege". I am getting terrible at typos for some reason. In any case, if you substitute in "right", I think the distinction makes sense.
Okay, let's make it a freaking right then. Especially given the amount of money given to farmers by the government, which increases rents to landowners. If they're going to get all of this money, then the rest of us might just as well get free food.
Quote:
That's outside the question though. We can't assume capital is completely replacing labor for setting current retirement policies.
Well, capital is indeed replacing labor, if not completely. If so many workers are redundant, might as well just let them retire. What is the point of compelling people to work, when jobs are scarce anyway? Just to bring down labor costs? A job is actually something of a luxury these days for many.
Quote:
If you want youths to retire, sure, go argue that. I don't think it is a *great* idea, but many college experiences are kind of like that already for offspring of the middle and upper classes.
Yes, so? What's wrong with enjoying it?
22 Jun 2011, 8:48 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
ruveyn's on the side of right here without much question.
So... investment goes down as 401k funds are looted? Isn't investment really more important for the long-run economy? After all, if we don't invest money into the economy, how is it going to grow? What's going to fund those projects? (What's going to happen is that interest rates go up, and so less investments will be taken, as those investments will then have a lower Net Present Value, thus stifling growth)
Irrelevant. Increased money flow only provides the short-term benefit of a jump in GDP, but the overall growth normalizes.
The latter point only works if retirees tend to create a lot of small businesses. However, if these people go out and create small businesses, they wouldn't need to be retiring as running a business is still a form of work.
No, it really wouldn't. I mean, sure, in the short-run you might eliminate some unemployment as jobs become easier, IN THE SHORT RUN. What happens though is that everything renormalizes, and the same issues keeping unemployment up will still go into effect.
????? The original retirement age WAS past the life expectancy age. When FDR put forward social security, it was set for AFTER the expected life span of an American would end. Americans were expected to only live to the age of 62. He set social security for the age of 65. What you consider INSANE here is itself INSANE. I mean, hell, the only real justification I see for retirement is health problems, otherwise, getting to eat without having to work for it is just a luxury, not some freaking privilege. I mean, seriously, if the intention is that we all go out and play and enjoy life, then why not set "retirement" for the ages of 18-30, or 18-25 or something like that? That way everybody who has "retired" has a lot more to enjoy while doing it, and this way we can make sure that everybody has their adult fun-time.
I am sorry, I don't see the point.
Quote:
A retired person spends a larger % of his money than he does while employed.
So... investment goes down as 401k funds are looted? Isn't investment really more important for the long-run economy? After all, if we don't invest money into the economy, how is it going to grow? What's going to fund those projects? (What's going to happen is that interest rates go up, and so less investments will be taken, as those investments will then have a lower Net Present Value, thus stifling growth)
Quote:
This means an increased money flow
Irrelevant. Increased money flow only provides the short-term benefit of a jump in GDP, but the overall growth normalizes.
Quote:
increased creation of small businesses by retirees which would stimulate the economy even more and create more jobs
. The latter point only works if retirees tend to create a lot of small businesses. However, if these people go out and create small businesses, they wouldn't need to be retiring as running a business is still a form of work.
Quote:
This would virtually eliminate the unemployment problem.
No, it really wouldn't. I mean, sure, in the short-run you might eliminate some unemployment as jobs become easier, IN THE SHORT RUN. What happens though is that everything renormalizes, and the same issues keeping unemployment up will still go into effect.
Quote:
All in all the retirement age is nearly reaching the life expectancy age. Its insane to tell people they cant receive their retirement money until they have a foot in the grave... that the law forbids them to enjoy their old age for only the very wealthy for retirement check is the bulk income of what most people will have available for them at that time
????? The original retirement age WAS past the life expectancy age. When FDR put forward social security, it was set for AFTER the expected life span of an American would end. Americans were expected to only live to the age of 62. He set social security for the age of 65. What you consider INSANE here is itself INSANE. I mean, hell, the only real justification I see for retirement is health problems, otherwise, getting to eat without having to work for it is just a luxury, not some freaking privilege. I mean, seriously, if the intention is that we all go out and play and enjoy life, then why not set "retirement" for the ages of 18-30, or 18-25 or something like that? That way everybody who has "retired" has a lot more to enjoy while doing it, and this way we can make sure that everybody has their adult fun-time.
I am sorry, I don't see the point.
There seems to be evidence here you have bought and swallowed whole the old horse manure that there is inherent virtue in work. There is not. Work is a pain in the ass. There is virtue in the rewards of work and that is a totally different thing. Human beings are animals. They need food and clothing and shelter and scads of other things. Rabbits and sparrows and hedgehogs don't work because the planet provides for them and if it stops they cease to exist. That's the way things function. In history people survived by working hard to create their needs by manipulating nature but as civilization matured understanding and technology created sophisticated modifications of applied efforts which multiplied the effectiveness of human energy to make individuals far more productive and enlarging the rewards of efforts tremendously. But as these rewards increased they were taken up by larger populations and enriched only a small percentage of the population who were clever and lucky enough to have the right talents and applied them to their own benefits. If those talents were applied correctly everybody benefited but if they were used to sequester special privileges and deprive the population in general of the benefits of a sophisticated civilization the decrease of the necessity to work became a privilege of the few. In the most recent decades the benefits of the technologies of production have more and more been allocated to what has become a powerful elite. As mechanically sophisticated production has decreased the necessity for much human labor input a large sector of humanity has been cut off from the benefits of a society which requires less labor for production and when that sector becomes aware of their deprivation there will be much fury and a good deal of violence and accompanying wide misery.
22 Jun 2011, 10:53 pm
Dantac wrote:
In the past 6 months Ive seen too many people of my father's generation (including his twin brother) pass away just barely after they reach retirement. One woman I remember retired and 2 weeks later she passed away.. my uncle passed away just a year short of retirement age... a 72 yr old man that worked with my dad passed away after a year of retirement.
Standard social security retirement age for people retiring now is 65. You can retire as early as 62 if you are willing to take a smaller payout. So, the 72 year old man who retired at 71 chose to work 5-8 years longer than he had to - he wasn't forced into working that long. If anything, he was probably forced into retirement, since you're required to start taking payouts from your retirement account at 70.5.
Most people these days get 10-15 years of retirement, which may be more than we can afford to give them.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
So... investment goes down as 401k funds are looted? Isn't investment really more important for the long-run economy? After all, if we don't invest money into the economy, how is it going to grow? What's going to fund those projects? (What's going to happen is that interest rates go up, and so less investments will be taken, as those investments will then have a lower Net Present Value, thus stifling growth)
This is going to be a serious issue as the boomers start retiring. To put it another way, the people working in production will barely be able to support themselves and the retirees, and there won't be any work invested in future productivity improvements. Say goodbye to any improvements in the standard of living.
23 Jun 2011, 12:05 am
My retirement and its effect on my cash flow do little to help the money supply. I wish the money supply would help me.
Sensible retiremernt policy would differentiate person from person and job from job. In an increasingly gridlocked uniformitarian world that hain't a gonna happen.
In practice, "retirement" like "education" functions mainly as a control on the labor statistics. Hey - Joe is retired, HE's not on the dole! Yeah - and Helen is still working on her degree, she's not unemployed.
23 Jun 2011, 12:11 am
Philologos wrote:
My retirement and its effect on my cash flow do little to help the money supply. I wish the money supply would help me.
Sensible retiremernt policy would differentiate person from person and job from job. In an increasingly gridlocked uniformitarian world that hain't a gonna happen.
In practice, "retirement" like "education" functions mainly as a control on the labor statistics. Hey - Joe is retired, HE's not on the dole! Yeah - and Helen is still working on her degree, she's not unemployed.
Sensible retiremernt policy would differentiate person from person and job from job. In an increasingly gridlocked uniformitarian world that hain't a gonna happen.
In practice, "retirement" like "education" functions mainly as a control on the labor statistics. Hey - Joe is retired, HE's not on the dole! Yeah - and Helen is still working on her degree, she's not unemployed.
I have no idea what the hell happened to you but this post is clear, open and concise. It's contrast to your previous submissions is startling. My compliments.
23 Jun 2011, 12:18 am
Dantac wrote:
As I do not know the inner workings of why retirement age keeps going up I ask:
* The age at which people actually need retirement and are not as able to work as before keeps raising. This is as simple as there are more people doing work at age 55 today than 40 years ago. Probably due to better health or something.
* Life expectancy is also on the rise.
* Retirement funding is basically a scheme that is based on the assumption that many of the people will die instead of living up to get the complete benefits. (Retirement is basically insurance against getting old). So, as life expectancy rises, retirement age will have to rise as well, else retirement would stop being economically plausible.
_________________
.
