The interesting edge case is that people like my dad -- who did sheetrock for a living -- would never <i>ever</i> have been able to make it to age 70 to retire. He knew the odds were slim that he'd make it to 67. He passed away in 2004 at age 54; my tribute to his memory: <a href="http://bit.ly/11K2Dsb" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/11K2Dsb</a><p>It's kinda disgusting that "America's CEOs" just don't think about and don't care about people like him. . . they and their minions that theoretically <i>can</i> make it to age 70 from behind a desk forget that the buildings they work in and the houses they live in were physically built by people who need and deserve to retire, too. But "America's CEOs" and others who are hellbent on accelerating <i>their</i> path to early retirement see only the numbers.
The title is deceptive—"The Business Roundtable" is just doing simple math, because the fundamental issue is demographic: people are living longer and having fewer children. In the next 30 years, it simply won't be economically feasible to support a huge number of old people if all of them retire or attempt to retire at 65.
It's really sad to see how selfish people are (or have become). I wonder if it is a subtle result of the seemingly permanently-lousy economy.<p>This is a problem for all of us and we should solve it as a group, in a way that hurts as few people as possible. What happened to solving hard problems with innovation and intelligence? Why are so many people so ready to throw in the towel and abandon ship, taking whatever isn't nailed down on the way?
The solution to medicare isn't to remove younger, cheaper people from eligibility, it's to remove older, more expensive people from eligibility. The math is shockingly obvious on this point.
They might be overestimating the capabilities of the 65+ crowd. A lot of them aren't capable of working. I used to work in a call center where I talked to AARP members, and a lot of them aren't even capable of leaving the house. I know this because they told me. You may not have been aware of this because they don't talk to anybody but call center workers.<p>I don't have the numbers but I'll bet there are more people whose working days are behind them at that age than most people think, because those people don't get out much, or at all.<p>Of those who can still work, they are probably a lot who are good for a few shifts a week but couldn't work a full time job with benefits and a living wage.
It still has to be remembered that many people don't live to 70. Even today people working in hard manual labor and black men in general are pretty lucky to get to 70.<p>People who are healthy and able to work should not be living on retirement simply because they have reached 65, but neither should someone die at work because their life was harder to begin with.
I'm not a CEO by any stretch of imagination and I want people to work till 70. I want to be able to work till 70 (from a physical standpoint). I mean, unless, everything becomes robotized, automated and we all get reverse taxes.
I'm 66. I first retired at age 59 from a tech job with great benefits and healthcare for life. Got bored out of my mind, and went back to work at another tech company. Retired last July. By October I was again ready to work and am now working in yet another tech company.<p>I have no idea how long I will live, and I do intend to retire when my wife reaches 65.<p>Some of you make it sound terrible that someone is working at age 66. I am really happy working.<p>(I could get by without working, but it is very nice to have an income stream)
Well, they can't say they didn't see it coming. They have known since the 1970's that Social Security and Medicare were on unsustainable paths, and they repeatedly chose to pass the buck. What I want to know is if Millenials are going to get so fed up with it that they just cut them off completely. I mean, why would they ever want to pay 20+% of their salary for ever and ever, just to support the pathetic lives of those who repeatedly chose to fuck them over, and get nothing in return (or rather, negative returns)?
My Dad is almost 70. I guess this gives me standing to drop some unhelpful anecdata.<p>At this point he's holding on to unlock accumulated Long Service Leave, which will occur in June.<p>I suspect he will get a job after he has Retired. Why? Boredom. Working hard is <i>ingrained</i> in the man. He is terrible at idleness. He can do it for a day or two (and no man alive is better at a good afternoon kip), but then he wanders the house like a restless poltergeist.<p>I expect he'll take his decades of hands-on electronics wisdom and work part-time at a local TV repair place. Just to keep himself busy.<p>As for the meat of the article -- which really is about trying to forestall the Greece-times-a-zillion excitement that the future of US fiscal policy promises -- I don't know what to say.<p>You guys are going to find that tough. In Australia we've had compulsory retirement saving (superannuation or colloquially "super") since the 1980s. Australians have now accumulated well north of a trillion dollars of assets against their retirement.<p>Is it perfect? No, it's riddled with problems. But in terms of forestalling a fiscal nightmare it's one of the most far-sighted reforms ever introduced.
Oh, look honey, more equivocation between "working" and "not receiving a government entitlement check"!<p>"That's nice, dear."<p>But, but it obscures clear thinking on this issue!<p>"What else is new?"
So... we have more automation than ever before, and the solution is to make "everyone else" work longer so that all the benefits can be showered on these few privileged.<p>I expect that a lot of people who actually, really invented and developed this largess, would be disgusted with their attitude. And with what has happened to American society.<p>P.S. Yes, my statement is a bit simplistic and ignores the global context. But, confined to American society, I think my rebuttal has validity. And even on a global scale, I don't think I'm being disingenuous. U.S. senior management seems just as inclined to be exploitative abroad as domestically.<p>My comment also ignores increasing lifespan, but I don't think current discussion around increasing retirement age is being honest on that front. Rather, it seems to be another component of advocacy for a regressive distribution of society's expenses. (Also, lifespan increases seem to be slowing -- even regressing, in some cases -- and becoming more divergent (again?) based on affluence and economic opportunity.)<p>P.P.S. It's all the more hypocritical, when I think about it, in that many of these CEO's companies actively (if circumspectly) discriminate against hiring anyone over 50 -- or even in the upper 40's.<p>In today's world where "no job is secure", and where corporations seek to control ever-more of the marketplace, how would they propose to reconcile this?
Real simple. Don't want to work for the 'man' and retire at 70 -- start your own damned company. Learn how to invest. Buy real estate. Do something. If you don't want to work until your 70, don't let yourself be dependent on the government (or your employer) for your retirement.<p>Nobody is forced to be dependent unless they allow themselves to be. Many people own a car and a nice TV yet very few would be willing to put $30,000 down on buying their first rental property or invest in starting a company. It's easy to just let the government or an employer be your 'daddy.' It's much harder to take responsibility for your yourself and your own future.