Skip to comments.Study finds growth in over-55 workers fueled by need for health benefits
Posted on 08/02/2007 6:57:12 PM PDT by Graybeard58
The percentage of older Americans in the workforce is increasing markedly, partly driven by a need for affordable, employment-based health insurance.
A report released this morning by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute said the percentage of 55-and-older persons in the labor force ballooned from 38 percent 1993 to 45 percent in 2006.
The percentage of Americans aged 65 to 69 jumped from 18 percent in 1985 to 29 percent in 2006.
The increased workforce participation especially among full-time, full-year workers also is prompted by the need to accumulate retirement savings, the institute report said.
Two primary forces in the private sector are behind the trend. Employers are:
Phasing out retiree health insurance, both for current retirees and for younger workers coming into the system.
Shifting from defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution retirement plans, which generally include worker contributions.
Increased workforce participation of 55-and-older Americans was found among men and women and across all race and ethnicity categories.
The nonprofit institute does not take policy positions; it researches health, savings, retirement and economic security data. Read the complete report at www.ebri.org.
I'm not sure how to fix that problem, but it will continue to get bigger and bigger as time goes on, if nothing is done.
Soon they will be taxing the air we breath.
This will go down like a big dog in about 10 years when most of the boomers are past their prime.
Only when you exhale - carbon dioxide, you know.
Not to worry. They’ll be covered by the new SCHIP.
Oops - not poor enough.
It's a sickness, I tell you.
Yeah, well, beneath all the bs and propaganda the simple fact is that medical costs are skyrocketing because medicine is a govt protected monopoly.
Add personal injury lawyers and medical malpractice insurance and you have the formula.
I you can still command a high salary because of experience and lack of younger workers, it’s hard to walk away - espeically if you don’t know how much you need to retire.
I get six figures, plus five percent 401K match, plus twelve percent cash-value pension. That’s hard to turn down.
It's a sickness, I tell you.
I've worked and I have not worked. I much prefer the latter.
With us living longer, it actually doesn’t seem like a good idea for many people to retire at 55. In fact, if I’m healthy at 65 I will still work. It’s not that retirement doesn’t sound fun (if you have the $$ to enjoy it) it’s just that I would rather be doing something productive, at least part time. People didn’t used to think that there was a certain age at which you just quit working and relaxed.
More power to you Susie. That’s personal choice and it’s what freedom is all about.
I retired at 54 and am 62 now and I love every day of it. I am as busy as I want to be and I don’t need an alarm clock.
If you have enough $$ to sustain yourself to whatever age you live, I say that’s super. My husband is in the trust business, so I know that most people do not have the financial wherewithal to retire that early. If you planned well tho, more power to you. It has not always even been something people imagined. They worked until they either died or could not work. If they were lucky they had family who would take care of them. If not....
Down in Virginia they already do that, but Kane wants to fine you if you breath two many times an hour.
Are you under 40?
I have impeccable credentials in my chosen field, years of experience. My resume gets me many interviews. However, as soon as I meet the interviewer, with my gray hair blowing in the wind, as it were, the interview is over. I can see it their glazed over eyes. Age discrimination has been around since the cost of medical coverage has hit the roof.
Hear, hear. I'm 55. I should be able to retire now and live on the largesse of my younger fellow Americans. What would Karl say?
“two” times an hour is a pretty low respiration rate. Not sure I can hold my breath for 30 minutes between inhalations.
I’d like to have about a million when I retire—not for living in opulence but living off the interest and financial security. Might be able to pull it off by age 60 if possible and favorable ROI.
Too bad I just moved to Minneapolis: less than 6 figures, but 6% 401(k) match and 2% pension, to kick in after 2 years service.
Prayers up for the victims and families of the I-35 bridge collapse. Last night CNN had a graphic at the bottom of the screen that the 35-W bridge connected Minneapolis and St. Paul (sighs heavily).
No cheers, unfortunately.
Only state workers should pay for retirement benefits for state workers.
Only union employees should pay for retirement benefits for union employees.
Government workers pay taxes too.
Any guy (especially guys) who are not “working” after 55 will generally be dead within 5 years of retirement....MAN needs to WORK!
Not to mention a whole generation of “me first” baby boomers that want the whole nation to pay for their lack of planning for medical and retirement.
I'm 62, retired at 54. By your reckoning I'm dead.
That sure makes it hell for the younger guys to get promotions and paychecks that come with more responsibility. With the top end occupied, we have to wait until somebody dies to get a promotion or a raise.
That makes it hell to start a family and buy a house....
Do we wonder why guys in their 30s have a lower real-wage than their fathers?
Well.....it was something I read in the WSJ a few years ago....there ARE exceptions! :<>)
I understand your point but I believe the key is to stay busy and I do to a certain extent. I excercise, try to eat reasonably right and I have 12 grand children and 1.5 great grand children if I want to be really busy, I just have them come and visit.
My wife and I are both 60, in good health and plan to work until we're 70. Our companys' retirement and health plans are great, so why retire?? It would be like firing yourself! The Boomers will keep working, and the employees waiting for our jobs will have to wait some more.
The reason is that many people have not saved enough for their retirement. This explains why more of the 65 and over crowd is working even though they have Medicare.
You've just made my point. You're a boomer, but there are far fewer in the generation following you and you're only gonna work another 10 years.
Actually I dont ever plan to retire..works for most but I’m sure it wont work for me.
Actually I dont ever plan to retire..works for most but I’m sure it wont work for me.
Economic sense? It also doesn’t have any ethical, moral or ideological sense.
‘bout the only folks retiring early these days are gubbermint “workers”. Here in CA they get hefty pensions, health care and never had to throw a single penny down the Social Security rat hole. So, all private sector peeps need to work-till-you drop, so these gubbermint folks can enjoy their nice retirement. Nah, I’m not bitter.
In this time we live in non-government employees usually have to work untill their 65 years old anyway just too retire.
So yes government employees Do pay Taxes.But their dollars go alot farther than your average private sector employee.
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
I had intended to work till age 60 (I'm almost 57 now) then retire and move to central America. However, last November 30, after almost 35 years with my employer here in Detroit, our stamping plant was closed and the company itself was sold. I haven't been able to find any employment at all.
While its been nice having the summer off, I would much rather be working.......
Oh great. Well, I suppose I should just die when I reach 65. That way I won’t be in anyone’s *way* whose trying to reach the top (unlikely, since I’m a female teacher) and I won’t be a drain on the kids either. Sheesh. You sound bitter, and I’m sorry for that, but get a grip.
My mother retired from Civil Service (federal) when she was about 57. Her benefits were great, she indeed didn’t get social security (altho she had paid into it when she didn’t work for the Federal Govt). In hindsight I am glad she did retire early, since she spent the last 4 years of her life battling kidney cancer and was dead by the time she was 67.
We never know what life will throw at us, but I am concerned about early retirement with people (in general) living longer.
As I said in a previous post, my husband is in the financial industry, and most people don’t really understand how much they need to have saved for retirement if they are going to live another 20 or so years.
I will likely not teach when my husband finally retires, but I will do something. Heck, maybe I’ll become a Walmart greeter...that won’t keep any of those young whippersnappers from climbing the corporate ladder!
Of course I'm bitter: I'm the youngest engineer in my organization and I'm 40! It's insane....
Sorry about that 'healthcare' thing, but get a grip.
Well, so what if you’re the youngest? Perhaps your company likes to hire seasoned professionals. What’s wrong with that? I think businesses should be able to hire whomever they choose.
So where is the next batch of 'seasoned professionals' coming from?
Really, if your 'bright young talent' is in its 40s, it's over. I'm talking about engineering, aerospace and defense--it's become a geriatric endeavor with no new talent replacing the retirees. Furthermore, as oldsters hang onto their jobs unto death there are no positions and no budget to hire the next generation of professionals.
So, who will I supervise as I move up the (now nonexistant) promotion ladder?
I suppose then you will need to go into another profession if the one you’re in is so bad. I fail to see why it’s someone else’s responsibility to retire so you or anyone else can have their job.
I guess we really have no needs of aircraft or submarines, tanks and bombs since we are perfectly at peace and will remain so.
I fail to see why its someone elses responsibility to retire so you or anyone else can have their job.
Of course you do: You are in your mid-fifties, correct?
First, are you suggesting that without you there will be no aircraft, etc? If so people not retiring may not be the reason you’re not moving up in the company.
Second, no, I am not in my mid-fifties, I just turned fifty. But, I think it would be frankly arrogant and selfish to imagine that anyone needs to retire so that I can have a shot. If someone can do their job well, and they have experience which makes them valuable employees, who are you to say they should retire just to give someone else a chance? If a field is saturated with workers, then that’s unfortunate, but some of those people will need to go into another line of work. I had that same experience. I had a degree in exercise physiology, and I had worked in the field. But it was difficult to find jobs because it became such a hot degree to get. So, instead of complaining I changed careers. Kind of scarey at age 42, but I don’t recall any guarantee anywhere that said I could have the career and/or job that I desired.
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.