Skip to comments.Work 'til You Drop: Is that such a bad idea? (Why is working as long as you live so terrible?)
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 ...
And who is going to hire you when you're 65?
THAT is the question, not the willingness to work.
“the OLDER workers are the ones to be laid off first. “
Great time to start your own business.
And I don’t call it “work till you drop,” I call it “going out with your boots on.”
—Why is working as long as you live so terrible?—
We were designed as gardeners. We gardened this weekend, worked our butts off, and had a blast.
It’s true what they say: gardening is better than therapy because you get tomatoes.
Work ‘til You Drop.
That’s my retirement plan.
You may not be able to work until you drop. You may be laid off because you are high priced, or you may have a medical condition. In addition, no body likes to hire old people regardless of their background.
So you think it is ok for all these old farts to keep their jobs for their entire lives and cheat the younger generation out of having a job? /sarc
Working and having job are different. I plan on retiring from my job as young as possible so I can work on things I don’t have time for now.
I don’t think it’s questionable - we will have to. I am planning my post-retirement career now.
It isn’t a bad idea to work in some way as long as you can if you can. If you have a physical job, you probably can’t work til you drop. But most people who work in office jobs can work beyond 66 — at least into their early 70s in some capacity, even if its cutting back to part time. The benefit of doing this would be huge. Pension and Social Security problems would vanish. And yet we are going in the opposite direction. People who have jobs that allow them to retire in their late 50s or early 60s. Its why we are in the trouble we are.
As I understand it, when Socialist Security was started the average lifespan was something like 62 years.
But getting to the point of the thread, I agree with the poster who suggested by the age of 65, one should have been able to have started his or her own business.
However, I'm one to talk. I'm 50 and I don't own my own business.
The point remains, there's too much emphasis on "jobs" and not enough on "entrepreunerialship".
Maybe if there was an easier way to say "entrereneurialship".
It’s all fun and games until you are the one stuck in a WalMart checkout with a 90 year old cashier.
Remember this passage for The Holy Bible:
King James Version (KJV)
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return
There is NO expiration for this.
That’s it right there. I left the traditional workforce at 57 and having the time of my life. Working, just in different ways...
I like to work. I enjoy what I do. LORD willing I will work at *something* productive until I am physically unable to do so. I think retirement — at least the “fishing every day” kind — would kill me quick.
I have had my own business for years so “ageism” isn’t so much of a problem. If you have a marketable talent or skill it’s not as hard to do your own thing as many imagine it is. Funny thing: when you ARE the business, sometimes the gray hair is actually an ADVANTAGE.
I’m also debt free so I don’t need to work eighty hours a week. I have savings but no pension. I don’t plan on retiring on social security; consequently I structure my compensation to pay as little into it as I can legally do.
I am not doing software development into my 60’s. I want to get off of the technology treadmill.
I want to retire, leave New Jersey, take my guns and tools with me and target shoot, hunt, hike and build rifles until I die.
You can make arguments for and against Socialist Security and pensions. But Socialist Security is not an entitlement, it is a form of retirement insurance.
Those SOBs in Washington, primarily Democrats, destroyed it by expanding it for other purposes, raiding it for other purposes and lowering the reitement age.
Pensions should also be run as a reitement insurance program with the money well invested and protected - sort of like a 401-K program and maybe Socialist Security should be run like that also.
But people who are nearing retirement and have made plans based on SS and a pension system should be screwed because a pension administrator or those clown in Washington have been misbehaving badly.
I planted a dozen pecan and filbert trees on our property. The plan was to harvest the nuts and sell them at the local farmers’ market.
Based on their growth to date, I’ll have a double handfull to sell in about 25 years.
Actually, many attained that age... The "average lifespan" extension we see as a great benefit of modern medicine is almost entirely due to reductions in infant mortality, and deaths due to childhood diseases. Someone at the turn of the 20th century (or even back at the turn of the previous) who had already made it to 30 had an average life expectancy comparable to a 30 year old today (maybe ~3-5 years less, as I recall).
Maybe they want to spend time with their family, especially grandchildren? Did this genius writer think of that?
RE: So you think it is ok for all these old farts to keep their jobs for their entire lives and cheat the younger generation out of having a job? /sarc
I’m not saying that at all. All I’m saying is this — if by “work”, the author of this article is referring to — doing what you have been doing ( your profession ) for as long as you can — then he clearly is idealizing the situation in the workforce.
At a certain age ( usually much younger than 65 as I observe ), you WILL BE forced to retire.
Therefore, you will have to either:
A) Hope you can still be hired ( good luck with that )
B) Start your own business ( good luck with that ).
C) Find some other source of income (good luck with that ).
D) Volunteer doing a good cause (All well and good. But then, that’s not about income at all, which of course, goes against the premise of the article itself ).
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?
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 dont 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, Ill 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 60s. I want to get off of the technology treadmill.
In relation to this, read this article:
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 doesnt 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 doesnt 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.
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)