Skip to comments.How high will the retirement age go?
Posted on 09/25/2012 5:10:12 PM PDT by Condor 63
In June, Robert Benmosche, the chairman of the insurance giant American International Group, said an increase in the retirement age was unavoidable. What surprised many is how high he predicted the age would go. "Retirement ages will have to move to 70, 80 years old," Benmosche told Bloomberg. "That would make pensions, medical services more affordable. They will keep people working longer and will take that burden off of the youth."
(Excerpt) Read more at money.msn.com ...
70 sounds about right.
At the rate we are going, when we are dead and buried.
Well, for me 61, that’s when I got laid off.....never to be hired again, apparently experience is not a job enhancer.
“Retirement” was a brief late-20th century phenomenon for a couple generations to take advantage of.
Amen Brother, it will take the burden off youth and put it on the aged.
Work the old farts till they die.
Look, all those folks collecting Social Security Disability - starting when they’re 26 - (bad temper, HIV etc.) and collecting for fifty of sixty years - forces those with jobs to work longer. Dems are thinking in terms of ‘til they drop...’
I guess they’ve given up trying to make those who won’t work, to take it up. Instead, their solution is to make those who will, work longer...
I know a 74 year old man who still has to work full time as an auto mechanic.
From my observation of the families with the best hope of retirement are the families who avoided divorce.
If it was indexed back to the % of people who lived beyond the original retirement age from the 30s, it would now be about 75 or 76. And by the way, that would make the program solvent (assuming we get rid of Obama’s SSI give aways).
yea, I am 57 I have been looking for a job since I was laid off over 2.5 years ago. I cannot imagine someone older than myself being hired by anyone.
Good point, but.. The retirement age will be a moot point once 0bamacare’s death panels reach full throttle.
I guess theyve given up trying to make those who wont work, to take it up. Instead, their solution is to make those who will, work longer...”
That is a fairly poignant observation
That will take the burdein off the youth.....
See the way this works is, we have to gamble on the amount of payers in the system that actually live long enough to collect.
In 2011 I attended 6 funerals. It was a tough year. I’m not that old. OF those 6 deaths, only 2 ever collected social security.
If you had to try and sell this system to someone today that knew nothing of it and could only you one peice of paper and 90 seconds of explanation, you’d be accused of being selling snake oil.
PRIVATISE IT starting with those under 40 as an option.
Well it won’t affect me any. I’ll be 79 in Dec. and still working with no end in sight. It’s good for you to keep working as long as possible. Keeps the old bones moving and the brain working. Besides you still enjoy living because you have a reason to get up in the morning. You don’t feel as if you have been sidelined as the world goes by.
Diabetes can stop you cold, as can detached retinas, mini-strokes, arrhythmias, joint degeneration, and so forth.
Try going back to your job that involved intense reading after eye surgery ~ does not work well.
Age 60 seems to be a sort of dividing line for your higher end work in an industrialized society.
I’m 61, as well. Thank God, though, I still have my job. However, I’ll be damned if I have to keep working to 70 or 80 just so punk ass miscreants and ne’er-do-wells who have been collecting SSDI since their 20s can continue to sponge off folks who have worked their entire adult lives. I will not continue working just to fund those shits. If you’re 65 or older, then you’re entitled to collect. If you’re a punk-ass then get off your fat duffs and get a job or create one!
I believe that is exactly right.
In it’s current incarnation, social security is a pure ponzi scheme. The idea is that you can put in a finite amount of cash and then pull out a much larger amount of cash — for decades. That just doesn’t work.
Originally, the idea was that most people would pay in, most people would die before the retirement age, most people would lose all the money that they paid in, and very, very few people would get payouts of any kind — and those lucky people would also most likely die before collecting for too many years.
Now, it’s all quite different, and the numbers are just not sustainable.
Again: Social Security was designed as a system in which most people would pay and get nothing. That was the plan
Guess what? We’re going back to that. The people (such as myself) who paid in, and who may feel that they are “owed” money, are most likely not going to get much of anything. It’s how it was meant to be.
Agreed. Unless the economy expands at a rate greater that the net population growth, unemployment can only go higher, and career people will find it harder to move up if the senior talent does not retire...
Seems like a pretty good reason to privatize social insecurity and take the decision out of the hands of greedy government bureaucrats.
It’s horrendous. Health insurance premiums based on average employee age are killing off the the job market for those over 40...35...30. Carousel anyone? Or to the Soylent green factory for the rest of us.
That sounded selfish of me didn’t it. I meant they can’t force me to work like they will those who are not over the hill yet. I actually envy those who are able to retire and travel or do something exciting. But life put me behind the millstone and that is where I will drop when my time is up.
The new world order is that you work until you croak.
“70 sounds about right.”
I think 72 will just about result in retirees actually getting out what they paid in, rather than taking twice as much.
At the current rate of devaluation of the dollar, never.
I’m sixty. I have Wonka’s golden ticket in my pocket. A class A CDL with tanker endorsement .
Here on the Bakken, all shapes and sizes, young and old work. Prepare to be cold
Is being a burglar a career? Like I will be doing software development in my 70’s.
Is being a burglar a career? Like I will be doing software development in my 70’s.
It didn’t sound selfish to me. It sounded smart.
Understand about getting behind the millstone which I guess is the point. In America you should have options. If you want to work and are capable of it fine. You should also be able to retire if that is what you want.
The sad thing is the culture is changing so much in favor of liberalism that having financial freedom and options seems to be becoming a thing of the past.
Clearly you have never done software development.
Find something you really enjoy doing day in and day out because nobody is retiring.Ever.
Ditto at 62.
If you set SS retirement age to 85, most of the payees will die off before collecting - which was the original plan for Social Security...
Not that I’m looking forward to no retirement...
I agree. You should never retire to do nothing.
You may, however, reach the point where its time to do something else.
Retire when your personal projects don't leave you enough time to work for someone else.
I turned 66 last Thursday. I own and run 4 businesses, write a lot of paychecks and pay a lot of taxes.
I guess I am legally retired, but I’m not going to quit working. I’m just going to have one heck of a retirement party and then get up the next morning and go to work.
They got screwed.
If you look at the retirement age of 65 versus the life expectancy for whites in 1934 the average age was 56 years. It was much lower for blacks somewhere about 52 years at that time.
Convert increase in life expectancy to the retirement age and you arrive at the figure of 81 years for retirement.
That would keep the actuaries about right.
I don’t support this.
You should get full retirement benes.
Anyone under the age of 50 really can’t expect to receive it and should be planning.
Oh, and I’m 49.
It used to be about 2 years beyond average life expectancy. I can remember it being common for folks retiring at 65 to pass on at 67, 68.
Once Obamacare or national Romneycare is in force, I expect life expectancy to creep downward, so setting retirement at 70 might save tons of money.
Some careers are grueling and demanding and require a younger persons stamina. Retirement makes sense for those kinds of careers.
It will have a pit stop at 70, before settling on 75.
That should cover our lifetimes.
Words of wisdom.
[[ “Retirement ages will have to move to 70, 80 years old,” ]]
Mr. Benmosche, obviously you don’t work very hard for your highly-paid position.
How would you expect the folks that DO have to “work hard” to keep working until they are 80?
An 80-year-old truck driver? Want to share the road with him?
An 80-year-old mason? He’s going to be heaving the cinder blocks like when he was 40?
An 80-year-old carpenter? Still swingin’ that hammer at 79?
An 80-year-old pilot? You want to be flying with him in command?
People are living longer, but the fact that they do isn’t necessarily extending their “productive years”. Rather, it’s the “post-productive” period of life that is being lengthened.
Hint to anyone reading this:
The retirement age probably isn’t going much higher.
Do you want to be the politician who raises it?
Clearly some peoples careers were not so demanding as to allow a 79 year old to do it. How many 79 year old dry wall installers do you see?
It depends on what your definition of “productive” is. I didn’t plan on leaving but the Baraqqi Depression flushed me out.
When you lose a middle management type job, at age 62 you’re not going to get back into the workforce at $100k+ very easily.
So now I receive two checks every month signed by Baraq Obama and enjoy my grandkids, LOL.
You have a point. But I will say this, I know an 80 year old rancher who refuses to quit although his sons have taken over the operation.
He just loves what he does.