No pension till mid 70-s

[ricgem2002]

 

When was the last time you saw a field full a knackered people swinging scythes around?.

swop scythes for veg and just have a run out to lincon mate theres fields full of them

[petemcewan]

The truth of the matter is that we are not really living much longer. We hear the propaganda repeated endlessly: "The average American can today expect to live an extra dozen or more years in retirement than did the previous generation, and many retirees today will receive benefits for decades longer than those who entered the Social Security system in the 1930's." But this assertion is simply wrong, and it is a dangerous mistake to make.

 

Whether it's your mutual fund appealing for greater individual retirement savings, or it's a misguided evaluation of Social Security benefits, the specious argument always goes something like this: Americans born in the year 1900 could expect to live about 49 years. Post-war baby boomers of the late 1940's will live on average to their late 60's, and babies born today have a life expectancy of about 79 years. Therefore, we now need to delay retirements in order to be fair to the next generation and be true to the original aims of the Social Security system. Wrong. There may be good reasons to reform social security, work longer, and save more, but increased longevity isn't one of them. And there may be good reasons to plan for your golden years, but an extra dozen years on the golf course is not very likely at all.

 

The reality is that the average 1946-born baby boomer retiring this year can expect to live about 18 years. Compare that to his or her grandparents who retired at age 65 in the 1960's and could expect to live 15 years, and you see the proper comparison. The correct evaluation involves life expectancy at age 65, not at birth! The truth, surprising to many, is that the average increase in life expectancy for a 65-year-old is only about three or so years. The increase is even smaller for retirements at ages beyond 65. And the social security retirement age is already being raised by two years (to 67).

 

The fallacy arises from the fact that life expectancy is measured from birth, but years in retirement is measured from about age 65. Reductions in infant and child mortality have been dramatic during the 20th century, but 65-year-olds today are not strikingly healthier or longer-living than 65-year-olds of the previous generation or two. If life were being extended for decades there would be lots of 115-year-old Americans running around, but there aren't any at all.

 

These errors about life expectancy in retirement are so seductive that I have seen them not only in politics but in economics, in sociology, and even in a speech by an Ivy League president. It is true there will be many more people in the very, very tiny minority who live to 100, a "striking" but irrelevant increase. It is wonderful that many fewer Americans have heart attacks in their 50's (due to blood pressure and cholesterol meds), but this is not producing a large extension of adult lifespan in old age. Importantly, the great benefit to society -- the dramatic drop in infant and child morbidity and mortality -- has been due mostly to low-cost vaccines and to public health improvements like better sanitation and nutrition.

 

There are many excellent reasons for able older Americans to keep working beyond age 65 -- health reasons, economic reasons, and national security reasons, and I document some of these in my recent book on The Longevity Project. My own scientific research on aging and longevity -- with an 8-decade monitoring of pathways to long life -- confirms that staying productive is a key element of long-term health and happiness. But the hard truth is that most 65-year-olds today will not be collecting those extra Social Security checks and enjoying an additional dozen or more of the golden years. On average, they'll live only a bit longer than their parents. Increased longevity is not a valid argument for changing social security payouts; it's phony.

 

The irony is that it probably doesn't have to be this way. There are documented ways to live a longer and healthier life. There's the rub. For half a century now, since the days when President John Kennedy invigorated the President's Council on Physical Fitness and led the way with 50-mile hikes, we have known that major lifestyle changes could reduce medical costs while increasing adult life expectancy significantly. We know what needs to be done but we're very confused about how to make it happen. Our educational interventions are generally ineffective. With an obese, sedentary, junk-food population -- and millions of smokers, alcoholics, drug abusers, reckless drivers, and neglected children -- we don't have to worry that the average American will live an extra dozen or more years in retirement. The costs to everyone's pocketbooks and the serious threats to our aging population are not coming from increasing longevity. With a clearer view of the facts, we can better debate the solutions.

HUffINGTON POST. (Source )

 

Howard S. Friedman is Distinguished Professor at the University of California in Riverside. His latest book is The Longevity Project: Surprising Discoveries for Health and Long Life from the Landmark Eight-Decade Study. NY: Hudson Street Press.

Follow Howard S. Friedman, Ph.D. on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/DrHSFriedman

MORE: Health, Health Care Reform, Aging Gracefully, Social Security, The Longevity Project

This Blogger's Books and Other Items from...

Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research (4th Edition)

Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research (4th Edition)

by Howard S. Friedman, Miriam W. Schustack

The Longevity Project: Surprising Discoveries for Health and Long Life from the Landmark Eight-Decade Study

The Longevity Project: Surprising Discoveries for Health and Long Life from the Landmark Eight-Decade Study

by Howard S. Friedman, Leslie R. Martin

 

 

We are all living longer is propaganda . It's an excuse to get working people to work till they drop dead. Neo liberal economics is the bedrock upon which all attack a launched against working people's improved social circumstances.

"We are all living longer" as an explanation for why people should work until 70 is puerile and beggars belief .

Now some people-if they choose- may want to work until they drop dead .However, as general policy applied to all working people, it is merely a means of prolonger a life of exploitation.

There is more to life than just work. If future governments remain wedded to neo-liberalism , I will not be surprised to see the retirement age creep ever upwards.

Edited March 3, 2016 by petemcewan

[Anna B]

They should be encouraged to train up for the jobs that the economy creates.

If you're doing a physically demanding job, odds are that you're under-trained.

 

Somebody has to do physically demanding jobs (that includes very stressful jobs like nursing etc.)

 

Are you talking about youngsters training for the new jobs the economy creates (what jobs are these by the way?) or older people who have had to give up physically demanding work?

 

If the older ones, who is going to pay for the training? Employers will not want to pay out for just a few years work from an oldster when they can get 30+ years out of a youngster. That's already happening now.

[fuddyduddy4]

No worries about having to work into your 70's.With the eu members being bussed in by the umpteen thousands and Turkeys 75 million waiting in the wings to join.The delicate employment /economy balance will collapse ,economy will nosedive and unemployment will go through the roof as the service industries will be unable to be sustained.i envisage that euthanasia will be legalised and encouraged by the government ,perhaps the participants will have their funeral expenses paid by the government as an incentive .What next,Logan's run? Oh brave new world.

[unbeliever]

Somebody has to do physically demanding jobs (that includes very stressful jobs like nursing etc.)

 

Are you talking about youngsters training for the new jobs the economy creates (what jobs are these by the way?) or older people who have had to give up physically demanding work?

 

If the older ones, who is going to pay for the training? Employers will not want to pay out for just a few years work from an oldster when they can get 30+ years out of a youngster. That's already happening now.

 

Training is a life-long pursuit.

[El Cid]

Somebody has to do physically demanding jobs (that includes very stressful jobs like nursing etc.)

 

 

In my line of work, two people are sometimes use, instead of one, purely because the workforce is old/female and unable to do the job on their own.

Nothing wrong with that, in principle.

[Anna B]

Training is a life-long pursuit.

 

Learning is a lifelong pursuit.

 

Nobody is obliged to offer training for free. Maybe they should but they don't, which is why we have shortages in certain areas.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2016 at 13:53 ----------

 

In my line of work, two people are sometimes use, instead of one, purely because the workforce is old/female and unable to do the job on their own.

Nothing wrong with that, in principle.

 

Nothing wrong with that at all. (Is there a reason why you said females? Do you not have any old men?)

[unbeliever]

Learning is a lifelong pursuit.

 

Nobody is obliged to offer training for free. Maybe they should but they don't, which is why we have shortages in certain areas.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2016 at 13:53 ----------

 

 

Nothing wrong with that at all. (Is there a reason why you said females? Do you not have any old men?)

 

/ is normally interpreted as 'or'. Not exclusive or of course in this case as it is possible to be old and female.

Still not strictly PC Cid. Shame on you

 

On training. How about people spend some of their own money? They will after all have more earning power when the training is complete. Plenty of government backed loans available.

[canalforall]

Most employers I deal with are very keen to employ people over 50. Now that people are living longer due to healthier work conditions and better medical care, diet etc surely they should want to carry on working, contributing and achieving.

 

I disagree with you. I have university degree, worked during studies and after finished uni until age of 47 when I married and followed my husband to UK. Since then I tried to find a work - ANY - but 99% of companies where I applied didn't bother to let me know they choose somebody else or send me a refusing letter. So I started to do charity work - unpaid as I cannot sit and do nothing but I was unable to continue with my private pension scheme.

[El Cid]

Nothing wrong with that at all. (Is there a reason why you said females? Do you not have any old men?)

 

Most employees in that role are female, 95%; and females tend to be shorter so less sturdy.