<Ammonia Fuel Network Conference - 2008 The Oil Drum Creating a Post-Peak Future Worth Living Into>
<DrumBeat: October 28, 2008 DrumBeat DrumBeat: October 30, 2008>

237 comments on DrumBeat: October 29, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Todd on October 29, 2008 - 1:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Retiring at 72 or so pretty much clears up any issues with social security.

Chris,

I keep reading this kind of brain dead idea and I have to say it pisses me off. Since many others have suggested the same thing, this isn't directly directed towards you.

I, and several other TOD posters, are either close to 70 or over 70 and, perhaps, have a better idea of the feasibility of this. First, there are a lot of occupations that people have that are not physically viable at that age. Second, job stress is more difficult to deal with as you age. Third, assuming that the average retirement age is currently 62, that means a decade where younger people will lose their change for advancement as the old farts hang onto their jobs. Fourth, the reality is that older people have more health issues. Finally, it will make little sense to financially plan for a long term future. This, in turn, will impact a variety of financial entities.

Let's look at some real life examples:

My mom and dad retired at 62. He developed ALS when he was 66 and died at 68. My mom took care of him for those two years. Under the retire at 72 premise, would my mom have been compelled to keep on working and send him to a care home and, likely been wiped out financially and emotionally in the process?

In my case, I've had a variety of occupations ranging from research chemist to process development manager to plant manager to organic farmer to house designer and builder plus a few more. I know I could no longer build houses physically because I stop doing it when I was in my 40's for that reason. Same thing goes with farming on our small scale. Chemistry isn't too good right now as there have been many lay-offs. I mean, what's an old layed-off chemist supposed to do when there are likely no jobs?

I hope you get my drift in this.

Todd

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mdsolar on October 29, 2008 - 2:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Todd,

What I am anticipating is that your dad would get sick later in life than he actually did if he were born later. This is the demographic trend. You are close to seventy and still thinking of work even if jobs are scarce. I expect that will be more common in the future as health trends look good. One way the the need to advance younger people is handled in some places is to have those past a certain age consult rather than take up titled positions. It is a little awkward. I don't think we should increase the retirement age if the health indicators are against it. But, they seem to be encouraging.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Lynford on October 29, 2008 - 6:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Todd:

You are an anomaly according to Chris. Had your Dad been born later like only last year where he would still be a bouncing babe in excellent health, you are not really here except for some sort of time warp.

LOL

Chris: Please read your post before you hit the trigger.

Seriously though, I am in about the same shape. At 75, it can take all night to do what I used to do all night. I really hate to see these younger guys go off on some sort of tangent. What I really think is up is some sort of Soyant Green scenario where, you become a canned food product when you are no longer useful in the work force. Of course there are quite a few of us over aged well armed veterans that may not go for that idea.

Whichever future you wish to pick, it will be interesting.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mdsolar on October 29, 2008 - 9:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I thought I had my meaning down clearly but I don't want to be misread on a fairly sensitive subject: People are liveing longer and staying healthier longer than they used to. Todd is apparently game for work near seventy while his father would not have been. All this is actually fairly statistical, but there is no reason not to bump up the retirement age if people are going to be living longer. As long as people still get a longer retirement than their parents, they are still "winning." Or getting an improved quality of life or whatever.

So, again, had Todd's father been born later, he would be more likely to live longer as well, on a statistical basis. If you don't read that in what I wrote, please try to see it in there now.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on October 29, 2008 - 9:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

People are living longer and staying healthier longer than they used to.

There are so many flaws in your thinking, I am amazed you cannot see them. First, the point already made. "IF" is not at issue. There are plenty of people alive now to make your "if" pointless.

As for health, you are looking at current trends. In a very short period of time, all those trends will be reversing due to a much lower standard of living.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Paleocon on October 29, 2008 - 9:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Though I agree about the sensitive nature of the topic, and I at least got to watch my parents enjoy 15 years of simple and modest retirement before they died. However, I have no expectation that I will be able to depend on social security even to the level they did, or that I will be able to hold on to meager investments and property at reasonable tax rates as they did.

I fully expect to have to work harder to acquire less, and to never be able to stop working, and yet I'll be happy if my kids (and grandkids?) can simply stay fed and have a decent life.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mdsolar on October 29, 2008 - 10:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Life expectancy in the United States continues to increase. In
2004, American men could expect to live more than 3 years
longer, and women more than 1 year longer, than they did in
1990.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#027

Or, for a white male of black female life expenctancy at birth has gone from about 68 to 77 between 1970 and 2004. So, if the retirement age increase from 65 for people born in 1970 to 70 for people born in 2004 the people born later get 7 years of retirement rather than 3 on average. That is still a good deal. You will work longer, but you will also have longer to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
malcolmkettering on October 29, 2008 - 7:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

umm, wait, so you're proposing that 10 million or so Americans will not retire but instead go into 'consulting'. where will their salaries come from? no offense to consultants, but I doubt that armies of them will create enough value in our already stressed economic environment to justify consulting salaries.

plus haven't I been reading about the life expectancy headed down in the US going forward? I thought with obesity and it's associated problems, it was pretty much agreed that the current generation of children and young adults will grow up with more health problems and shorter lives than their parents. is that not the case?

f*ck later retirement, if that was the deal when I started working, I should have been allowed to stay in 'high school' or some other state of non-responsibility for the same number of additional years that I'm now expected to work. we are told our whole lives that computers and technology, etc. will make us more efficient and our lives will be easier and we will have more free time. then now the new 'reality' is we are so f*cked in this country that we have to work MORE years than the generations who lacked computers, blackberrys, 30-billion-lines-of-code software, video conferencing and all the trappings of 'productivity'. wtf? they're all liars looking for longer-serving debt-slaves, that's all.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mdsolar on October 29, 2008 - 9:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

In government at least, consulting seems sometimes to be a way to try to pay people what they are worth for a while. One can be hired in at a competitive salary but then the promotion steps end up being a cap that is not found in the private sector. People who retire (mandatory) and then consult often begin to see a pay level more similar to their private sector opposite number.

Consulting may not be a good solution everywhere, but it might make sense where promotion and titles are important for younger workers.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
neal on October 30, 2008 - 2:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Chris, I have to agree with Todd, even with longer lifespans most workers are physically and mentally buggered well before age 70. I hate to see politicians and corporate execs in their 60s who think that others enjoy working in later life. Newsflash, pollies work in A/C offices with plush leather seats but the millions of blue collar workers stand 8-10 hours/day on steel or concrete floors or out in the sun/rain.
I'm 45 and can hand unload 60t of cargo a day, but I see plenty of 30 somethings who struggle, they will have a hard time working in their 50s to the (current Australian) retirement age of 65, let alone their 70s.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
hummingbird on October 30, 2008 - 6:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Once the depression hits and the medical system starts to break down or be unavailable to most people, we will not live past our 50's. Problem solved. (I'm 70.)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

237 comments on DrumBeat: October 29, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version