"... in the United States as of 2025, while a person born before 1960 can retire with social security benefits at the age of 66, those born after 1960 must be 67" The Wikipedia on Retirement age
-
"... in the United States as of 2025, while a person born before 1960 can retire with social security benefits at the age of 66, those born after 1960 must be 67" The Wikipedia on Retirement age
My parents retired at 65. They have been retired for nearly two decades and if they had instead continued to work through half of that time I don't know if they'd still be with us. I don't know if they would have been able to help their kids and grandkids as much as they have.
1/
-
"... in the United States as of 2025, while a person born before 1960 can retire with social security benefits at the age of 66, those born after 1960 must be 67" The Wikipedia on Retirement age
My parents retired at 65. They have been retired for nearly two decades and if they had instead continued to work through half of that time I don't know if they'd still be with us. I don't know if they would have been able to help their kids and grandkids as much as they have.
1/
Retirement is an important stage in our lives. Is it a time to consolidate, support the next generations, and complete lifelong projects?
Or is it just a couple of years or months after you stop working, only because you simply cannot work anymore, and prepare to die?
State pensions exist in most nations and retirement ages vary from 55 to 70. In the US the effective retirement age with full benefits is 67. This is on the higher end.
2/
-
Retirement is an important stage in our lives. Is it a time to consolidate, support the next generations, and complete lifelong projects?
Or is it just a couple of years or months after you stop working, only because you simply cannot work anymore, and prepare to die?
State pensions exist in most nations and retirement ages vary from 55 to 70. In the US the effective retirement age with full benefits is 67. This is on the higher end.
2/
In more wealthy countries with higher costs of living and longer lifespans retirement can be isolated as an expense for the state. Raising the age has been the tactic used to avoid further taxes to fund the programs.
Raising the age is itself a regressive tax. It's also one of the clear way that younger generations recognize they are getting less despite paying into the same system.
This doesn't need to be the case.
We should reverse it.
3/3
-
"... in the United States as of 2025, while a person born before 1960 can retire with social security benefits at the age of 66, those born after 1960 must be 67" The Wikipedia on Retirement age
My parents retired at 65. They have been retired for nearly two decades and if they had instead continued to work through half of that time I don't know if they'd still be with us. I don't know if they would have been able to help their kids and grandkids as much as they have.
1/
@futurebird heard an interview with an "economist" last week on NPR, she argued: people should stop retiring at 65 and work another 10 years to contribute to the economy. She herself was 72 and was planning to work another 10 years.
These people are bonkers.
-
In more wealthy countries with higher costs of living and longer lifespans retirement can be isolated as an expense for the state. Raising the age has been the tactic used to avoid further taxes to fund the programs.
Raising the age is itself a regressive tax. It's also one of the clear way that younger generations recognize they are getting less despite paying into the same system.
This doesn't need to be the case.
We should reverse it.
3/3
Important Background: There is no mandatory retirement in the US. I don't think anyone would like that idea either. People can keep working as long as they want.
Most young people think they will never be able to retire. This is because they see how these systems are being gutted and assume it will continue. This is a huge factor in the nihilism among younger voters.
Higher retirement ages are particularly harsh to working class men with physically demanding jobs.
-
"... in the United States as of 2025, while a person born before 1960 can retire with social security benefits at the age of 66, those born after 1960 must be 67" The Wikipedia on Retirement age
My parents retired at 65. They have been retired for nearly two decades and if they had instead continued to work through half of that time I don't know if they'd still be with us. I don't know if they would have been able to help their kids and grandkids as much as they have.
1/
I retired from USmil and between my pension and 70% disability I bring home about $5k per month so long as I keep breathing. (I'm 48, so maybe a while.)
This affords me the opportunity to cook, clean, grocery shop, homeschool, etc., freeing my wife to go to school for a bit and now start a new job. We both have time to make music, volunteer, etc.
I wish everyone had this sort of opportunity, preferably without the USmil dice roll and resulting damage.
-
Important Background: There is no mandatory retirement in the US. I don't think anyone would like that idea either. People can keep working as long as they want.
Most young people think they will never be able to retire. This is because they see how these systems are being gutted and assume it will continue. This is a huge factor in the nihilism among younger voters.
Higher retirement ages are particularly harsh to working class men with physically demanding jobs.
In the same way that Social Security has loudly said "F--- Them Kids" people who work in industries with unions or even in large companies with systems of seniority have watched as private pensions, benefits and support have been preserved for the oldest workers and gutted for them.
Defined benefits packages are replaced with 401ks (better have faith in the stock market now) pay cuts focus on the youngest cohorts.
Everyone can see this happening.
Why must it happen?
-
@futurebird heard an interview with an "economist" last week on NPR, she argued: people should stop retiring at 65 and work another 10 years to contribute to the economy. She herself was 72 and was planning to work another 10 years.
These people are bonkers.
@carstenfranke @futurebird bitch has a job, of course she's going to hang on to it to prevent anyone younger from climbing that ladder.
Sorry, but I woke up mad and I don't think that's going to change.
-
Important Background: There is no mandatory retirement in the US. I don't think anyone would like that idea either. People can keep working as long as they want.
Most young people think they will never be able to retire. This is because they see how these systems are being gutted and assume it will continue. This is a huge factor in the nihilism among younger voters.
Higher retirement ages are particularly harsh to working class men with physically demanding jobs.
@futurebird Our aunt was still doing a demanding job when she finally retired at 75. She had a total of 6 golden years before joining the ancestors. Bless and rest her soul.
-
In the same way that Social Security has loudly said "F--- Them Kids" people who work in industries with unions or even in large companies with systems of seniority have watched as private pensions, benefits and support have been preserved for the oldest workers and gutted for them.
Defined benefits packages are replaced with 401ks (better have faith in the stock market now) pay cuts focus on the youngest cohorts.
Everyone can see this happening.
Why must it happen?
Have we given up on really taking care of people in their old age because the country isn't as rich as it once was and we just can't afford it?
Are people today less productive and worthy of decent pay and a dignified retirement?
Are people just so much more healthy and vigorous they can work longer?
Is the country just not as great as it once was?
Why the cuts?
-
Have we given up on really taking care of people in their old age because the country isn't as rich as it once was and we just can't afford it?
Are people today less productive and worthy of decent pay and a dignified retirement?
Are people just so much more healthy and vigorous they can work longer?
Is the country just not as great as it once was?
Why the cuts?
@futurebird Because the people who prefer maintaining a Resource Curse society managed to nab power.
-
@carstenfranke @futurebird bitch has a job, of course she's going to hang on to it to prevent anyone younger from climbing that ladder.
Sorry, but I woke up mad and I don't think that's going to change.
@akamran @futurebird yes, I hear you! It is infuriating. And in the US every action is about "the economy". Not about what is good for people.
-
Have we given up on really taking care of people in their old age because the country isn't as rich as it once was and we just can't afford it?
Are people today less productive and worthy of decent pay and a dignified retirement?
Are people just so much more healthy and vigorous they can work longer?
Is the country just not as great as it once was?
Why the cuts?
@futurebird more equity is going to the rich so we can no longer afford retirement?
-
@futurebird heard an interview with an "economist" last week on NPR, she argued: people should stop retiring at 65 and work another 10 years to contribute to the economy. She herself was 72 and was planning to work another 10 years.
These people are bonkers.
One of my inlaws ran and investment bank and he was always baffled by the notion of retirement. He loved his job. He was making a lot of money and seemed to really enjoy looking at a Bloomberg terminal all day.
He got what he wanted and I'm happy for him, though he was finally convinced to take a reduced schedule at 72 and then retire at 75.
His wife is a homemaker. Have we considered how that might impact how one sees these choices? NAH!
-
@futurebird more equity is going to the rich so we can no longer afford retirement?
The greatest richest country in the world!
But we can't afford that. Not anymore!
We did it for decades, we can do it now too.
-
@futurebird heard an interview with an "economist" last week on NPR, she argued: people should stop retiring at 65 and work another 10 years to contribute to the economy. She herself was 72 and was planning to work another 10 years.
These people are bonkers.
Easy for an "economist" to say work another 10 years. Not so much for a roofer or roustabout, stonemason or steelworker or any number of physically demanding jobs. I had to weigh feeling financially uncomfortable retiring at 67 versus the further deterioration of my joints. It's not that the government doesn't have the money. It's how the government chooses to spend it. Stop electing conservative hawks who profit from keeping the military industrial complex afloat.
-
Retirement is an important stage in our lives. Is it a time to consolidate, support the next generations, and complete lifelong projects?
Or is it just a couple of years or months after you stop working, only because you simply cannot work anymore, and prepare to die?
State pensions exist in most nations and retirement ages vary from 55 to 70. In the US the effective retirement age with full benefits is 67. This is on the higher end.
2/
@futurebird I'm in the UK, 40 this year, my assumed retirement age has just crept up another year on my statement, from 67 to 68, and same for all my colleagues, of various ages but mostly older than me. I don't know if that makes you feel better or worse, knowing it's also happening elsewhere?!
-
@futurebird
Because the people making the decisions have decided the money should go to shareholders and management instead of labor. That is all.My best example is listening to someone from a law firm explain the issues with LLMs. The firms now have something that can ostensibly do the job of 1st year law student interns. But then you break the pipeline for later year law student interns and new hires.
So they "have to pay them less" because now "they bring less to the company." Pay is determined by the number of clients you bring in. So partners can make millions a year but the firm "can't afford" to pay low level employees because they "don't bring business" to the firm. Nevermind that they're doing the prep work necessary for the partners to bring in as many clients... They're just not "worth" a good wage. The understanding of value in the US is broken.
-
Have we given up on really taking care of people in their old age because the country isn't as rich as it once was and we just can't afford it?
Are people today less productive and worthy of decent pay and a dignified retirement?
Are people just so much more healthy and vigorous they can work longer?
Is the country just not as great as it once was?
Why the cuts?
@futurebird
Because the people making the decisions have decided the money should go to shareholders and management instead of labor. That is all.My best example is listening to someone from a law firm explain the issues with LLMs. The firms now have something that can ostensibly do the job of 1st year law student interns. But then you break the pipeline for later year law student interns and new hires.
-
So they "have to pay them less" because now "they bring less to the company." Pay is determined by the number of clients you bring in. So partners can make millions a year but the firm "can't afford" to pay low level employees because they "don't bring business" to the firm. Nevermind that they're doing the prep work necessary for the partners to bring in as many clients... They're just not "worth" a good wage. The understanding of value in the US is broken.
I think it can be summed up with the idea that money should go towards the most efficient way of making more money. Spreading it out more evenly among people allows more people to spend it, but it leaves fewer people available to invest and the investors who use money to suck more money out of the spending part of the economy have decided they're the real economy.
