Boomer Retirements Projections

[Midpack]

Never mind...

 

[Brett_Cameron]

....

Guess I just like data & graphs...

Me Too!

 

[bld999]

I have come to think that slow news days cause journalists to reach far back into the storage closet in desperation & drag out the scapegoat, not :"the dog ate my homework" but "the boomers have caused, or will cause or failed to cause__________."

I can recall these main "financial" claims: 1] there will be a huge decline in residential re values, because the boomers have to sell their houses. 2] Nobody to buy all the financial instruments boomers cash in. 3] remodelling industry will soar because boomers all need special equipment and housing types. 4] Assisted living facility investment will boom because of boomers 5] boomers are hogging resources, or boomers don't have enough resources because they smoked too much dope, on and on....

Most of the time,IMO, there is a failure on the part of the writer to cast the net of observation wide enough to see a relevant picture. One thing for sure, people love to point the old finger.

I like graphs, too, where did you find them?

 

[donheff]

There probably were a lot of people who would have retired during the downturn but held on to let their portfolios recover. Unfortunately, there were probably more who "retired" involuntarily during the same period and couldn't get back in the workforce.

 

[pb4uski]

I wonder what the data source is for the "retirees". If it is SS claims then perhaps the growth is people who got laid off who were 62 or older, tried and could not find employment and decided to claim SS earlier than they would have otherwise.

I could see that the recession would have caused those on the edge and OMY syndrome to delay. I know I delayed my retirement about a year as a result of the recession.

 

[pb4uski]

There probably were a lot of people who would have retired during the downturn but held on to let their portfolios recover. Unfortunately, there were probably more who "retired" involuntarily during the same period and couldn't get back in the workforce.

Great minds think alike - and hit the "Submit Reply" button at the same time too.

 

[ziggy29]

There probably were a lot of people who would have retired during the downturn but held on to let their portfolios recover. Unfortunately, there were probably more who "retired" involuntarily during the same period and couldn't get back in the workforce.

And now that their portfolios have recovered, they'd have to pay 2/3 more for health insurance than they would have 4 years ago, so they feel stuck to their job for the Megacorp health insurance.

 

[pb4uski]

If it is just SS claimants, then the data is flawed IMO. It would not count many of us on these boards who ER'd.

 

[ziggy29]

I wonder what the data source is for the "retirees". If it is SS claims then perhaps the growth is people who got laid off who were 62 or older, tried and could not find employment and decided to claim SS earlier than they would have otherwise.

That is also a factor that artificially depresses the published unemployment rate. People who want to still work but get discouraged and retire are not considered as unemployed but they are still a victim of the lousy job market.

 

[W2R]

I agree - - probablly crashing portfolio values contributed greatly to the decrease in retirees in 2008-2009. Even federal retirees were fewer in 2008-2009, despite good job security. Imagine how many fewer retirees there would have been, had more lost their jobs! I read a really good article about the lower number of federal retirees in 2008-2009 which had numbers and graphs, and which of course I can't find. I'll substitute this one written in July of 2010.

News Articles: Tidal Wave of Federal Employee Retirements?

Take a look at the nineteen years worth (FY1990 through FY2008) of retirement numbers. Notice how total retirements for FY08 were less than FY07, less than FY06, and less than FY05. For FY09, only the first two quarters are shown. They indicate the number of voluntary retirements in the first quarter of FY09 were fewer than any first quarter since FY04, while the second quarter retirements in FY09 were fewer than any second quarter since FY05.

Does the above sound to you like a “tidal wave” of retirements? I didn’t think so. But if there is no tidal wave, then why does OPM want us to believe otherwise?

Here are the numbers retiring each year, by year, straight from OPM:

Retirement Information and Services

2011	82,837
2010	76,864
2009	87,907
2008	86,615
2007	92,349
2006	103,292
2005	94,977
2004	90,441
2003	81,128
2002	74,153
2001	77,330
2000	77,383

In 2009, there were 87,906 retirees + W2R.

 

[mh]

And now that their portfolios have recovered, they'd have to pay 2/3 more for health insurance than they would have 4 years ago, so they feel stuck to their job for the Megacorp health insurance.

personally, i didn't find that to be the case. i looked into a health plan just about 4 years ago and when i finally signed up for it was nowhere near a 2/3 increase. I have essentially zero health problems as a single 51 year old (knock on wood) which may have something (a lot?) to do with it. i guess i'm not sure what causes the big boosts people are seeing. pre-existing conditions ? older age ?

 

[frank]

it seems there are certain points in the insurance industry like 60 and 65 years old when insurance takes a jump just because of the different age bracket. I also was one looking for part time work to fill my spare time, but with all the younger people looking for work, if you are over 60 you are less desirable and if there are 20 younger people applying for the same job you are out of luck.

 

[REWahoo]

i guess i'm not sure what causes the big boosts people are seeing. pre-existing conditions ? older age ?

Here's an example: DW has pre-esixting conditions and signed up for an individual policy at age 57. Four years later the premium had increased by 70%. I'm a year older than she, have no pre-exisitng conditions and my premium increase over the same time period was 67%.

 

[Brett_Cameron]

Never mind...

Me too!

 

[73ss454]

Here's an example: DW has pre-esixting conditions and signed up for an individual policy at age 57. Four years later the premium had increased by 70%. I'm a year older than she, have no pre-exisitng conditions and my premium increase over the same time period was 67%.

That's a phenomenon known as a "condition expectation" on the part of the Ins company.

 

[MichaelB]

personally, i didn't find that to be the case. i looked into a health plan just about 4 years ago and when i finally signed up for it was nowhere near a 2/3 increase. I have essentially zero health problems as a single 51 year old (knock on wood) which may have something (a lot?) to do with it. i guess i'm not sure what causes the big boosts people are seeing. pre-existing conditions ? older age ?

I took a look at the rate sheet (a few years old) for our insurance plan. It gives the premium by age group and is broken down into 5 year groups starting at <25. Rebased to $100, it is

....< 25 $100
25 - 19 $125
30 - 34 $160
35 - 39 $205
40 - 44 $253
45 - 49 $325
50 - 54 $444
55 - 59 $579
60 - 64 $784

So, beginning with one's 50th birthday, the rate increases 37% just due to age. Same policy, same coverage. Two more 30%+ increases if one is fortunate enough to make it to medicare age.

You can tell this rate sheet is 4 years old because our current premium is more than double the one on the list but our plan is different. The deductible is $3.5K higher for each of us ($7K for the two of us).

 

[pb4uski]

Are those rates for one person or a couple? We're paying about $600 for the both of us in the 55-59 quintile.

 

[MichaelB]

Are those rates for one person or a couple? We're paying about $600 for the both of us in the 55-59 quintile.

Per person. But these are old and have already more than doubled...

 

[pb4uski]

So if one was 55-59 it would be over $2k a month at today's prices? Ouch!!

I would probably not have ER'd at that cost. Florida rates I assume.