Should the retirement age be lower, not higher?

[Nords]

So mooching off society and surviving at the expense of others is your strategy?

So far, so good!

 

[chinaco]

That economist must be 62 years old.


Many criticized the idea.... But it it probably would have been a better idea that what we did. We have spent a lot of money trying to create jobs.

Consider how many people would qualify for this program (in a 3 year window) that might be able afford to do it (lose their paycheck). There is a finite number. pick a number in the millions... say 4M

Consider the difference paid on the average payout difference between FRA and 62. Run that out till life expectancy and bring it back to a PV.

It is probably no more than we are spending to try to stimulate the economy and extend unemployment benefits (but I did not bother to calculate the amount).

It would immediately open up 4M jobs (using my fictitious number). The retirees would continue to spend (for their living expenses) and the people replacing those that exited the jobs would begin spending (because they are earning a full wage).

Many of those that are unemployed will be the people buying houses once they get a chance to restart their lives.

 

[haha]

As our population continues to crowd the earth and as easily harvestable natural resources dwindle, the burden of supporting a percentage of the population not engaged in any productive activity (retired) will become unmanagable. Yes, we could print money and pass it out to those not engaged in supporting themselves. But in the end, we survive by dividing among us all the resources available to share. Having fewer contributing to the aggregate pool while still requiring their slice of the pie isn't going to do it .

It is my opinion that we should start worrying about the burden of the retired who have worked long and productively, right after we deal with the burden of those of not only do not work and have no intention of working, but through their crime and anti-social behavior place burdens on society far beyond the 15-20 years of retirement that retired workers "enjoy".

If anyone thinks that prudent retired people are going to go off and find an ice flow to die on, he should put away that ganja and get real.

Ha

 

[harley]

It is my opinion that we should start worrying about the burden of the retired who have worked long and productively, right after we deal with the burden of those of not only do not work and have no intention of working, but through their crime and anti-social behavior place burdens on society far beyond the 15-20 years of retirement that retired workers "enjoy".

If anyone thinks that prudent retired people are going to go off and find an ice flow to die on, he should put away that ganja and get real.

Ha

I promise you, that's not what we waste our time thinking about.

 

[foxfirev5]

That economist must be 62 years old.


Many criticized the idea.... But it it probably would have been a better idea that what we did. We have spent a lot of money trying to create jobs.

Consider how many people would qualify for this program (in a 3 year window) that might be able afford to do it (lose their paycheck). There is a finite number. pick a number in the millions... say 4M

Consider the difference paid on the average payout difference between FRA and 62. Run that out till life expectancy and bring it back to a PV.

It is probably no more than we are spending to try to stimulate the economy and extend unemployment benefits (but I did not bother to calculate the amount).

It would immediately open up 4M jobs (using my fictitious number). The retirees would continue to spend (for their living expenses) and the people replacing those that exited the jobs would begin spending (because they are earning a full wage).

Many of those that are unemployed will be the people buying houses once they get a chance to restart their lives.

The more I hear about ideas like this, the more sense they make to me. This flys in the face of my long standing free market conservative beliefs. However this appears to be a rational alternative to make work projects that have little or no impact. If this allows some people to retire early while creating employment for others maybe we'll pull out of this slump a little quicker.
In any event I'm going to renew my builder license and be thankful I can wait it out at mega corp for another couple years.

 

[Purron]

Originally Posted by youbet
So mooching off society and surviving at the expense of others is your strategy?

So far, so good!

And to make matters worse, you've written a book to teach others how to do the same thing

It's hard to gripe about it though since the proceeds will go to charity. Plus, it will likely teach people how to properly plan for retirement and become less of a burden to thier families or society. Seems to me this is a lesson many of us 'round here could teach those millions of boomers we've heard about who haven't prepared for retirement or the possibility of unemployment.

 

[FIREd]

Artificially shrinking the work force by incentivizing early-retirement for the masses might do wonder to improve the unemployment rate in the short term, but personally I think it would damage the country fiscally and economically in the long term. I grew up in a country who famously asked people to work fewer hours per week in order to artificially create jobs for the unemployed and the results have not held up to the promises.

In addition, people could take their full SS benefit at 62 and still hang on to their jobs a few more years.

 

[foxfirev5]

Artificially shrinking the work force by incentivizing early-retirement for the masses might do wonder to improve the unemployment rate in the short term, but personally I think it would damage the country fiscally and economically in the long term. I grew up in a country who famously asked people to work fewer hours per week in order to artificially create jobs for the unemployed and the results have not held up to the promises.

In addition, people could take their full SS benefit at 62 and still hang on to their jobs a few more years.

Good points. However one of the programs I've seen simply lowers the payout for SS by an additional 8% / year for ages below 62. This really wouldn't create an extra burden but would encourage those that saved enough an incentive to retire.

 

[M Paquette]

So mooching off society and surviving at the expense of others is your strategy?

Well, that's a dilemma we all face. After a while, we tend to lose our capacity at producing. Now, admittedly it would be most economical for the current producers to ship us off to the Soylent plant lest we become parisites, unsightly moochers claiming your production by tears, or unpleasant looters demanding pension funds and insurers make good on their promises.

Alas, these producers are part of what we call a 'human society', a group of people outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence. Now, the producers derive some benefit from participating in 'human society', including access to common social benefits such as infrastructure, provided through public or private means by other participants in society, a common defense against aggression from outside the bounds of society, and a common basis of exchange provided by public or private means (Midas Mulligan or the Federal Government). A 'human society' may also provide additional infrastructure for what is perceived to be a common good, including in some environments a minimal level of support for individuals within that society.

Producers who reap the benefits of a human society are expected to contribute to that society as well, fulfilling their part in the network of social obligations. Unfortunately for the viewpoints of some, the particular society we participate in does seek to provide a minimal level of support for individuals within that society. Unlike other important corporate resources such as carbon paper, human beings are not viewed by this particular society as being disposable.

Should some one, as an individual or corporation, wish to reap the benefits of society without contributing to that society, then that one would be considered a parasite.

I would not consider a typical retiree to be a parasite, moocher, or looter. The retiree has worked within the human society for many years, producing goods or services in exchange for a combination of current income and a future pension or annuity (as from SSI) income stream. The current trend toward demonizing older individuals as parasites on society so as to avoid having to make good on obligations for pensions or annuity income streams is, to be blunt, the rationalization of parasites who managed to deceive members of society concerning their degree of contributions, and now that the jig is up, wish to deflect interest away from their own deceit and vilify the individuals that they are indebted to.

The original interviewee's responses are a little bit flippant.

 

[Gone4Good]

It would immediately open up 4M jobs (using my fictitious number). The retirees would continue to spend (for their living expenses) and the people replacing those that exited the jobs would begin spending (because they are earning a full wage).

Of course where the rubber meets the road is the spending difference between an older worker who's probably at peak lifetime earnings moving into retirement and a younger, and likely lower paid, replacement worker moving into the workforce. Does that create an increase in aggregate demand? Hard to say.

But at the very least, it reduces aggregate wages which is one way to move the economy back to full employment.

 

[GregLee]

The current trend toward demonizing older individuals as parasites on society so as to avoid having to make good on obligations for pensions or annuity income streams is, to be blunt, the rationalization of parasites who managed to deceive members of society concerning their degree of contributions, and now that the jig is up, wish to deflect interest away from their own deceit and vilify the individuals that they are indebted to.

Hey, wow! That's telling 'em.

 

[chinaco]

...
The current trend toward demonizing older individuals as parasites on society so as to avoid having to make good on obligations for pensions or annuity income streams is, to be blunt, the rationalization of parasites who managed to deceive members of society concerning their degree of contributions, and now that the jig is up, wish to deflect interest away from their own deceit and vilify the individuals that they are indebted to.

...

Here Here... and they need to be voted out of office since the seem to want to continue to spend our money on other govt programs and now claim it will be a hardship on tax payers to have to pay it back because they do not want to raise the taxes.

It seems to me that when they collected the SS tax and spent it and placed an IOU to themselves (claiming it to be the trust fund) that they created a stealth tax 30 years ago because they did not want to create the real tax back then!

Those politicians (some are still around) and parties (both sides) that decided to fund their pet projects with SS are facing the day the payment is due!

Shame on them for deceiving the public and abusing their power (that they received via our votes)!


Bottom line: cut the govt bloat and raise taxes to pay the bill that is due. The businesses and wealthy that really took advantage of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts the last several decades will be paying it back with interest! The payment is due on that IOU!

After all.... how do you think those Reagan tax cuts were dealt with?? They certainly didn't cut spending during those years.

Those Reagan tax cuts occurred 30 years ago... those wealthy people are dying.... time to jack up the estate tax to 1950's levels to recoup the loan (with interest)!

Folks we were deceived by smoke and mirrors!

 

[Midpack]

Well, that's a dilemma we all face. After a while, we tend to lose our capacity at producing.

I would not consider a typical retiree to be a parasite, moocher, or looter. The retiree has worked within the human society for many years, producing goods or services in exchange for a combination of current income and a future pension or annuity (as from SSI) income stream. The current trend toward demonizing older individuals as parasites on society so as to avoid having to make good on obligations for pensions or annuity income streams is, to be blunt, the rationalization of parasites who managed to deceive members of society concerning their degree of contributions, and now that the jig is up, wish to deflect interest away from their own deceit and vilify the individuals that they are indebted to.

Interesting post, thanks for taking the time. I guess the "dilemma" is - am I a parasite if I exit the workforce before I "lose [my] capacity at producing" just because I am financially (independent) able? While it may draw emphatic emotional answers - the answer is not crystal clear IMO.

I suppose in an ideal world, I guess we'd all work as long as we're productive even if we reach FI before the end of our work days. I'd start a thread, but I've had some bad experiences here with topics along these lines...

 

[REWahoo]

I suppose in an ideal world, I guess we'd all work as long as we're productive even if we reach FI before the end of our work days.

One man's "ideal world" is another man's nightmare...

 

[rockyj]

...I guess the "dilemma" is - am I a parasite if I exit the workforce before I "lose [my] capacity at producing" just because I am financially (independent) able? While it may draw emphatic emotional answers - the answer is not crystal clear IMO.

I suppose in an ideal world, I guess we'd all work as long as we're productive even if we reach FI before the end of our work days. I'd start a thread, but I've had some bad experiences here with topics along these lines...

As we endlessly hear from the tax cut crowd, if we let folks keep more of their money, they will save and invest it productively in private enterprise, creating jobs and economic activity for the collective good - "rising tide raises all boats" and such.

So, if I have saved and invested enough to sustain my lifestyle while no longer reporting to the office, then by that argument I have done my share of "contributing", and continue to do so via remaining invested and spending the proceeds on the goods and services provided by others- so, no, not being a parasite at all.

Now it's up to the captains of enterprises in which I've invested to do the promised job creation or, absent that, perhaps for the tax cut crowd to rethink their rhetoric on this point.

I have no further obligation to punch a clock, fashion widgets for others, or what not. My investments and day-to-day expenditures satisfy any obligation for contribution on my behalf.

And then of course there's volunteering, being there for others, etc., which put an entirely different spin on "working as long we're productive" in and for the benefit of society.

 

[Midpack]

So, if I have saved and invested enough to sustain my lifestyle while no longer reporting to the office, then by that argument I have done my share of "contributing", and continue to do so via remaining invested and spending the proceeds on the goods and services provided by others- so, no, not being a parasite at all.

I understand, and support your right to that view - I'm on track to follow your advice. But I'm willing to concede that if we all saved and invested AND continued to work as long as we're productive (regardless of FI), the cost to society at large would be significantly less. That's where the parasite dilemma is not clear IMO.

 

[RonBoyd]

But I'm willing to concede that if we all saved and invested AND continued to work as long as we're productive (regardless of FI), the cost to society at large would be significantly less.

Significantly! Is there any Math behind this theory? (It is beyond my number skills.)

 

[rockyj]

But I'm willing to concede that if we all saved and invested AND continued to work as long as we're productive (regardless of FI), the cost to society at large would be significantly less. That's where the parasite dilemma is not clear IMO.

Perhaps the "horns" of the dilemma may be in confounding continued paid employment with one's best contribution to society. For some that may be the case - having employment in which they find personal reward (not just monetarily) and from which they derive challenge, growth and satisfaction while contributing to something that is indeed of benefit to society. It is good for them to stay on call as long they are willing and able, for their own benefit as well for that of society. But I'm sure there are many (just read through the "Hi I am.." threads on this or similar forums) who do not fit that mold. For them staying too long in an increasingly unproductive situation - whether caused by drift in organizational direction, frustrations with management, outgrowing a job, personal burnout, or whatever - probably isn't their highest and best use to society - even if leaving would mean their departure from the wage tax system. If nothing else, moving on may free up an opportunity for someone likely to welcome the opportunity and be more productive in that position. One could also argue that not all paid work is indeed very beneficial to society anyway (except perhaps, for continued contributions to the wage tax base, which I realize is at the crux of this thread).

On the positive side, and irrespective of prior employment situations or reasons for departure form the workplace, there are so many ways that do not involve paid employment through which individuals can and do contribute to society; there is no need to enumerate them here. Everyone's situation is unique. I think you're right in observing that the "dilemma is not clear".

 

[Purron]

Beautifully stated Rockyj.

 

[Westernskies]

...and as easily harvestable natural resources dwindle...

Is there some factual basis for this statement? Or just eco-hysteria? We have millions or acres of of renewable forest resources left, millions of acres to to strip mine and vast untapped oil reserves, i.e. the Bakken and the ANWR...and we're dumping milk and paying farmers not to grow crops.

 

[M Paquette]

Interesting post, thanks for taking the time. I guess the "dilemma" is - am I a parasite if I exit the workforce before I "lose [my] capacity at producing" just because I am financially (independent) able? While it may draw emphatic emotional answers - the answer is not crystal clear IMO.

Nah. If we're going to continue being all Randian about this, you're a hero, chock full of enlightened self-interest. Financial independence is a Good Thing, especially if you did it all yourself. It represents the reward you've reaped from being an especially good producer. Bonus points if you mysteriously disappear after getting a court order to fund an incompetent loan applicant...

I suppose in an ideal world, I guess we'd all work as long as we're productive even if we reach FI before the end of our work days. I'd start a thread, but I've had some bad experiences here with topics along these lines...

Heh, heh...

I don't know if I'd call those bad experiences, as much as they are revelations about the nature of fellow human beings.

 

[Midpack]

Significantly! Is there any Math behind this theory? (It is beyond my number skills.)

Seriously? The more people who are working and providing goods & services and the fewer there are receiving social security and other benefits, the less the burden on those working. This is NOT a judgement or comment, just the math. I am only trying to frame the parasite question in terms of the economics - I am NOT pretending to judge anyone's choices (along the lines of rockyj's POV).

I am going to become a parasite this year if it makes you feel better...

 

[RonBoyd]

Seriously? The more people who are working and providing goods & services and the fewer there are receiving social security and other benefits, the less the burden on those working. This is NOT a judgement or comment, just the math. I am only trying to frame the parasite question in terms of the economics - I am NOT pretending to judge anyone's choices (along the lines of rockyj's POV).

I am going to become a parasite this year if it makes you feel better...

 

[Midpack]

 

[Purron]

I am going to become a parasite this year

That's kinda like a vampire, right?