I think we're going to be deluged in the coming years (it's really started already) with ads and articles about how boomers aren't going to sit in rocking chairs and retire, let alone ER, but how they are going to continue to work on their own terms. This is all very well and fine in theory, but I can't be the only boomer who can't write her own ticket. I've always been an employee, at the bottom of the totem pole (a sweat hog, as my boss was known to refer to us---worthy of only the cheap wine and beer, while the managers were served the good hard stuff at Christmas parties!). While a so-called professional with a master's degree in a health/human service field, I wasn't treated with any more respect at 52 with 30 years of service than I would have been as a 22 year old (in fact, even though I produced three to four times what my younger co-workers did, the managers still liked the idea of hiring younger, "energetic" workers---I still can't see that all these employers are chomping at the bit to hire older workers). So it's not work per se that I'm adverse to. It's the way workers are treated and the inhumanity of the work world (in most situations). And at a salary in the low forties, there wasn't such a strong financial incentive to stay.
The article that was linked at the beginning of the thread started off with a paragraph about Jack Welch---how in his seventies, he doesn't want to retire and is still giving speeches and writing books. Well, yeah, if I was Jack Welch, I wouldn't have escaped either. But giving speeches and writing books isn't quite a full-time job either, so that's a little misleading. And for people who have been very successful and are extremely wealthy, I can understand the temptation to continue to work in some capacity, especially if it's a fun thing like starting your own winery (although how much actual work is put into this and how much is farmed out to underlings remains to be seen). But for people to whom the work world wasn't too kind, being FIREd was my golden parachute!
I realize I'm an anomaly because most people at my salary level either have to or want to live up to every cent and don't strive towards FIRE. So you will see us less than successful boomers continue to work because there may not be a choice. And those who have been very successful may well want to continue because the rewards (high salary, respect, ego fulfillment) are much higher than the costs (may be able to cut their hours, not have much stress, etc.).
And I actually don't think many people on this board started out being work-adverse. I think most were very hard workers who burnt out or just couldn't reap any more satisfaction from working. The co-workers who I left behind may not be work-adverse in that they will work until 65 or later, but if you could have seen them in action (or nonaction, as the case may be), you wouldn't consider them very pro-work either since they weren't working a full eight hours of the day and were very good about conserving their energy (you know the type---who could spend an hour telling you why they were too busy for a ten minute task!).
