Keep on working?

[Eagle43]

The Economist exhorts us to keep on working because it's good for the world's economy. The magazine tells us the ageing population will cause a world economic slowdown. They laud Warren Buffet, who is 83, still working, as a good example. This article also claims that educated agers make better salaries, and that there is a growing divide between the educated and the blue collar worker. Further, we are living longer and this divide puts a huge strain on government because seniors vote. I suppose most of us who are FIRED would not be praised by this magazine. I know I could easily be identified as a deadbeat granddad. Anyway, here's a link, if interested.

Global ageing: A billion shades of grey | The Economist

If the link balks, it's from the April 26th print edition, entitled "A billion shades of Grey".

Sent from my AT100 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[travelover]

In MegaMotor's corporate culture, you were considered over the hill at 40 and past retirement age at 55. I'll never apologize for getting the heck outta Dodge City.

 

[growing_older]

In technology, there is similar age bias. Individual contributors are strongly preferred who are no older than their early 30's and supervisors and managers no older than their early 40's. Forty year old software engineers and fifty year old managers face considerable age discrimination. It would be very unusual to find working software engineers in their 60's, 70's and 80's, despite the article's example of Warren Buffet working in his 80s. Perhaps managerial or founder/ownership workers can continue to work at older ages, but this doesn't seem like a realistic plan for most people.

 

[tuixiu]

Yup, as a software dev if I wasn't planning on retiring early I'd be a lot more concerned about maintaining career momentum into my 50s and 60s. I assume I'd have sucked it up and not fought management roles as hard as I have.

I guess other option would be:

 

[jerome len]

Everyone should do what they enjoy......some want ER and others are like Warren Buffet. Ronald Reagan didn't become President until he was 70........he certainly enjoyed being President more than ER. I call people that work and hate their jobs having "golden handcuffs" and those individuals should look forward to getting out as young as possible. Other jobs, the individual becomes a coach and mentor.....that's probably what Warren Buffet thinks of himself. And, if you've made a lot of money, you have a new job as you get older......managing your money, creating trusts to manage it when you're still here and after you're gone. None of these choices are right for everyone. My Dad was a blue collar tradesman.....his physical work was too demanding for anyone the age of Warren Buffet...Megacorp needs a combination of Coaches and younger "game changers".....look at what the internet, smart phones and social media has done to change our lives compared to 10 years ago......and, all of this has changed how we invest, how we buy retail goods and how and where we work from. My goal isn't to keep on working....my goal is to keep on enjoying life.....and that means being busy every day.....for me it means managing investments, coaching others, charitable work, some travel and setting up trusts for myself, DW and my kids.......it's all good, I'm very lucky.

 

[user5027]

Check out the BLS Civilian labor force participation rates by age since 1992

Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

and how the rate has increased for age 55 and older.

I see the influence of fewer DB pensions and the lack of retirement saving.

 

[CaliforniaMan]

The Economist exhorts us to keep on working because it's good for the world's economy. The magazine tells us the ageing population will cause a world economic slowdown. They laud Warren Buffet, who is 83, still working, as a good example. This article also claims that educated agers make better salaries, and that there is a growing divide between the educated and the blue collar worker. Further, we are living longer and this divide puts a huge strain on government because seniors vote. I suppose most of us who are FIRED would not be praised by this magazine. I know I could easily be identified as a deadbeat granddad. Anyway, here's a link, if interested.

Global ageing: A billion shades of grey | The Economist

If the link balks, it's from the April 26th print edition, entitled "A billion shades of Grey".

Sent from my AT100 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

What struck me was this quote:

"Politicians need to convince less-skilled older voters that it is in their interests to go on working" Bolding mine. Yes it will be difficult to convince them of that! Better for the economy maybe, but better for them? I think a much better approach would be promoting saving and investing.

I think what a lot of these economists miss is that there are actually very few people required to manufacture everything in the world, or to grow everything we eat. Maybe three factories are actually necessary to turn out 100% of the worlds printers, same for disk drives, and the efficiency in man hours is increasing at a rapid rate. Investment and automation are the key to prosperity in the future, not having more older workers. The problem then is in the equitable distribution of wealth, and that requires that workers save during their working years, so that the automation pays off for them in the future. That is what politicians need to be convincing people, not to work until death.

 

[ERhoosier]

In MegaMotor's corporate culture, you were considered over the hill at 40 and past retirement age at 55. I'll never apologize for getting the heck outta Dodge City.

Ditto in health care as MegaCorp (& big gov't) mentality takes over the system. Articles bemoan the coming shortages of docs & nurses. Yet increasing bureaucratic overhead & gov't over-regulation, along with the negative career consequences to those foolish enough to speak against it, are causing more & more to FIRE at what should be the peak of their careers (experience, technical skills, etc.).

 

[LendingWire]

I don't work to help the worlds economy, I work to pay my bills. My job is not to maintain the world's economy. That's a crazy philosophy. Plus, because you have a job doesn't mean you're helping the world. Plenty of businesses are horribly immoral, so that's kind of a moot point. Besides, if you have enough money to buy all the things you're interested in buying, what's the point of dedicating your life to getting more of it? That's such a roundabout way of viewing jobs and such.

 

[target2019]

The article's main point is that stratification of skilled versus unskilled older workers is a concern. Skilled workers continue to work while unskilled exit the workforce. The unskilled retiree sees buying power erode, and becomes an increasing burden on society. Skilled worker accumulates wealth and stratification increases.

There are many questions to answer. Most get into politics, so I'll refrain from going deeper.

 

[donheff]

I'm not ever going back but, for those of you who would consider it, the market should eventually tell us whether the Economist is right - that will be when we start seeing geezer sign up bonuses.

 

[growing_older]

Whether the Economist is right or wrong, here's an article from Yahoo that says workers ARE working longer and that is hurting the economy because younger workers cannot find jobs. If it's bad for the economy if I work, and it's bad for the economy if I don't work, then I will want to pick "don't work" and just ER.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/average-retirement-ages-pushes-62-092355467.html

 

[REWahoo]

Whether the Economist is right or wrong, here's an article from Yahoo that says workers ARE working longer and that is hurting the economy because younger workers cannot find jobs.

Hey, waitaminnit!

How can that be the case when a few years ago...

Labor Market 2000: Prospects Good; Worker Shortage Looms | AccountingWEB

Do the math: based on the strong economy, the Foundation predicts 18 million new jobs will be created before 2010, and through attrition, 24 million more workers who retire or die will need to be replaced by others.

The labor shortage may be as many as 5 million workers...

Once again, the trouble with predicting the future is future unpredictability.

 

[CaliforniaMan]

...
Once again, the trouble with predicting the future is future unpredictability.

+1

 

[dunkelblau]

In technology, there is similar age bias. Individual contributors are strongly preferred who are no older than their early 30's and supervisors and managers no older than their early 40's. Forty year old software engineers and fifty year old managers face considerable age discrimination. It would be very unusual to find working software engineers in their 60's, 70's and 80's, despite the article's example of Warren Buffet working in his 80s. Perhaps managerial or founder/ownership workers can continue to work at older ages, but this doesn't seem like a realistic plan for most people.

I was stunned as you probably would have been when my buyout application last year was denied on the basis of my skills being crucial to the business. I'm one of those 50 year old software engineers who works in an area where things are changing so rapidly that I've given up trying to stay up to date. I thought I was doing these guys a favor by volunteering to get out, but no such luck. I'm far from the oldest in my lab, sitting at nearby benches are guys in their 60s who have worked 40+ years. We're all "individual contributor" engineers, where I work it's the managers who don't stay past 60.

It's not like my company has anything against the younger generation, our new hires out of college have been true stars who do excellent work, it's just that they're difficult to hang on to. We old farts aren't actively recruited by Google and Apple, while the young guns are willing to jump for no raise, just the prestige factor. Another area where gray hair seems to be a significant asset is in our customer service engineering jobs. We sell a lot to the big names and we've found that the combination of breadth of experience and people skills that are critical for this role happens to favor our older workers. That's a department where I'm still too young to enlist.

It's not all roses for us, our older workers rarely get promotions and our raises tend to be smaller. But those of us who are FI don't mind because the difference is rounding error (and even after generous raises our youngsters can barely cover food after making their mortgage payments). Much more important are interest in the work, respect from our colleagues, and lack of distraction from health or family issues. None of my co-workers in my age cohort is here because we need the income, so admittedly staying this long wasn't in the career plan for any of us.

 

[LoneAspen]

In all seriousness...screw that article.

I'm not working "just because" some idiots are either jealous, or think they can invoke some sense of duty in me that working is for the greater good.

If they want, they can work double to make up for me, while I sit on a beach somewhere. I'll raise a margarita in their honor if it makes them feel any better. Hell, I'll even raise two.

 

[REWahoo]

If they want, they can work double to make up for me, while I sit on a beach somewhere. I'll raise a margarita in their honor if it makes them feel any better. Hell, I'll even raise two.

Make that three...

 

[robnplunder]

I can't help think that capitalism thrives on economy expansion, and economy expansion is fueled by population growth. The good (?) news is that we got 7 billion of us living on earth now and it will be 8 Billion in 10 years, give or take a few years. They all have to drink Coca Cola, eat at McDonalds, and drive Hyundai. The bad news is, there are NOT enough jobs to go around for the mass. I will do my part and give up my job in a year, drink Coca Cola, eat McCheese, and drive Hyundai. That will be my contribution to economy.

 

[Hamlet]

That quote really didn't make sense to me. From a societal standpoint, it is probably better if skilled workers keep working as long as possible while the unskilled workers retire as soon as possible.

In general, there is a glut of unskilled labor. Overall production will not be reduced if an older unskilled worker retires and is replaced by a younger unskilled worker. We're probably better off because we are able to get that younger worker into the workforce.

On the other hand, there are shortages in some skilled positions that may actually be constraining production. It makes no sense to encourage those people to retire if they may be very hard to replace.

What struck me was this quote:

"Politicians need to convince less-skilled older voters that it is in their interests to go on working" Bolding mine. Yes it will be difficult to convince them of that! Better for the economy maybe, but better for them? I think a much better approach would be promoting saving and investing.

I think what a lot of these economists miss is that there are actually very few people required to manufacture everything in the world, or to grow everything we eat. Maybe three factories are actually necessary to turn out 100% of the worlds printers, same for disk drives, and the efficiency in man hours is increasing at a rapid rate. Investment and automation are the key to prosperity in the future, not having more older workers. The problem then is in the equitable distribution of wealth, and that requires that workers save during their working years, so that the automation pays off for them in the future. That is what politicians need to be convincing people, not to work until death.

 

[marko]

The Economist exhorts us to keep on working because it's good for the world's economy.

I'm sure the world's economy would recognize my contribution and put it on my tombstone. Screw the world's economy, I'm going out on my boat!

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Unemployment in the U.S. is still pretty high. I'm doing my part to not take up a full time job some younger worker with a family might want.

Maybe companies will just have to resort to job training programs if they can't find skilled workers.

 

[jclarksnakes]

Oh no! I thought I was doing the responsible thing opening up my job so a younger person could have it when I retired.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

We have a nation with $1 trillion dollar in student loan debt and yet a shortage of skilled workers for the jobs that are available. I don't think most logical solution is to keep us older workers at our desks until we die.

Maybe we just need to do a better job of counseling kids about their career choices and job options.

 

[Chuckanut]

Maybe we just need to do a better job of counseling kids about their career choices and job options.

The recent test mania and anguish over 'failing' schools has caused us to forget that only about 20% of our HS students will go on to graduate from college. Good vocational education is a necessity, IMHO. Take a look at how the Germans do it. We can take what they do, adapt it to our own needs. But, it costs money.