Want to live a long life - don't retire

That's just discouraging! If you can't trust information posted on an anonymous internet board what can you trust. :LOL:

But, but, but as I pointed out, even if work does not shorten your life, it doesn't mean that one should not try to retire early.

It's not just quantity, you know. :cool: Quality of life matters too. Personally, I do know that my days spent at home fooling around doing nothing are much higher quality time than the days spent in the office cubicle.

PS. Perhaps Nords did not see the link I provided to the official Boeing announcement on this matter.
 
Last edited:
I'm a Boeing retiree and receive a pension check from Boeing, I've been retired for just over two years, so I guess I'm safe.:)

The Web site for the Boeing Engineer's union used to have a file that refuted the infamous Boeing pension study. However, it no longer seems to be available.

But, the following quote seems suspicious if you think about.

The study was based on the number of pension checks sent to retirees of Boeing Aerospace.

Some points:

1) The study specifically refers to Boeing Aerospace, which was a military-oriented division of the company (I started working for Boeing in this division). At the time of the study, the entire company would have been referred to as 'Boeing Airplane Company' or 'The Boeing Company.' I'm not sure which name was in effect at the time of the study.

2) The quote refers to the number of pension checks sent to pensioners. This is somewhat vague. I'm assuming that it means someone was counted as dead if they stopped sending pension checks to that person.

I retired under the traditional Boeing 'heritage' pension plan (Boeing has, for example, absorbed MacDonnell-Douglas, which had their own heritage pension plan. Thus, it's hard to summarize in 25 words or less how Boeing pensions currently work.) I had four choices for a pension:

1) single life annuity

2) 50, 75, or 100 percent surviving spouse option if married

3) Life annuity with 10 year certain option (for designated beneficiaries)

4) Accelerated income option

Note that options 2 and 3 are based joint life expectancy and it is extremely unlikely that the joint life expectancy is less than 2 years after the retirement of the Boeing spouse. This means that in these cases the pension checks would continue to be sent after the death of the Boeing retiree. The latter contradicts the assumption made earlier, i.e., the cessation of pension checks counts as death.

The only way the study could possibly make sense is if you assume that the vast bulk of retirees are single. At the time of my retirement, in my organization, there were only a couple of older people who were single. All other singles were younger and nowhere close to retirement. I don't know if this is typical of the company as a whole, but I'm inclined to believe it is.

Having said this, however, it's interesting to note that the two people (in my organization and a sister organization) who preceded me in retirement, both died within two years. However, both were diagnosed with late stage colon cancer. Since they were both eligible for early retiree medical insurance, they retired to enjoy their last days on earth in peace, surrounded by their families.
 
That chart really startled me. I had no idea that late retirees had shorter lives. That sucks big time.

Sitting around being unproductive (i.e. lazy) is highly underrated in our society. :D
 
The quoted "study" shows that if one retires at 65.2, then her life expectancy is only 66.8!

Now, the SS full-benefit retirement age for someone born after 1959 is 67 years of age! If you work until then, you would croak before getting a dime. If this "study" were real, we would not have SS funding problems.

Another thing to think about is that insurance companies would know how to use this actuarial "data" to formulate drastically different premiums for early retirees vs. late workers, for health and life insurance, as well as any annuity benefits. Has anyone observed that?
 
The quoted "study" shows that if one retires at 65.2, then her life expectancy is only 66.8!

Now, the SS full-benefit retirement age for someone born after 1959 is 67 years of age! If you work until then, you would croak before getting a dime. If this "study" were real, we would not have SS funding problems.

Another thing to think about is that insurance companies would know how to use this actuarial "data" to formulate drastically different premiums for early retirees vs. late workers, for health and life insurance, as well as any annuity benefits. Has anyone observed that?

So, it's not a real study? I looked at the links but I guess I was fooled. Why would anyone fabricate such a study? For what purpose?
 
Abso-bloomin-lutely!

Sitting around doing nothing at home on my own time, is way above sitting around doing boring stuff at work while having to interact with soul-suckers.

I wonder if work life would be greatly improved if the soul suckers could be segregated from the nicer folks.

For example, lets say at the division level, have an annual vote where staff gets to "vote somone off the island" once a year. I think that would greatly improve moral, not only getting rid of the worst offender, but as well, curbing the behavior of the "runner ups" (or runner downs!)

In my work I once ran across a company called the "happy farmers", who were a greenhouse operation. You had to sign a pledge when interviewed that you were a "happy person"!!!
 
My grandfather retired from the Panama canal when he was 55 and moved to Florida. He's 84 now and hasn't worked in almost 30 years so I'll take my chances.
 
Back
Top Bottom