....
Guess I just like data & graphs...
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.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.
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.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.
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?
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 |
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.
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%.i guess i'm not sure what causes the big boosts people are seeing. pre-existing conditions ? older age ?
Me too!Never mind...
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%.
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 ?
Per person. But these are old and have already more than doubled...Are those rates for one person or a couple? We're paying about $600 for the both of us in the 55-59 quintile.