There are some interesting observations in the article which would resonate with many members here.
The implication that many people are retiring, then unretiring, is the headline and a key point of the article, but is not supported by the data. First, the journalist links two studies, presents them as independent, with one supporting the other. She neglects to mention that the lead researcher (Maestas) in both is the same individual, they certainly are not independent. The second study (RAND) barely mentions retirement, does not provide any data, and is entirely unsupportive of the “unretirement” conclusion.
The data set is a group of people that reported themselves as retired in 1992, and then tracked for 10 years. Of this group, about 19% said they went back to work, either full or part time. The largest cohort to return to work was people in their early 50’s. Not clear how long they worked, nor if they were “really retired” the first time around.
All of the other larger numbers thrown around the article confuse part time and fully retired. No real conclusions can be drawn, and it takes some real imagination to get to the 40%.
It’s a shame, really, because without the weak data, an interesting article could be written about how some people leave jobs they dislike, take some time off, then go back and find jobs they enjoy more. This allows them to find more balance in their lives.