Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Retirement Age


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,141 posts
  • LocationCanada

What do you guys think the retirement age will be in 2050 (if it exists), if so why? 

 

I personally think that if retirement exists for me it will be pushing 75 by that time. I think that governments may try to get rid of the retirement age and make people fend for themselves although that is politically unfeasible at this time I assume once politicians think it is demographically safe (once all Baby Boomers are retired) they will try to push retirement age up rapidly. I know here in Canada they recently pushed it up to 67 from 65. 

 

What do you guys think?


Edited by MarcZ, 23 February 2013 - 12:58 AM.


#2
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,076 posts
  • LocationWoodbridge, New Jersey, US

Retirement age should be rising with life expectancy really. I personally think it'll be in the mid-high 70s (76-79ish) for me. 

 

In the US it will probably be done despite backlash. I'm for social security (at least at our current point) but in order for reform we need to consider the life expectancy aspect. When the Social Security Act (US) was passed in 1933 life expectancy was still in the 60s. Even today the earliest age for benefits is 62 with the bottom end being 65 (1938 babies) and the top end being 67 (1960 and later babies) so it gradually raises from there (due to the 1983 adjustments). It hasn't budged much since and like you said the baby boomers are retiring; most western nations are gonna face big time budget bloating from all of them. Getting rid of it though would be a huge political hit considering how much goes into it. Bush tried to partly privatize it but not even that phased a republican congress. 

 

According to the SSA I'd expect to retire at 67. http://www.ssa.gov/r...ement/1960.html Then you look at their life expectancy calculator (http://www.ssa.gov/O.../longevity.html) - by age 70 they expect me to live for another 17 years to 87. Of course that'd be in 2063... :p

 

According to data compiled by the Social Security Administration:

  • A man reaching age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 83.
  • A woman turning age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 85.

Edited by Cody930, 23 February 2013 - 01:43 AM.

"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."


#3
Practical Mind

Practical Mind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • LocationAustralia
It goes up everywhere, and 75 is no limit. There is no choice: the pension funds are having issues with people living too long :-) . 
 
You may have noticed that Japan is pretty much having the same issues as the rest of the world, only 20 years earlier. Read this: 
 
Let elderly people 'hurry up and die', says Japanese minister
 
http://www.guardian....up-die-japanese
Japan's new government is barely a month old, and already one of its most senior members has insulted tens of millions of voters by suggesting that the elderly are an unnecessary drain on the country's finances.

Taro Aso, the finance minister, said on Monday that the elderly should be allowed to "hurry up and die" to relieve pressure on the state to pay for their medical care.

"Heaven forbid if you are forced to live on when you want to die. I would wake up feeling increasingly bad knowing that [treatment] was all being paid for by the government," he said during a meeting of the national council on social security reforms. "The problem won't be solved unless you let them hurry up and die."

Aso's comments are likely to cause offence in Japan, where almost a quarter of the 128 million population is aged over 60. The proportion is forecast to rise to 40% over the next 50 years.

Edited by Practical Mind, 23 February 2013 - 04:14 AM.


#4
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,141 posts
  • LocationCanada

It goes up everywhere, and 75 is no limit. There is no choice: the pension funds are having issues with people living too long :-) . 
 
You may have noticed that Japan is pretty much having the same issues as the rest of the world, only 20 years earlier. Read this: 
 
Let elderly people 'hurry up and die', says Japanese minister
 
http://www.guardian....up-die-japanese

Japan's new government is barely a month old, and already one of its most senior members has insulted tens of millions of voters by suggesting that the elderly are an unnecessary drain on the country's finances.

Taro Aso, the finance minister, said on Monday that the elderly should be allowed to "hurry up and die" to relieve pressure on the state to pay for their medical care.

"Heaven forbid if you are forced to live on when you want to die. I would wake up feeling increasingly bad knowing that [treatment] was all being paid for by the government," he said during a meeting of the national council on social security reforms. "The problem won't be solved unless you let them hurry up and die."
Aso's comments are likely to cause offence in Japan, where almost a quarter of the 128 million population is aged over 60. The proportion is forecast to rise to 40% over the next 50 years.

 

 

Yeah, I'm aware of his comments. But really, I think these people are getting a lot, especially because I expect for MY generation there will be very late retirement if any at all, it will be completely self-funded. Which is compounded further by these low interest rates... angers me.



#5
StanleyAlexander

StanleyAlexander

    Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 909 posts
  • LocationBoston, Tomorrow

I'm not going to retire.


  • Italian Ufo likes this
Humanity's destiny is infinity

#6
Malgidus

Malgidus

    Four Lefts From Reality

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 226 posts
  • LocationCanada

I doubt retirement will exist as it does today by the time I am currently set to retire, 2055. Instead I see these options:

  • Technological singularity occuring around the mid-point of the century --> retirement obsolete.
  • Anti-aging technologies exist --> retirement obsolete, possibly mandatory to continue working if technologies are cheap and you have no personally funded retirement plan if there is no good budget solution (which wouldn't be too bad if you had a healthy body/mind).
  • Semi-utopia: Age of abundance occurs, meeting humanity's basic needs, no pension needed to take care of the elderly.
  • 3D Printed budget housing, free robot labour, and/or vertical farming hydroponics/aeroponics doesn't advance quickly, coupled with the lack of funding for pensions, causes the retirement age to climb ever higher with life expectancy.
  • We have already reached the final stages of economic growth, peak oil takes its toll with no good solution and the world slips into decline, social debts default and denizens must work until they drop. Any retirement would be self-funded.
     

Edited by Malgidus, 23 February 2013 - 08:15 AM.

My mind has been torn into Oblivion, is there a way to tear that too? Reach into the Oblivion, and through Zen, tear the Universe anew.

Tradesman by day, [game] programmer by night. Philosopher all day long. @Malgidus |Forest Bear Studios


#7
Alric

Alric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 879 posts

I don't want to retire, I want to do a job that I enjoy and I want to remain in good enough health to do it. Retire is for when you have a job you don't like and have to keep doing it to pay the bills. Hopefully by 2050 we can all be doing stuff we enjoy, or at least cut down the time required for work so that it isn't such a big part of your life.



#8
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,668 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Having a career you truly enjoy and not planning on retiring is one of the many ways you can prolong your lifespan. Research suggests it.


  • StanleyAlexander likes this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#9
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member Since August 23 /2010

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,457 posts

It would be nice if after a ceirtain age you will retire from your official job like in office, school, gardner to do creative jobs like painting, do poetry, senior olympics and so on.



#10
CamGoldenGun

CamGoldenGun

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts
  • LocationFort McMurray, AB. Canada.

I agree with Italian UFO... after putting in years of hard work either at a job you tollerate or just to put food on the table (which lets face it is more than half of us), it would be nice to dedicate your life to something other than "work."

 

Honestly, if I didn't have to pay bills I could see myself living a nomadic life. Go place to place learning new skills, doing something I find rewarding until the novelty wares off, etc. I'm in computer systems and networking right now but I'd love to have time to write a book, learn a trade like electrician or carpentry, even house construction and renovation. I've even thought about living off the grid and take up a hunter/gather lifestyle.

 

The life expectancy is going up and some people are retiring at 55, but even then that's only about 20 years to enjoy retirement. After 75 it's all about maintaining health and being as less strenuous on your body as possible.



#11
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,141 posts
  • LocationCanada

Retiring at 55 is completely unsustainable... I don't get where a lot of people think they can work for only 20-25 years and then retire and live for several dozen. Is it any wonder Western countries are going broke trying to support this? I think freedom 55 will be an extinct concept within 20 years. Even freedom 65 may go the way of the dodo soon imo. 


  • Cody930 likes this

#12
CamGoldenGun

CamGoldenGun

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts
  • LocationFort McMurray, AB. Canada.

I think your math is off by about 10 years. If you start "real work" at 25, 55 is 30 years later. And 55 is viewed as an early retirement but was obtainable through investments, etc. I agree with you though that this is a old way of thinking and was really fueled by the baby boomers and pre-boomers because of their life expectancy. Having to be supported for the first 25 years and after 55 for another 20 or 30 years seems unsustainable.

 

We have to change our way of thinking about jobs in general then though. If you want people to work until 65 or later, there are some jobs that just aren't suitable for someone that age. Just think of all the IT personnel over the age of 50 who can't find work in their field because they're still using old coding languages. Or anything that involves intense physical labour. Don't get me wrong, there are some middle-aged and older people who I couldn't hold a candle to physically but the majority aren't in this category.

 

Getting a bit off topic here too, but in the next 20 years there is going to be a whole generation of elderly caregivers to deal with the baby boom age. When this generation gets to be around 50-60, what are they going to do for work as well because the elderly that they've cared for won't be as plentiful by then.

 

If you save and invest for your future retirement early instead of waiting on government pension plans and you have all your bills paid off, there's no reason to think you couldn't stop working sooner rather than later. I for one am aiming for "Freedom 55" 



#13
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,141 posts
  • LocationCanada
I think your math is off by about 10 years. If you start "real work" at 25, 55 is 30 years later. And 55 is viewed as an early retirement but was obtainable through investments, etc. I agree with you though that this is a old way of thinking and was really fueled by the baby boomers and pre-boomers because of their life expectancy. Having to be supported for the first 25 years and after 55 for another 20 or 30 years seems unsustainable.

 

We have to change our way of thinking about jobs in general then though. If you want people to work until 65 or later, there are some jobs that just aren't suitable for someone that age. Just think of all the IT personnel over the age of 50 who can't find work in their field because they're still using old coding languages. Or anything that involves intense physical labour. Don't get me wrong, there are some middle-aged and older people who I couldn't hold a candle to physically but the majority aren't in this category.

 

Getting a bit off topic here too, but in the next 20 years there is going to be a whole generation of elderly caregivers to deal with the baby boom age. When this generation gets to be around 50-60, what are they going to do for work as well because the elderly that they've cared for won't be as plentiful by then.

 

If you save and invest for your future retirement early instead of waiting on government pension plans and you have all your bills paid off, there's no reason to think you couldn't stop working sooner rather than later. I for one am aiming for "Freedom 55" 

 

Yes... my bad... However, I would like to note that with medicine it's feasible many people could live into their 90s in the future that's almost 40 years at the end of the life they are being supported, and I'm sorry, but I can't see the younger generations wanting to support that kind system. This would be FAR less pronounced if the Baby Boomers had produced offspring that outnumbered them. I.e. this system really only works as long as there are more younger workers than there are elderly, which in most Western countries is not the case, and Japan is becoming the first really good example of what goes wrong when there are too many old compared to the young. I also agree with you about jobs too, however I don't think that the elderly must necessarily do full on jobs, there are many part time jobs which can also be productive and allow them to support themselves, many older folks have second to none cooking skills, also I wonder in the future if there will be a Micro-Agriculture boom and perhaps people may join into local farmers markets to sell crops they have grown in their yards (be this spices, vegetables, fruits, honey, etc... I would certainly go for some types of employment like that, and those agriculture jobs aren't too intensive and it keeps people active which stops the obesity and unhealthy problem too. :) 


Edited by MarcZ, 28 February 2013 - 06:20 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users