4 ms·

Okay then what happens when those people reach the retirement age and have no retirement benefits left? They either die (not so fast), or become a burden for so

by soco 3y ago

Okay then what happens when those people reach the retirement age and have no retirement benefits left? They either die (not so fast), or become a burden for social services (in countries with those), or get into crime (of some kind). Maybe I am missing something, but I only see drawbacks for society and for the individual.

jimbokun 3y ago
They have to work an extra year per sabbatical, and the number of sabbaticals is capped to some small number. Say, 3 for example. In the US you can start drawing retirement benefits at 62 at a lower rate, or at 65 at a higher rate. So this would be similar. Eligible for benefits at 62 with no sabbaticals. Or 65 with 3 sabbaticals.
pcthrowaway 3y ago
A lot of individuals don't really live long past retirement age. In the U.S., men live to be 73.5 years on average. So extending your retirement age until you're 85 at the proposed 1:4 ratio gives you 5 years of retirement benefits when you're younger, vs an average of 8.5 years when you're older. I don't see this as a terrible deal. Of course, you then have to work past the standard retirement age, but I see this as a given for a lot of people anyway (you might even live longer if you get frequent sabbaticals)
- jandrewrogers 3y ago
  The life expectancy of a US male at age 65 is an additional 17 years, from the government's actuarial tables [0]. Average life expectancies include people that die young, which primarily include risk factors that rarely affect people at retirement age. [0] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    Survivor bias. The average age of death for a 40 year old is 81 years. And 75 years for a 20-year old. So yes, if you continue surviving your chances of living to your delayed retirement age increase, but I still posit you'll enjoy time off work more when you're younger.

by soco 3y ago

jimbokun 3y ago

They have to work an extra year per sabbatical, and the number of sabbaticals is capped to some small number. Say, 3 for example. In the US you can start drawing retirement benefits at 62 at a lower rate, or at 65 at a higher rate. So this would be similar. Eligible for benefits at 62 with no sabbaticals. Or 65 with 3 sabbaticals.

pcthrowaway 3y ago

A lot of individuals don't really live long past retirement age. In the U.S., men live to be 73.5 years on average. So extending your retirement age until you're 85 at the proposed 1:4 ratio gives you 5 years of retirement benefits when you're younger, vs an average of 8.5 years when you're older. I don't see this as a terrible deal. Of course, you then have to work past the standard retirement age, but I see this as a given for a lot of people anyway (you might even live longer if you get frequent sabbaticals)

jandrewrogers 3y ago
The life expectancy of a US male at age 65 is an additional 17 years, from the government's actuarial tables [0]. Average life expectancies include people that die young, which primarily include risk factors that rarely affect people at retirement age. [0] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  Survivor bias. The average age of death for a 40 year old is 81 years. And 75 years for a 20-year old. So yes, if you continue surviving your chances of living to your delayed retirement age increase, but I still posit you'll enjoy time off work more when you're younger.