6 ms·

The End of Retirement

66 points by daviday 17y ago

noodle 17y ago
i have to admit - i don't think i would ever want to retire if i could help it. it would be much too boring, i feel. even if it means being a part-time cashier somewhere, as long as i'm able.
- kqr2 17y ago
  People always say that, but surely you must have some hobbies that you could pursue that would be equally fulfilling?
  - ellyagg 17y ago
    I have hobbies, but none that couldn't earn a buck if positioned right. I yearn for the validation that comes with people voting for my activities with their money.
  - noodle 17y ago
    i definitely do, but i don't foresee myself partaking in these hobbies 8+ hours a day, every day in retirement. my major hobbies now are sports related and hacker related. at retirement age, sports won't be so viable and hacker activities will likely be completely different.
nazgulnarsil 17y ago
If you are an industrious person you'll get bored an wind up working on another project anyway. better to save money so that you can take mini-retirements in between major career/project shifts. either that or plan on retiring in a country with a cheap standard of living.
- pmjordan 17y ago
  plan on retiring in a country with a cheap standard of living. I guess that might work if you're set to retire soon. In 30 or 40 years, though, the world may be a sufficiently different place that those countries are either no longer so cheap, or have changed in ways so that you no longer want to live there...
  - ellyagg 17y ago
    I doubt picking the actual locale for retirement requires 30 or 40 years of lead time. There's a significant chance countries with attractive costs of living will still exist several decades from now.
    - Retric 17y ago
      The problem is it might end up being the United States.
      - ellyagg 17y ago
        Problem solved then.
wglb 17y ago
My uncle worked for Walmart for many years in his 80s. He credits being on his feet for helping keep his diabetes at bay. Personally, I don't ever expect to "retire". I have a list of projects that is quite long.
edw519 17y ago
Misleading. The life expectancy numbers cited by OP are grossly skewed because of one critical issue: infant mortality. Sure, people are living longer, but not that much longer.
- 100k 17y ago
  Good point. Life expectancy was much higher for those who survived childhood.
- mnemonicsloth 17y ago
  I'm not so sure it's this simple. The lower life expectancies in recent years were due in part to high infant mortality [1], but my understanding is that infant mortality rates have been low and stable for too long [2] for further decline to completely account for the continuing uptrend in life expectancy we've been seeing. Also, the decline in infant mortality isn't monotonic. Besides making it more likely that sick newborns survive their various conditions, new medical technology also makes it possible to save some infants who previously would have been recorded as stillborn. Children born prematurely are more than ordinarily likely to die during infancy (all this new technology is, y'know, new), so the infant mortality statistic goes up. though, so the infant mortality numbers rise on balance. [1] Although autopsies on the Egyptian mummies has shown tha life was pretty horrific back then. People really did die of old age in their 30s and 40s. Even the rich were somewhat malnourished by our standards. Paleopathologists believe that just about everyone carried a whole ecosystem of nasty parasites, and started experiencing symptoms we associate with old age (particularly arteriosclerosis, loss of bone and muscle mass) around 25 years of age. [2] In the developed world, of course.
- DrJokepu 17y ago
  Infant mortality hasn't changed a lot in Western countries since the 1960's. In 1960 it used to be 25 deaths/1000 live births, now it is around 10 but this is nothing compared to 100 in 1915; see http://www.marchofdimes.com/images/ihs_img017.gif http://www.marchofdimes.com/images/ihs_img017.gif
  - lucumo 17y ago
100k 17y ago
People with privileged jobs are always writing crap like this. Why shouldn't people retire? Journalists, programmers, scientists, executives...we have jobs that can be interesting and fulfilling and are not physically demanding. There's no reason to stop unless you want to. News flash: not everyone has an interesting job that they want to keep doing until they drop dead. A lot of people work manual labor, or mind-numbing service jobs. 45 years of that and you'd be ready to retire too. In the Western world at least, our societies are rich enough to support this. I think we should. And almost everyone agrees with me. Check the polls on raising the retirement age.
- ellyagg 17y ago
  I'll check the polls again when the economy collapses under the burden of too generous government benefits.
  - 100k 17y ago
    This is a total fallacy. Medicare costs are rising astronomically, but no more than private health insurance. It is a symptom of the broader health care problem. This needs to be fixed, along with the rest of the health care system. Social Security is only 4.4% of our GDP and is projected to go up to 6.2%. Oh noes! That is a truly minor cost. We CAN afford it.
    - drawkbox 17y ago
      Healthcare is a bubble that has been created by removing the actual costs from the providers and the consumers (until you are outside it and have to pay outside insurance). When healthcare is removed from being tied to employers this market will change dramatically. Healthcare, private IRA accounts, savings etc are all needed today separated from employers as people rapidly change jobs. Social Security isn't actually much of a problem (in fact the gov't uses it for funds all the time) it is Medicare and Medicaid.
      - Retric 17y ago
diN0bot 17y ago
when i get old i just hope my mind stays sharp and i meet the (low) physical requirements for typing at a computer, or am able to learn those new-fangled mind-typers.
DannoHung 17y ago
Bah, you all think too small. Robot Labor and Fabricators my friends! They will revolutionize labor and commerce! Retirement will vanish as work BECOMES leisure! I mean, heck, if we're talking about living until 100 anyway, we ought to think about the technologies of 50 years in the future.
- Dove 17y ago
  I agree. If the cost of labor rises, robots or software will appear in the marginal cases--expensive at first, but not ultimately--and supply, demand, and price will reach equilibrium again. The world is a complex place. It's very silly to look at one piece of the system (people are living longer and having fewer children) and presume that nothing will actively respond to those changes.
vinutheraj 17y ago
Will life expectancy keep on increasing as it is now, I dont think so, because the life expectancy now is dependant on the people who were born a generation before, but considering this generation is getting fatter and fatter, maybe the life expectancy will drop in the future, maybe !
jleyank 17y ago
Everybody saying they're going to work forever must be planning to start their own companies. Today, and I imagine tomorrow, it's rather more difficult to get work when you're past 30-35-40. $GOD forbid if you have a spouse, kids or an outside interest, as you're expensive and tend to work fewer hours. I'm a little past 50 and in my second country chasing work...
Dove 17y ago
The article works from the assumption that government funding defines retirement. This seems silly to me. Even if governments stopped paying old people entirely (unlikely), many would still retire. You're supposed to save for it. I'm certainly not planning to depend on a pension or government handout; they'd be nice if I could depend on them to exist, but why would I want to allow others to control the timing of my retirement or my livelihood? The article also seems to draw the silly conlusion that since people are living longer and having fewer children, retirement will disappear entirely. Really? That might change the cost. Fewer folks might do it, or folks in general might have to do it later in life, but in a world as wealthy as this one, I doubt anything short of Armageddon could eliminate the practice entirely.
known 17y ago
Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2007 were $2.4 trillion. * $1.1 trillion - Individual income tax * $884.1 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes * $260.6 billion - Corporate income tax * $74.6 billion - Excise taxes * $28.1 billion - Customs duties * $23.7 billion - Estate and gift taxes * $48.4 billion - Other The IRS estimated that there were about $345 billion in uncollected taxes. TOTAL SPENDING The President's budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures: * $699.0 billion (+4.0%) - Defense * $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security * $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare * $367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare * $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related * $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt * $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training * $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation * $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits * $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice * $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment * $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs * $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture * $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development * $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology * $23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy * $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

66 points by daviday 17y ago

i have to admit - i don't think i would ever want to retire if i could help it. it would be much too boring, i feel. even if it means being a part-time cashier somewhere, as long as i'm able.

kqr2 17y ago
People always say that, but surely you must have some hobbies that you could pursue that would be equally fulfilling?
- ellyagg 17y ago
  I have hobbies, but none that couldn't earn a buck if positioned right. I yearn for the validation that comes with people voting for my activities with their money.
- noodle 17y ago
  i definitely do, but i don't foresee myself partaking in these hobbies 8+ hours a day, every day in retirement. my major hobbies now are sports related and hacker related. at retirement age, sports won't be so viable and hacker activities will likely be completely different.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

If you are an industrious person you'll get bored an wind up working on another project anyway. better to save money so that you can take mini-retirements in between major career/project shifts. either that or plan on retiring in a country with a cheap standard of living.

pmjordan 17y ago
plan on retiring in a country with a cheap standard of living. I guess that might work if you're set to retire soon. In 30 or 40 years, though, the world may be a sufficiently different place that those countries are either no longer so cheap, or have changed in ways so that you no longer want to live there...
- ellyagg 17y ago
  I doubt picking the actual locale for retirement requires 30 or 40 years of lead time. There's a significant chance countries with attractive costs of living will still exist several decades from now.
  - Retric 17y ago
    The problem is it might end up being the United States.
    - ellyagg 17y ago
      Problem solved then.

wglb 17y ago

My uncle worked for Walmart for many years in his 80s. He credits being on his feet for helping keep his diabetes at bay. Personally, I don't ever expect to "retire". I have a list of projects that is quite long.

edw519 17y ago

Misleading. The life expectancy numbers cited by OP are grossly skewed because of one critical issue: infant mortality. Sure, people are living longer, but not that much longer.

100k 17y ago
Good point. Life expectancy was much higher for those who survived childhood.
mnemonicsloth 17y ago
I'm not so sure it's this simple. The lower life expectancies in recent years were due in part to high infant mortality [1], but my understanding is that infant mortality rates have been low and stable for too long [2] for further decline to completely account for the continuing uptrend in life expectancy we've been seeing. Also, the decline in infant mortality isn't monotonic. Besides making it more likely that sick newborns survive their various conditions, new medical technology also makes it possible to save some infants who previously would have been recorded as stillborn. Children born prematurely are more than ordinarily likely to die during infancy (all this new technology is, y'know, new), so the infant mortality statistic goes up. though, so the infant mortality numbers rise on balance. [1] Although autopsies on the Egyptian mummies has shown tha life was pretty horrific back then. People really did die of old age in their 30s and 40s. Even the rich were somewhat malnourished by our standards. Paleopathologists believe that just about everyone carried a whole ecosystem of nasty parasites, and started experiencing symptoms we associate with old age (particularly arteriosclerosis, loss of bone and muscle mass) around 25 years of age. [2] In the developed world, of course.
DrJokepu 17y ago
Infant mortality hasn't changed a lot in Western countries since the 1960's. In 1960 it used to be 25 deaths/1000 live births, now it is around 10 but this is nothing compared to 100 in 1915; see http://www.marchofdimes.com/images/ihs_img017.gif http://www.marchofdimes.com/images/ihs_img017.gif
- lucumo 17y ago

100k 17y ago

People with privileged jobs are always writing crap like this. Why shouldn't people retire? Journalists, programmers, scientists, executives...we have jobs that can be interesting and fulfilling and are not physically demanding. There's no reason to stop unless you want to. News flash: not everyone has an interesting job that they want to keep doing until they drop dead. A lot of people work manual labor, or mind-numbing service jobs. 45 years of that and you'd be ready to retire too. In the Western world at least, our societies are rich enough to support this. I think we should. And almost everyone agrees with me. Check the polls on raising the retirement age.

ellyagg 17y ago
I'll check the polls again when the economy collapses under the burden of too generous government benefits.
- 100k 17y ago
  This is a total fallacy. Medicare costs are rising astronomically, but no more than private health insurance. It is a symptom of the broader health care problem. This needs to be fixed, along with the rest of the health care system. Social Security is only 4.4% of our GDP and is projected to go up to 6.2%. Oh noes! That is a truly minor cost. We CAN afford it.
  - drawkbox 17y ago
    Healthcare is a bubble that has been created by removing the actual costs from the providers and the consumers (until you are outside it and have to pay outside insurance). When healthcare is removed from being tied to employers this market will change dramatically. Healthcare, private IRA accounts, savings etc are all needed today separated from employers as people rapidly change jobs. Social Security isn't actually much of a problem (in fact the gov't uses it for funds all the time) it is Medicare and Medicaid.
    - Retric 17y ago

diN0bot 17y ago

when i get old i just hope my mind stays sharp and i meet the (low) physical requirements for typing at a computer, or am able to learn those new-fangled mind-typers.

DannoHung 17y ago

Bah, you all think too small. Robot Labor and Fabricators my friends! They will revolutionize labor and commerce! Retirement will vanish as work BECOMES leisure! I mean, heck, if we're talking about living until 100 anyway, we ought to think about the technologies of 50 years in the future.

Dove 17y ago
I agree. If the cost of labor rises, robots or software will appear in the marginal cases--expensive at first, but not ultimately--and supply, demand, and price will reach equilibrium again. The world is a complex place. It's very silly to look at one piece of the system (people are living longer and having fewer children) and presume that nothing will actively respond to those changes.

vinutheraj 17y ago

Will life expectancy keep on increasing as it is now, I dont think so, because the life expectancy now is dependant on the people who were born a generation before, but considering this generation is getting fatter and fatter, maybe the life expectancy will drop in the future, maybe !

jleyank 17y ago

Everybody saying they're going to work forever must be planning to start their own companies. Today, and I imagine tomorrow, it's rather more difficult to get work when you're past 30-35-40. $GOD forbid if you have a spouse, kids or an outside interest, as you're expensive and tend to work fewer hours. I'm a little past 50 and in my second country chasing work...

Dove 17y ago

The article works from the assumption that government funding defines retirement. This seems silly to me. Even if governments stopped paying old people entirely (unlikely), many would still retire. You're supposed to save for it. I'm certainly not planning to depend on a pension or government handout; they'd be nice if I could depend on them to exist, but why would I want to allow others to control the timing of my retirement or my livelihood? The article also seems to draw the silly conlusion that since people are living longer and having fewer children, retirement will disappear entirely. Really? That might change the cost. Fewer folks might do it, or folks in general might have to do it later in life, but in a world as wealthy as this one, I doubt anything short of Armageddon could eliminate the practice entirely.

known 17y ago

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2007 were $2.4 trillion. * $1.1 trillion - Individual income tax * $884.1 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes * $260.6 billion - Corporate income tax * $74.6 billion - Excise taxes * $28.1 billion - Customs duties * $23.7 billion - Estate and gift taxes * $48.4 billion - Other The IRS estimated that there were about $345 billion in uncollected taxes. TOTAL SPENDING The President's budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures: * $699.0 billion (+4.0%) - Defense * $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security * $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare * $367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare * $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related * $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt * $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training * $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation * $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits * $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice * $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment * $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs * $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture * $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development * $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology * $23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy * $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government