

The End of Retirement - daviday
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13900145&source=most_read

======
100k
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
I'll check the polls again when the economy collapses under the burden of too
generous government benefits.

~~~
100k
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
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
US healthcare cost is actually dominated by overhead. Add up malpractice
insurance, medical billing, drug advertizing, insurance companies (more
advertizing, administration, reviewing claims etc.), hospital overhead, and
proft every step of the way. Overhead just dominates heal care spending which
is why Canida has universal heathcare while spending less government money per
person than the US.

~~~
0x44
Canada has also one-tenth the population of the United States. Which is
confined mostly to a 150km corridor on the United States border.

~~~
Retric
I can't help but wonder what inpact you think that would have on heathcare
spending per person.

PS: Most americans live within 150 miles of the ocean.

~~~
0x44
A lower population means less need be spent to provide health-care services
per individual. That three-quarters of the Canadian population living within
150 kilometers (which is approximately 62% the distance of 150 miles) means
that fewer resources need be expended to provide that level of service due to
population density. If we assume that an identical proportion of the United
States population lives within 150 miles of an ocean, that still leaves a
population that is more than twice the total population of Canada in the
interior. Reaching those people with the same standard of service will not
cost as little as the Canadian system.

~~~
Retric
_A lower population means less need be spent to provide health-care services
per individual._ Why? If the average cost of 300 million people was say
5k/year why would the average decrease when only caring for 30 million people?

The US has ~10x the population density of Canada.

    
    
      United States — Population - Density: 31/km2 
      Canada — Population - Density: 3.2/km2
    

And the population density of a state does not really correlate with its
healthcare costs so I think it's a pointless comparison.

PS: You seem to be confusing total cost with average costs.

------
nazgulnarsil
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
_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
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
The problem is it might end up being the United States.

~~~
ellyagg
Problem solved then.

------
wglb
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.

------
noodle
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
People always say that, but surely you must have some hobbies that you could
pursue that would be equally fulfilling?

~~~
ellyagg
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.

------
jleyank
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...

------
DannoHung
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
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.

------
edw519
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.

~~~
DrJokepu
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>

~~~
lucumo
What happened in 1965~1966? It was flat since 1955 or so, and then started to
decrease again.

~~~
DrJokepu
The end of the baby boom, I suppose; the infrastructure was there to take care
of a lot more children but since the number of children dropped and the
infrastructure wasn't donwsized, the quality of care increased. But that's
just a guess.

------
known
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

------
Dove
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.

------
vinutheraj
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 !

------
diN0bot
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.

