The Truth About Aging Boomers' Effect on Our Economy

you can fool the people who want to be fooled... but not everybody is taking the bait...

La Rage- Keny Arkana

Danger - Live Performance by Amir Sulaiman, Spoken Word Artist

"Spoken Word Artist, Amir Sulaiman, who has been featured on HBO's Def Poetry series performs his powerful piece entitled "Danger." This live performance took place in Oakland, CA at the Refinery 4.0 show hosted by Remarkable Current."

The cost of freedom & justice: non-violent resistance.

CBC Ideas: Sick People or Sick Societies?

We are healthier than ever before, & we live longer, but improvements in health are not distributed evenly. The Rich outlive the Middle Classes, who outlive the Poor. Swedes & Japanese live longer than Canadians, & Canadians, longer than Americans.

Freelance journalist Jill Eisen discovers that the reasons have little to do with our health care systems

Part One - 23.9 MB
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Part Two - 24.2 MB -
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)


~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

- joyful travel and a white wine and crab cakes at restaurants
- plentiful pension to draw on
- mega-bucks from selling the house and downsizing to a condo

But retirement will really be like this:
- travel will be curtailed because of the rising cost of fuel, declining dollar and increase in security threat
- restaurants in urban areas will be scary to get to, so nobody will go
- pensions will be killed by run-away inflation
- crashing and deflating housing market will continue and selling the house, or drawing on its equity, will not be the sure-thing people think it is
- nasty health problems from bad diets and lack of exercise

But in a sense, since the Boomers made the mess, they kind of deserve to reap the whirlwind of excrement that they have created.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is found right next-door to Barbara Ehrenreich's article about 'the American consumer's fall'. But if seniors are 'consuming more', would this not be just what Dr Bush and his ilk counted on? They would in fact be producing that very consumption!!

So, as if there were not any more divisions than the general synchronic ones we now find rampant in a ludicrous and fundamentally un-just 'economy', why not add generational conflict into the mix? Somehow, however, I don't think a vast number of seniors will be 'consuming' up to the expectations of the Reaganite and Friedmanesque zealots who currently run the country.

And, as far as 'consumption' goes: it's prudent to be real careful what one is being fed these days -- especially, though not exclusively, in the more symbolic forms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When I was a child, it was quite normal for Mothers to stay at home to look after their children even in the kind of relatively poor working class society in which I was brought up. The income of one parent was sufficient to raise a family. Standards of education and health care were far superior than they are today.

When I was at college, computing was in its infancy, but it was obvious that its development together with process automation would lead to dramatic changes in society. We forecast that this should result - not only in increasing wealth - but also significantly increasing leisure time. The reason seemed simple - many tasks that were currently done by repetetive human labour could now be done automatically by machine.

So what happenned?

Instead of increased leisure time, people are now working much longer hours and it is normal that both parents have to work just to survive.

But how much of this work is of any real benefit to society? In reality - very little. Around 75% of us have become like hamsters on a wheel feeding an enormous bureaucratic machine. The 25% who provide the essential products and services tend to be the worst paid.

Much of the work done by the hamsters - usually people sat in offices in front of a computer screen could be eliminated and no-one would notice the difference.

The reason for this ridiculous state of affairs is one of greed and the god of money. There is also the fundamental belief of governments and society generally that people must be kept busy. It's equivalent to the occupational therapy in mental hospitals.

It doesn't however have to be this way.

It's my generation that has created this mess and sucked in all the wealth for ourselves.

When we were kids - our governments actually paid us to go to university - and even if we didn't it was easy to find a worthwhile, well paid job where we created something of value.

What we have done is to leave our kids with an economic wasteland and very little hope of improvement.

Rather than extending retirement age to 75, it would make more sense to reduce it to 55.

Why sit in an office doing nothing of real value - when you could be doing something that you enjoy.

Society needs to change radically.

We need to get back to creating beautiful things of value that are so good that they are treasured for many years - rather than things designed to fail and be thrown away to pollute the planet.

The only way to progress is to objectively analyse ourselves and see the crazy things we do and ask ourseleves - Why are we doing this?

Our kids should hate us for being so selfish, neglecting them and screwing up the world. It's our kids who are going to have to clear up our mess.

It's about time we resigned, gave up our power and give them that chance.

They can hardly make a worse job then we have done though they appear to have been programmed to do exactly that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you, John Shoven, for a very readable article. Never having been to the U.S., I cannot say anything relevant about the American economy, but can only speak from personal experience.
Since I retired, perforce, 8 years ago at the age of 60, my life has certainly changed. After working in an office for, in total, nearly 40 years, I had to devote myself more consciously to developing my own resources. I taught English for 3 years until I was told I was told I was too old for that, and now spend most of my time on Japanese-English translation, various kinds of rewriting and editing work, writing articles, in Japanese, for specialist journals, occsionally giving talks, etc. I take work that I think I will enjoy doing, and at least in my experience, when I submit work with which people are completely satisfied, and I have never yet found anyone who was not satisfied, one job generally leads to another. When I go away for a few days, and unless I make a very conscious effort that I am going to take a few days off, every day very soon becomes a working day, I can go at midweek when roads are less crowded and hotels are comparatively cheaper. I don't think my consumption habits have changed except that I think, and hope, that I have become rather more discerning. When my health begins to fail, as one day it will, I will again have to reevaluate my life, but so far, post-retirement life is reasonably pleasurable. I am content.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is the author implying that with the new age formula people will be working longer? I personally found the age adjustment concept mildly absurd as it provides little assistance regarding the socio-economic changes that are about to occur. I do agree that the dire forecasts of the economy being destroyed because of the baby boomers quite ridiculous but for a different reason. While it is true that retirees consume more but produce less at the most concrete level, the money they spend on what they consume is from their "surplus" production while still working. They produced enough (hopefully) during the working years or their employers set aside a portion of their production value to be used later (pensions, IRA etc).

The concept of suplus production does not work when considering Social Security. However, the social security 'problem' is actually a red herring. It can be easily solved, with but a modecum of will on the part of the government. But that is a different tirade.

peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fellow Boomers, let's face it - best thing we could do for our kids and the planet is to die early. I'd say around 60 or so. And by the way, that would also be a very nice way to stick it to the Man one last time -- the system, after all, can't wait to get us all lined up as cash cows and feed off us for the next thirty years, keeping us alive with advanced techs as our quality of life deteriorates and collecting all our assets in medical and insurance fees. (Not to mention all the vultures and hyenas waiting to rip us off with increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes.) F*ck 'em, say I - I know where there's a great party going on, and it's not here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For a long time now we've been indoctrinated to disrespect the older generation (especially since Madison Ave. co-opted 60's youth rebellion tropes), so this is a major part of the attitude about boomers now.

Another thing might be that resentment is currently brewing among the first generation en masse that will experience declining living standards in decades, and this animosity will be directed toward parents and elders, even though that's not entirely fair.

I don't believe there's a concerted effort to chastise a whole age group, but I do know that some garish retirees with bumper stickers that read "I'm spending my grandkid's inheritance!" are not helping to build bridges either. Such commentary is suspiciously applicable to deeper issues relating to other things than money: the state of the ecology, the lack of concern for water and other resources, and the social paranoia that has worsened recently.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It seems to me that the Baby Boomers can put their retirement time to serious thinking and action. THey can try to figure out alternatives to the "same as it's always been" and become advocates for progressive causes. Just because the bodies are aging doesn't mean that the brains can't think. This Baby Boomer generation does understand about corporate control and can remember when there used to be the idealism that sparked the Make Love Not War movement and the protests to end Viet Nam. Maybe the Obama movement and the Baby Boomers can join forces to make this a better world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article is interesting and seems correct. But I was quite confused
that the writer didn't tackle the important question regarding
productivity and work capability. What I mean is it isn't really
relevant that people are living longer and can live longer --- that is
not disputed. What matters if all these all "older" people can and/or
will work. If they can't or won't work and thus contribute to
the economy on the generation side of income, then they will have
to be supported in some way and put a drain on the economy. So
what matters is at what age people stop doing "productive" work
and need to get supported. If that increases at roughly
the same rate that people's mortality rates are going down at
a fixed age (in years), the the author's point seems correct. Otherwise, it there is a serious logical gap.

To be very clear, take a hypothetical: say everyone over 70 gets
alzheimers and becomes incapable of work and must be supported.
Advances in medical technology mean that we can keep such
people living for much longer times --- thus longevity has
increased a lot but the number of workers and work hours
has not increased. On the other hand, if the 70 years olds can
keep woking in McDonald's/Walmart/wherever as well as younger
workers, then they don't need to be supported and there should
be no major disaster. Just a caricature, but to drive the point home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But, in order to increase the profits to Wall Street, the EMPLOYER, at the behest of the wealthy/people who run the government, gave 'autonomy' to the employee by creating 401Ks and all the other numbers and letters. IT also made it much easier to accommodate the workers that had to job hop to get ahead...and to deal with the fact that there's no more company loyalty, because the companies aren't loyal.

Then, it became MUCH easier, if a company still had a retirement system, to just declare bankruptcy and tell all those retirees and soon-to-bes that--tough luck!! No money (that you worked for) for YOU!! It all went to a multi-million dollar bonus for everybody on the board and in the top management ranks. And the government smiled on THAT, too.

Now, let's re-align those life expectancy numbers with reality. People that do PHYSICAL labor?? Don't live that long past retirement. Lots of them don't get TO retirement "whole". Yeah, a paper-pusher might not be worn out at 65, but you can bet your bottom dollar that a laborer will be. And it's actually a damn good thing, because he/she won't be able to live on the pittance that Social Security is for the 'lesser' classes...you know, the guys that can't afford "investments" because they worked damn hard to afford to stay alive, maybe raise their kids and even dare to educate them.

Those who perform hard physical labor have much, MUCH more early disability. They also HAVE to keep working, because the government has now broken the disability system (See?? It doesn't work!! Abolish Social Security!! It doesn't even work for the disabled!! The system is broken--they know that because THEY broke it.) Any reason WHY?? Yep. More for the wealthy.

THAT is the problem. The excesses of the greedy have pushed me from a fiscally conservative social liberal to the edge of socialism. I wouldn't go as far as the old 60's rallying cry of "Eat the rich" though. I'm not sure that eating something that spoiled, rank and self-indulgent would be a healthy thing to do.

And remember, just because YOUR social circle want to "drink white wine and eat crabcakes" it doesn't mean that everyone does. Most of REAL America would like to retire and just be allowed to relax. There IS a whole country full of folks with hardly the money to live, and lots that never had it, never will. They deserve to retire, too, preferably before they die.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rug is being pulled out from under their feet too!
The whole Corpirate System is geared for
Divide and conquer.
They blame everything they did wrong on someone else.
Usual a poor slob, Patsy or Bag man.

Who stole all the money?
Who lied and started the Iraq War?
Who are the Propagandists?
That can get every Talking Head in The Faux Media to sing the same song?
Over and over again.

Who is this bunch of Lying, Stealing, Torturous, Hypocrites?
BUSH & Co. that’s who!
It’s a
Bush/Cheney
Halliburton/Carlyle
Stinking
WAR!

A Corpirate Crime Syndicate is ravaging this Country.
One huge Mega Conglomerate with interlocking board rooms that:
Rule from the top down.
With an Iron Fist.
Shoved right up your a-s.

The whole system is jaded and corrupt.

The largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
And nobody knows anything about it.
It’s Highway Robbery without a Mask!
Is happening right now under your very noses.
Wealth and power stolen from the people
By the Corpirates!

No shots were fired,
Even thou a thousand
Banks were Robbed,
The Police never looked
For the missing Gold.

No body did a thing to stop them.
The Faux Media included.
They all are implicated in the crime.

The C.E.O.’s just transferred ownership of the Corporations.
To themselves.
All for me and none for you.
Nice gig if you can get it.
Writing blank checks
To yourself.

Then they fired everybody and shipped their jobs overseas.
So they could steal even more.
Greed is a cancer.
It is devouring everything.

Tax cuts to the top 1/10 of 1%
How does that make sense?
It does if you run the Government.
A Tax break to yourself.

To the thousand Billionaires that already own everything.
Do these Rich bass-turds really need another break?
The Corpirate System based on GREED is victimizing us
Our families and our neighbors.

This is the Evil we must face.
Greed is what we must stop before
There is nothing left.
Except the Crying.

The Boomers are getting killed just like the rest of us.
Welcome to Mickey Dees and Walfart.
So convenient having all the working poor, old people
In one place.

These are just a few of the problems
Facing us:
Price gouging,
Low wages,
High inflation,
Prohibitively expensive Education costs,
No Health Care,
Higher Taxes,
(Especially locally since the Shrub has stop funding education, while saddling our schools with ‘The All children left behind mandate’ making followers instead of problem solvers).
Catastrophic fuel costs,
Expensive Drugs,
Perspicuous Debt
And a
Vanishing Dollar.

The Country is falling apart and Treasury is empty!
The end Result of all this Corpirate Looting:
A Mountain of Debt higher than Mount Everest!
That goes to the Moon and back ten times over.
We are inheriting a
Ten Trillion Dollar stack of
I O U s
While Dick and The Shrub
Laugh all the way to the Bank!

And what do we have to show for all this Debt, Pain and Suffering?
Millions Dead,
A Privatized Military
Prisons,
Torture,
Treason,
Concentration Camps,
A Dark Army,
And
A never ending WAR.

Our nuts are in a vice
and
Dead Eye Dick and The Shrub are
Turning the Handle.

Having fun yet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"a 65-year-old man in 1940 could expect to live an additional 11 years, a 65-year-old woman another 15 years. But medical advances have shifted mortality risks enormously. When an American man hits 65 today, his mortality risk is just 2 percent; he can expect to live nearly 17 more years. He has the same risk of dying that year as a 56-year-old man did in 1940 or a 59-year-old man in 1970. In other words, a 65-year-old today and a 59-year-old in 1970 are the same "real" age. The effect with women is similar. A 70-year-old American woman today has about the same mortality risk as a 65-year-old woman did in 1950."

Please, notice how convoluted this paragraph is: Read carefully, and what you see is, a man in the United States Life Expectencey is now 7 YEARS long, and a womens is 5 YEARS longer!!
The Social Security Retirement Age, has already been Increased!!
Working longer should be a Choice! It certainly makes a Big difference, what kind of work you do! This guy sits at home, or in an office, and types or reads for a living! Try laying down tarmac, or smoothing cement in 140 degree heat, at 70!
Instead, more and more persons over 40 are finding they're discriminated against when applying for jobs! Layed-off because they've worked their way up to a higher wage brackett, and they're let go, so the Corporation can hire a younger person who will/can (fewer obligations) work for less! Or import a foreigner with these visa's who'll work for half the pay!!

Tell idiots, like this, and your Federal Senators & Representative: They borrowed the money in the Social Security Trust Fund, and just like any other debt you or I have, They have to pay back what they owe!!US, the American Citizens that contributed that money!

Take the cap ($97,000) off Social Security Income that's taxed, make Everyone pay on ALL their Income, not just the poor and middle-class!! Start making Corporations pay their fair share, most pay little or no Income Tax! No Government Contracts, to any company that doesn't pay United States taxes, and hire's Americans, and do all or most of the work! This is our tax dollars, going to Companies (like KBR, Haliburton) that put their headquarters off-shore to avoid taxes!!

Tell these "ME" Generation, Yuppie's to keep their hands off our Social Security Trust Fund! (Anyone still laughing about Al Gore's Lockbox??)

One of Barack Obama's three top economic adviser's: a Jeffery Liebman, you can google him, has a Plan to Privatize Social Security and thru accounting methods reduce Social Security Beneifits by 45%!! On Barack's own web-site he has a section Entittled: Private Retirement Accts. Sound familar?? It should it's the same plan that Bush tried to do!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a boomer within striking distance of Social Security I fully agree with "stabilizing retirement years". My parents, the 'greatest generation' got an incredible free ride. They worked for many years with very low payments into the system, used up their contributions in under 5 years and then retired for many years on money borrowed from their decendants.

My generation has the strength to work productively into their 70's and the likelyhood of kicking back till 100. The system needs to recognise this. To a small extent it has and I think my retirement age is something like 66 1/2 not 65. But I think that age needs to be pushed more, a couple of months a year until the retirement age is actuarially adjusted to a reasonable retirement period of ? say 15 to 20 years (work 50 retire 20 is something like work 5 days for a two day weekend).

The elephant in the corner is medicare. I've read estimates medicare will cost us 4-6 times social security over the next 75 years. There we need a systemic change not an age change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"If they can't or won't work and thus contribute to the economy on the generation side of income, then they will have to be supported in some way and put a drain on the economy"

The "they" your referring to, gave YOU life, feed you, clothed you, and educated YOU!! The obviously, 'selfish, greedy, 'ME' Generation', not only that, but in the 80's WE realized this was going to be a problem! WE, doubled the contributions going into Social Security, forming the 'Trust Fund' out of OUR contributions!!

Because YOUR generation, doesn't want to pay their fair share of the taxes, that provide for all of the benefits YOU enjoyed, like good enfrastructure, good schools, police, fire departments, roads, student loans, a military to defend YOU, National Institute of Health, to predict and prevent communicative diseases!

YOUR, generation has stolen/'borrowed' the money out of OUR Trust Fund!! Now, your trying to get out of paying it back!!

YOUR, stealing the money from hard working Americans, entering 'Old Age', who disabled or widows, and orphans!! How Greedy are YOU???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If people learn to take control of their death the same way we should control our life.

I have a great aunt who doesn't really want to be alive anymore but goes through painful dialysis three times a week anyway to stay alive just a little bit longer out of ...pride maybe - I really don't know why, she is a strong woman so I don't think she is afraid of death. She goes to one of those places where there is a row of dialysis machines and the beds are always full... I saw the place once and immediately got the idea that, without intervention, a person will be kept alive until their money runs out... whether they like it or not.

We will be alright if people learn to take control of their death.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That might be where we are headed. Here's a nice narrative of what that might be like, published in 1861:

"Slaveholders have a method, peculiar to their institution, of getting rid of old slaves, whose lives have been worn out in their service. I knew an old woman, who for seventy years faithfully served her master. She had become almost helpless, from hard labor and disease. Her owners moved to Alabama, and the old black woman was left to be sold to any body who would give twenty dollars for her."

As far as Social Security goes, it was set up in 1935 as part of Roosevelt's New Deal, to the howls of Wall Street (who responded by deepening their ties to the fascist pro-corporate monopoly regimes of Germany and Italy).

The basic notion that inspired the New Deal was that a country can't survive half rich and half poor, half boom and half bust. He was also totally opposed to the corporate cartel socialism of the day, exemplified by I.G. Farben's alliance with Hitler in Nazi Germany and with Standard Oil of New Jersey in the U.S. That's why Roosevelt is still hated by Wall Street today.

What happened in the Depression is very similar to what happened today - massive unregulated financial speculation, followed by banks seizing mass amounts of private property in order to cover their debts.

In today's world, you have Bush giving new Federal low-cost loans to the banks, while he chuckles to himself about the fact that he and all his cronies in corporate finance (Bush's #1 sponsor) are making out like bandits while more and more Americans lose their homes.

Of course, it's mostly boomers losing their homes. The high cost of U.S. health care, plus the fact that age tends to increase medical bills, means that many people pulled second mortgages to pay medical bills, putting them in an exposed position - leading to bankruptcy and foreclosure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My father is seventy, and he still works full time, and barring a sudden downturn in his health or accident, he will go on doing so. He also babysits his two grandsons several hours a week.
I have noticed that a lot workers now, are older. I would say that about half the bus drivers in my city are over fifty, and about half of these are of retirement age. And of the younger bus drivers, about half are minorities.
I read somewhere that the age of the average nurse in my country is forty-eight. Attending a hospital appointment a couple of months back, I noticed that many of the nurses would have been over sixty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Boomers have got to be the most selfish. With the debt created by boomers you are basically saying to your kids and grandkids, "I know I am fisting you up the a** but stop your whining, I like it." Screw you too!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article really is an attempt to justify the absurd notion that people over 65 should have to work because they live longer. Good god...

Social Security is insolvent. So obviously whether we like it or not, everyone is going to have to work longer. But lets be clear why this is so. It is because the dumbed down yuppies of today care more about their petty trinkets and their petty ego-stroking and their petty tv shows and their petty fashions and every other aspect of their shallow sad pathetic lives than they do about their parents and grandparents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Social Security and pensions are going to disappear either through bankruptsy or hyperinflation. So the question is, how are seniors going to keep themselves physically and mentally prepared to do this (and simultaneously fight massive, pervasive age discrimination).

I'm 66 and worked one time as a tech and educational writer. After passing age 50 I had virtually no chance of getting work in my profession, skills or talent not being an issue at all. (My survival came from successful investing.)

As it turns out, I have a better chance of becoming a karate instructor than getting anything in my old occupations (seriously).

On the other hand, the poorly educated, marginally skilled college grads of today aren't going to be very competitive in the Depression that's looming on the horizon. At some point talent to actually produce something may trump age and office politics!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Although I earn 6 times the combined earnings of both my parents (who were professionals), the cost of living has been enormously magnified over the past 50 years. It is not likely I shall ever collect S.S. or even think about retirement(I don[t even dare to dream about it anymore). Several of my friends have attempted to retire, only to have gone through their entire savings in less than 2 years just affording the no-frills essentials of daily existence. So much for baby boomers bankrupting the system. If anyone bankrupts S.S, it will be the illegal goverment borrowing from it to pay for our endless and increasingly expensive and illicit occupation of soverign nations and the murder of hundreds of thousands of its citizens for no reason ... Now that's an expensive proposition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As mortality rates fall, morbidity rates rise. People who live longer get sick more.

This article tells nothing of an impending fiscal crisis--only about what is "old."

A waste of time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm 10 or 15 years ahead of the 'boomers'. But since my 'retirement' my social and environmental activism has been much more truely productive than anything I was ever paid for in my limited experience with the rat race. But since I've lived a low-stress life, therefore still in good health, maybe I can't say I'm "elderly".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In order for the extended lives of baby boomers to have any effect on employment rates, obviously they have to keep working - darn near all of them, in fact, not just the minority who happen to have fulfilling careers they just can't bear to leave.

BUT - that generation, the generation that has been paying into social security their whole lives, the generation that works for companies with mandatory retirement ages - the generation that is experiencing age discrimination- that generation has wholeheartedly accepted/absorbed the "retire at 65" meme, and count themselves lucky if they get to retire earlier. They are never going to just say, "I feel healthy, guess I won't retire until 70". Not unless they have to, which as some posters have pointed out, is a unfortunate reality, but hopefully those folks are in the minority (does anybody have any numbers on that?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Mom is still working, at age 76. She works part time at a gift shop. She gets a small SS check and a share of Dad's navy retirement (they're divorced). My Dad doesn't work. He gets SS, the rest of his Navy retirement, and is married to a younger woman who is still working. I got a medical disability retirement from the Army 6 years ago. My monthly check pays for the basics, but I qualify for and live in low-income housing. After I finish school, I will be finding work because I want to own my own house someday, and my pension won't cover a mortgage. If there is anything left in the SS account when I get to be that age, great! If not, I'm studying organic agriculture. As long as I have some good soil and access to clean water, I'll be able to feed myself. Social Security was designed to be a safety net, to supplement personal savings and job pensions, a bit of extra money in case of real emergencies. That so many people have come to rely on it reflects badly on our economy and sadly on our culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In America, we have to look at the tremendous amount of resources that are being consumed by war, the military and the national security infrastructure. America's military budget exceeds the defense budgets of all the other countries in the world combined. The Iraq war, estimated to go as high at $5 trillion, would be money that could have funded Medicare and social programs for decades to come. Not only that, the war spiked the price of oil and will lead to further instability, the ultimate cost of this fiasco is incalculable trillions. The American "fixation" on national security robs her sick and her old people of their taxes and is a cancer on the entire society. Not only that, it creates the grounds and pretext for more wars and more useless military and defense spending. America has made her choice to go with the military, to protect the industries of wealthy defense contractors. It is her people, old and young that are paying the price.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

..to fund the sceanrio described by the first poster.

The rest of us will work until age 75, unless we cannot due to disability.

But some of us, who are childless, should be able to get Social Security dollars funded by those children whose education our tax dollars funded, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When you stop working, there's less money. Most will not live the lifstyle seen in magazines, and living longer does not mean living better. A second vacaton home, well maybe. But don't count on it. The vicarious living that has taken over the country is coming to an end. Most of us are not rich but manage to live a good life. Regretting what you don't have is not a prescription for a happy retirement. Get real! ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"When the U.S. Social Security system was designed seven decades ago, the 65-year mark was deemed the moment when Americans moved "beyond the productive period" and into dependency. That age was chosen based on mortality risk: a 65-year-old man in 1940 could expect to live an additional 11 years, a 65-year-old woman another 15 years."

Not only would I love to see documentation of this little factoid, before that I'd like a better explanation of why it matters in the first place. As arbitrary as choosing 65 for retirement-age might seem, it's no less arbitrary to say this age was chosen because of so-called mortality-risk, especially given the wildly uninteresting numbers given.

"It doesn't mean shortening retirements, just stabilizing them."

Herein lies the bullshit. You can smell the back-peddling, as Shoven realizes that he made an utterly untenable argument for the acceptance of shorter retirements. Not that I think the current model of work-work-retire-die is worth much, a step in the wrong direction is still a step in the wrong direction. What's particularly suspect about the whole article, coming to ahead with the above quotation, is that Shoven makes the bogus argument that retirement ages were already based on mortality-rates, not the apparently fixed and conventional years-since-birth, so we should adopt a "new measurement of age." Oh, how convenient that it ends up squeezing more work out of the little bit of extra life (on average) we seem to have accrued with advances in medical science and social services. I wonder who gets to decide these mortality-rates.

Shoven is an unabashed apologist for a Capitalist system that won't be happy, by definition cannot be happy, until it owns every last second of your life. I hope Alter-Net puts his articles up as cannon-fodder and not examples of serious journalism. If anything, Shoven's arguments regarding increased mortality rates glosses over a huge condition making that possible: people living increasingly dominated, if at least longer, lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For S.S. Malthusians
In the same line as recognizing S.S. retirement may end up a REVERSE Ponzi scheme -- each retiring generation being potentially able to soak even more benefits in absolute terms out of their youngsters then they paid to their oldsters (based on average income more than doubling over a working life span) -- and especially after S.S. retirement settles down to a steady (6-7%) cut of GDP (about 40 years from now)...

...Social Security retirement AGE -- if sanely set; not like in the Moynihan-Malthusian debacle of the eighties -- may actually come DOWN with each succeeding generation. :-O Of course, this will depend on the relative voting power of the oldsters (which will increase for the next 40 years ;-]).

MORE for S.S. Malthusians:
I have finally figured out that there is one word to cover Social Security panickers and most of Republican so-called economics: Malthusian. These folks missed out on the industrial revolution or something. CBO says S.S. retirement will rise from 4% to 6-7% of GDP in 40 odd years -- by which time average income will double (not even counting higher tech products for the same price: "flying cars" whenever they get here). Sounds like it will be a tough era to fly through.

Since so much formerly taxable income has shifted out of FICA cap range during the last half of S.S.'s existence, due to the rise in so-called "inequality" (a weak term if you ask me for the wage rape that has been happening) -- assuming we don't get inequality ironed out we can just remove the cap altogether (not just up it a bit -- that would not recapture the income stream that has moved to the top few percent of earners, overwhelmingly to the top one percent -- "rape" might to tough a term since American labor has mostly let it happen to itself via lack of interest or ignorance about bargaining power.)

Even medical costs are not going up for the same product. If medical costs double it is generally because we are now buying the equivalent of two cars instead of one, both of which have more modern options. Rather buy a bigger house than survive a formerly incurable cancer: go right ahead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article implies that Americans live dramatically longer lives, although we are suspiciously left off of the list of those having increased the percentages. That's because the average life expectancy for an American man is still only 78. For a woman - it's a mere one year longer. While it's true that life expectancy is better worldwide, it has almost nothing to do with American life expectancy - we don't even really factor into the equation.

So why try to argue that we live a little longer and can work longer? I've lost 5 relatives in the past year - all of them under 80 and most having suffered serious illnesses before death. The argument that they could have kept working till they were 82 is ludicrous (using Shoven's 65+17 retirement target for the new and improved longer-life male).

It's probably true that we don't have to go into scare tactic mode about the boomers - there will likely be adjustment factors. And let's not kid ourselves - many of them are wealthy - if they have grown fat in the age of corporate excess, shouldn't they just be responsible for themselves?

And there is a possible upside: for skilled older X-ers (40-somethings) who are currently underpaid, stranded with no retirement savings to speak of, in outrageously expensive cities and left with little bargaining leverage in the job market, the mass exodus of boomers out of the work force - in particular - management positions - could mean a leveraging for American laborers. When boomers finally do retire - the ensuing labor shortage just might make the American job worth having again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]