What's surprising is the direction of the change. The motivation has been there for a long time.

Kevin, there aren't many issues where I agree with you rather than Prof. Reynolds, but I totally see this one your way.

Incidentally, based on a small sample, in many cases husbands seem to be retiring earlier than wives. The men seeem to feel that they've done their share. The women in their early sixties often entered the work force later than their husbands. They aresn't as ready to leave the work force.

I find it amazing that they can afford to. It's not as if a Wal-Mart checker or an accounts-payable clerk is likely to be a 401(k) millionaire or have a fat pension. And such savings as they've got are going to have to stretch out a long time. I plan to retire at 70--partly because I like my job, but also because I can't imagine being able to afford retirement at age 62.

[banned commenter. content deleted.]

There's also the common happening of senior employees being laid off. I was laid off exactly on my 62nd birthday. I was totally surprised that I could not get even an interview for several months of looking for jobs, so I finally decided to retire. I suspect this happens in the private sector more often than in, say, academia.

[banned commenter. content deleted.]

I'm 61, and I have no intention of retiring, ever.

Retirement is for people who hate what they do.

Well, if you are an engineer, by the time you are in the fifties, you are perceived to be so overpriced that you either retire or start as afresh at lower paying job.

There are no good jobs for people over fity five unless they are already in management.

Forgot to mention, I also own the company, so I can't be kicked out.

"ex-liberal" wrote: Kevin, there aren't many issues where I agree with you rather than Prof. Reynolds

Big surprise.

Of course, that's one of your problems, you mendacious neocon hack.

Lurker wrote: Some people, Kevin, have work ethic and enjoy their jobs.

Yeah..."ex-liberal" keeps posting here, after all, despite the fact that a normal person would be too ashamed to continue.

My own families experience is exactly the opposite. Those that have been lower class, with more hourly jobs or manual labor have tended to retire later (except for my own father). My grandmother who cleaned houses retired at 80.

They need this money and don't have the savings or the pension (like your example of a Wal-Mart worker) that the corporate types do.

On the other side, those that have had corporate jobs (again except for my father who will retire at 68 or 70) have tended to retire (taking lucrative buyout offers) much earlier. Even as early as their 50s, while perhaps doing some consulting on the side. I think that the boomers are retiring earlier because of ageism, a changing sense of what retirement means (i.e. that you can continue to do 10-15 hours of high paid consulting a week, from your golf resort condo), and modern white collar jobs tendency to "right size."

The people retiring recently are the babies of the mid-1940's. They mostly - until just within the last decade - had steady jobs. They watched their home and other assets appreciate strongly as the baby boomers followed them, buying homes and stocks (stocks as part of their pensions that their employer provided) and pushing the prices up. These folks can afford to retire at 62.

Mid-boomers like myself (b. 1956) saw a bit less of this. We have pensions only if we are lucky enough to have a high-value employer, many do not. Our assets have gone up, but a bit less than those who were at the leading edge of the demographic wave.

The later generations - Gen X or Y or whatever it's called now - don't have any of this. It's IRAs and defined-contribution plans for these people, if they even have that.

So I personally expect that classical "retirement" will have to phase out by the 2040's to handle the justifiably disillusioned younger cohort. Why does Social Security make you choose - 62 versus 65 - anyway, when a lot of retirees I see are still working? Life should not have such a forced discontinuity placed on it. Working in old age will almost certainly become more necessary as life expectancy increases, and the definition of "work" will certainly change (Kevin, what do you put on your 1040 form under "occupation" -- Blogger?) Social Security should kick in gradually starting at 62 and not have any restrictions on employment for recipients.

Kevin's dead on. Surveys show that fewer than one third of those employed enjoy what they do. Given the nature of most jobs, what's the surprise? Most people look forward to not having to drag their ass to work anymore.

It's not just tastes, but *policies* that are driving this. So-called "ageism" is a reflection of 1) high benefits costs for older workers because health is tied to employment, and 2) a reluctance of older workers to take pay cuts as they become less productive after, say, 55. Some might call this "age-ism", but I don't.

Further, early retirement is driven by the enormous government handouts to the elderly. I don't mean the poor elderly, but the elderly in general. Medical care, SocSec, the Medications bill, and on and on.

As another commenter noted, many people have *always* disliked their jobs; in fact, in the past most people worked industrial jobs where they were physically unable to work into their 60s. This is not really the case today, but today we have a system of government-created incentives encouraging retirement, and a social meme telling people that once they've put in their 30 or 40 years, they ought be supported by other people. I don't think this is a good thing.

Ah, Kevin.

Here we see another insidious byproduct of your prescious Social Security.

People retiring too early. Then they have no savings when they retire, so their forced to live of the state, like a welfare queen. In my eyes, their no better.

Its all about inventives. If we could have given these people freedom to invest their ssn like Bush wanted, they'd be better incentivized to work and be productive for the economy.

I've already retired at 62 with Social Security, three other pensions, an annuity purchased with funds from a salary deferral plan, full coverage from two Kaiser Health plans and three dental plans. How did I do it? I worked for three government agencies during my last 15 working years after spending many previous years making payments into Social Security alone. If you want to retire at 62 become a bureaucrat!

If you're a Biblical literalist, you know that work is a punishment, imposed on man, through Adam, for sin. Retirement is closer to our original state of bliss.

I suspect, like those noting the fact above, that for many people it's just not possible to work into their 60s. Nobody wants them around.

Look at George Bush, for example.

fyreflye, thank you.

This is one of my pet peeves. The disconnect between us average people and the government bureaucrat level. Health care coverage has deteriorated for almost the whole nation and I have googled without being able to turn up the coverage of our Congress people. And the coverage for government workers, whether federal, state or local, seems to be rolled into the budget with complete disregard to what the "market" is doing.

Yes, I feel disenfranchised.

My husband was forced to retire at age 60. He spent 2 years looking for work without a single interview. My work supported us until he qualified for social security at age 62. He didn't want to stop working. He had no choice. AARP surveys routinely show that the large majority of retired persons would prefer to be working but have few options. Until there is no age discrimination, you cannot say anything about whether older workers are retiring by choice instead of necessity. I am surprised that so few people understand this, but when you are younger you don't expect this to happen to you -- you assume you are too valuable to be let you.

Egbert, not to be personal, since I do not know you--but how naive of you. Back in 2005 Bush said his proposed private accounts would grow fast enough to provide a better return than the present system. He can predict how the market will perform in the future?
Do you think Halliburton would be awarded the contract to administer this massive effort?
Bwa ha ha ha ha

I find this amazing, too. The way costs in cities, like rent or property taxes (let alone health care), can rise way above the general inflation rate, leave so many behind. And then what? Stuck on social security and minimal savings, how do these people survive? And with what quality? And who picks up the tab?

For you guys and gals who want to know how long you might live here is your expectancy.

"This is one of my pet peeves. The disconnect between us average people and the government bureaucrat level."

Mine too. As much as I believe that government has useful role in society and shouldn't be demonized, bureaucrats work no harder than the rest of society and should get compenstated in a similar manner. I've known a number of long-time bureaucrats around DC and many despised their jobs but hung on because of the cushy retirement benefits. Aside from the cost of those cushy benefits, how can it be good for the rest of society for the government to employ people who hate their jobs? If everyone had defined contribution plans people would be much more free to move to jobs they enjoy, and probably be much more productive in them.

I wonder how much of this retirement is voluntary: my great aunt, a sales associate or whatever they call clerks these days, and my father-in-law, a janitor, were both canned before they turned 65 to screw them out of retirement benefits.

When I hear the pundits say that the obvious solution to social security's financial problems is for everyone to work an extra five or six years, I wish they would consult not economists and academics, but roofers and cement finishers about how they would like to put in an extra half decade.

As David Gergen noted in his special report "The Danger of Drift," with medical inflation more than 3 times as high as general inflation,
health costs have risen to 16 percent of gross domestic product and are heading toward an unsustainable 20 percent.
Budget surpluses squandered...Gergen says we have built twin towers: budget debt and trade debt.
"Economists keep warning us they are unsustainable, and our political leaders keep whistling past the graveyard."

Read his sobering article in US News and World Report May 29, 2006. A keeper.

The median retirement age must be considered with goverment enployees that retire after 20-25 years of service. These are not people that are 65-70 years old.

consider wisely: health costs have risen to 16 percent of gross domestic product and are heading toward an unsustainable 20 percent.

I don't see why it's unsustainable to devote 20% of GDP to health care instead of 16%. That means that non-health care goes from 80% to 76%. But, GDP per person is rising, so 76% of some future GDP could easily be more than 80% of the current GDP.

Look at it another way. We're a rich country. What's more important than one's health? I prefer to spend my disposable income on better health. Particuarly as I get older, doctors and pills and medical treatments do me more and more good.

But it isn't all about you, ex-liberal.
45 million people do not have health insurance.
And the Government Accountability Office says Medicaid will increase 166% and Medicare 331% by 2030.

First, I have only been here a little over a year, but it is nice to see some new names and hear older voices.

Second, when the usual stooges such as egbert bring it up, it is best to remember why social security came about. It was to give a government backed social guarantee to people within a failed economy.

Those who tell you this will never happen again are the same people who told you markets had entered a "new paradym" just before the internet crash, that gold and silver were a buy before the bubble burst in '80-81, and who, through their ignorance, think they can see the future.

That, through history, is where the wrecks are littered, including Iraq now.

Personally, I need a miracle if I can retire at all unless this country changes its direction.

Notthere: I was lucky enough to stay in a job with a defined pension plan, a contributory program, and a deferred compensation program. Now only 1 in 6 workers have a pension plan.
Personal savings rates are minus 1% right now. In the 80's people saved 11%, now it is minus 1.

...But, GDP per person is rising, so 76% of some future GDP could easily be more than 80% of the current GDP....

Posted by: ex-liberal on May 12, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal exposes his math. If health care costs are rising at above 10% per year and the economy grows at 3-4% per year (when good), even before the bulk of the "boom" hits, the 80+% never becomes 76%, dimwit. 20% is just a mile marker to higher levels!

Oh! And why the "," after "but".

consider wisely, you are one of the saner voices around here. Doesn't it say something about the success of our society when health coverage, defined benefits, and hireability of older workers are all declining? Education and opportunity, too?

I really think we are on an anti-social, fragmented society trend. Your thoughts?

And another thing, never-ever, you don't spend money on health. You eat less, you eat right, and you walk to the store and back. Or bicycle. Or, if really pushed, do not find the parking space closest to the door.

The not so hidden explosion in health costs is going to be our very unfit youth of today. I don't understand what parents think they are doing for their kids when they accept obesity in sub-teens. Or later.

Things were great in the 90's but really have gone sour in the Bush/Cheney years. Cost of gasoline, college affordability, out of pocket health care costs...job security is an issue for many people. The scandal of veterans' health care. All the rolling up their sleeves and looking like they're working photo ops this administration presents in an orwellian way instead of actually governing. It is frightening.
How uncaring the Republican government revealed itself as the poor, disabled and elderly languished for 5 days with not so much as a sandwich after the hurricane in New Orleans. That is forever burned into my consciousness.
I'm no whiny pessimist by any means, but corporate profits are astronomical and many people are barely making ends meet.
The lack of checks and balances on the republican administration the past six years has really been a problem--corruption, cronyism, fraud, a costly illegal war and occupation. Squandering the surpluses of the Clinton years, amassing enormous debt--it is worrisome

Not everyone who is "retiring" at 62 and drawing the lowest amount of SS, is actually retiring. They are drawing their SS and working at least 20 hours a week in order to qualify for health insurance. I know several in the Portland, OR area who are doing this. A few work at New Seasons markets, a fine organic and locally sustainable food supplier. If you work at least 20 hours, you qualify for full medical.

In order to do this, one must carefully monitor their earnings. If you earn over $12,960 per year, then your SS will be cut.

Ain't no gravy train, but it does provide other options.

c.w. -- I actually see this as a longer term trend in US society, probably since Nixon, certainly since Reagan, as a reaction to FDR and the Kennedy-Johnson years and the social progression of government. Although the Clinton years held ground, it reversed nothing.

I'm wondering if we are now on the cusp of a change. For instance real health care reform would be a huge step for the US.

If we learned we didn't need to spend as much on military as the rest of the world combined might be another.

Does the study weight for those who retire early due to disability, or those who retire to move to a different career? One that doesn't pay more than whatever their retirement restricts them to.

notthere, hers' a simplified model to demonstratea the math. I hope you appreciate this, because getting the rows lined up took some effort.

Assume zero inflation. MEDICAL costs per person rise 10% per year. TOTAL GDP per person rises 4% per year.

YEAR...MED..TOTAL...NON-MED...MED%...NON-MED%
2007.......$13.....$100.....$87...........13%..........87%
2008.......$14.3...$104....$89.7........13.75%....86.25%
2009.......$15.7...$108.2..$92.5........14.5%.....85.5%

For each new year you increase the MEDICAL spending $ by 10%, increase the TOTAL spending $ by 4% and subtract to determine the NON-MEDICAL spending $. Percentages are based on the TOTAL for that year.

In year 2008, non-medical GDP per person has fallen from 87% to 86.25% of GDP per person. However, the dollars of non-medical GDP per person has gone up from $87 to $89.7. So, each individual has increased non-medical spending as well as increased medical spending.

In 2009, the NON-MEDICAL spending per person again rises in dollars, although the percentage of the TOTALP per person drops.

Now, it's true that if the rates of increase of 4% and 10% continued forever, the non-medical spending would eventually have to drop in real dollars. However, that would be quite a few years off in the future.

In my small Indiana town, it is the retired citizens who run the local food bank, volunteer at the Friends of the Library bookstore, serve on the Urban Beautification board [planting flowers around the community, among other things], serve on the church boards and committees, serve on state committees for their churches and civic clubs, volunteer at the historical museum and its genealogy library, volunteer at the local railroad museum, volunteer through their civic clubs, volunteer in the hospital auxiliary, direct the Community Foundation, on and on. The community would flounder, seriously, without the work of the retired volunteers. Many of us are retired teachers and school administrators, while others are retired business people.

Jobs that are easy to do physically when one is thirty, such as teaching or police work, become much more difficult when one is sixty. I ran out of energy after teaching in a high school for 28 years and had to retire. Now I do volunteer work for several groups, but instead of working a long and rigid school day, I work at a pace I can endure---and I now get reasonable bathroom breaks.

Oh goody, FAUX-Lib - You had your law clerk get off your lap and work up some charts - Now, show us a chart on how much Comparative Negligence has strained your pocket book.

Nice figures, ex-lax. How come that hasn't been working for you the last 30 years, then?

Or why do you think we just passed the hump now?

When medical spending is twice what it use to be.

FAUX-Lib, I should have asked, how has it strained your "deep pockets"?

Working...the curse of the drinking class.

Well, I for one am amazed. My 68 year old aunt is currently looking for work. She's never made over $8 an hour, and earned just over minimum wage at her last job. She can't possibly afford to retire on her SS benefits. Who are these low wage workers who can afford to retire after a lifetime at WalMart?

I don't see why it's unsustainable to devote 20% of GDP to health care instead of 16%.

Yep, think of how many more full-page NYT ads that extra 4% of the GDP would buy.

Talk about a disconnect...I, also, wonder where those low-wage folks are who can afford to retire at 62 OR 65 (even if it means a lower SS benefit????)...and agree that folks in high stress (but well-paying jobs)choose to go sooner ...we retired in late 50's from teaching positions that totaled over 60 years because we could afford to and because we were COMPLETELY BURNED OUT...we could have chosen to limp into the classroom for years giving a less than complete performance and accrue those BIG OLD CONTRACT DOLLARS and BENEFITS..but felt that finding some stressfree years to enjoy our "empty nest" years was wiser despite NOT having the BIG BUCKS!!! We are still appreciative of our situation compared to that of many others who will need to slog on for decades just to keep up their medical insurance payments.

...that's "doctor buy me" Rx drug ads, of course.

During my days in graduate school (Aug 1988 - May 1990) when I was working towards my M.S. in Mechanical Engineering I lived well on $950.00/month. After working a few years in the real world I found myself earning more than 4 times as much, but I was not 4 times happier and I learned the valuable lesson that money indeed has a limited marginal utility to fund bliss after reaching a non poverty lifestyle.

This lesson led me to create a goal of obtaining financial independence (ability to retire) as soon as possible. By maxing out all tax advantaged savings vehicles (401K & IRA's) as well as purchasing additional non taxed advantaged mutual funds since age 26, I find myself at age 41 well on my way to my goal. With only $2600 left on my mortgage I am about to remove my biggest expense.

I am not surprised at all when people seek early retirement. My job is interesting and pays well, but I plan on retirement at age 55 or before. I think the issue with work in the U.S. is the "all or nothing" nature of it. With rare exceptions such as teacher which comes with a couple of months off every year, most jobs take a majority of your waking hours and continually insist that they be treated as the main event in one's life week in and week out; year after year.

Europe's approach seems better to me. If I had six weeks of paid vacation every year with numerous holidays so every August you could have an extended vacation, I think I would work into my 70's if my health permitted and my company would have me, but in our culture this deal is unavailable to most.

In early 2003 I left a job designing chemical plants and decided to take a 6 month sabbatical where I was NOT going to engage in any economic activity what so ever. At that time, it had been more than 15 years since I had more than 2 weeks off in a row. I had the best time in life since college and was shocked that I did not miss work or even think about it. I dropped back into the workforce post sabbatical with the confidence that my retirement plan was indeed going to lead to bliss.

Again, I would rather take 6 weeks each year and work as long as possible, but in our society where job = identity and where working longer and harder for less for the priviledge of buying cheap stuff at Walmart is the best that the global economy can do, I look forward to withholding my labor from the market as soon as possible.

Wikipedia tells me that WalMart was founded in 1962, so it could have some associates that have been there for 40-plus years. This source also claims that Walmart had 1500 associates in 1970, 7500 in 1975, and 21K in 1979.

Somehow I do not buy the claim that 40 year veterans of WalMart are driving any national retirement-oriented trends. I also do not believe that very many 62-yr-olds have WalMart to blame for a lifetime of drudgery.

Please find another bogey man. For example, the USPS is a pretty miserable place to work. It might be a tough example for readers of this blog to swallow however, since the pay and benefits are supposedly rigged to make employees so blissful.

However, retirement from the USPS after just 20 years is the norm. Blowing away several coworkers with a machine gun is not the norm at the USPS, but much more likely for a USPS employee than a WalMart associate, statistically speaking. Despite all the negativity directed toward WalMart, you folks have yet to attach to it as disturbing a term as "going postal."

Yawn

Dancer asks: I, also, wonder where those low-wage folks are who can afford to retire at 62 OR 65 (even if it means a lower SS benefit????)

If I could, I would introduce you to my in-laws. They're working-class people whose bodies basically gave out when they reached their early 60s. My FIL was an electrician who maintained food refrigeration equipment - equipment used in the production of milk, ice cream, and the like. His job involved a lot of crawling around under and around that machinery, and that (and other conditions that he got less than optimal medical treatment for) wore on him; 62 didn't come a moment too soon for him.

My MIL doesn't have a physically stressful job, but again, crappy medical care for other conditions has her using a walker at age 61, and the normal moving around that almost any job entails, takes a great deal out of her. Her 62nd birthday is next month, and she's retiring immediately after.

Can they afford retirement? Only because their 1960s-era mortgage is long since paid off. They'll be getting by on Social Security, fairly modest pensions, Medicare for FIL who's now 65, and three years of COBRA payments for MIL.

They'll get by, but they won't have a lot of room to spare.

Some of these people who have managed to retire "early" at 62 have been able to do it because they did what they were told. They saved money during a long, 40 years of slogging away in the trenches. They drive/drove 12 year old, gas efficient cars. They sent their kids to public schools. They don't subscribe to cable TV, they don't buy shit they don't need, and they don't entertain themselves to death with $100 a month cell phones wiith unlimited texting, Ipod downloads, expensive clothes, health clubs, vacations, and they don't live in cities where rent for a measly 2 BR apartment starts at $1,000 a month.

There are a hell of a lot more of us who would gladly tell our bosses to shove it if not for the issue of medical insurance. If I could buy into Medicare early, I'd be happy to pay whatever the full premium might be for the next 2-1/2 years. As it is, because of some severe degenerative disc disease, I am a slave to my current employer. No private insurer will touch me with a 10 foot pole.

What a system, eh?

A couple of quotes:

"Do you shovel shit to live or live to shovel shit?"

and

"If you were married to Marilyn Monroe, you'd cheat with some ugly girl."

Me, I plan on retiring at the first second I can.

I'm always amazed that people find this amazing.

I'm always amazed that you have even the faintest interest in what that dishonest partisan hack Reynolds has to say.

The comment about 40 year plus Wal-Mart employees is somewhat deceptive. In the early years of W-M, most stores were in the south. Although the W-M associates were not well paid, they lived in small towns of the South, where the cost of living was not overly oppressive. In the early days, all were encouraged to buy into the stock plan. Managers love to tell new employees about the many cashiers or office workers, who retired with around a mill in stock.

However, as they have expanded nationally, many workers today at W-M, although encouraged to buy, and have had to endure the early morning pep rallies of give me a W, give me an A, etc, have also listened to the daily stock price, simply do not make enough to have any money left over in which to purchase stock. Many do have enough money left in which to purchase complete health coverage for their families and themselves.

But, give me a W, give me an A, give me somemore crap.

Well, if you had inherited money, and parlayed that into a 'job' that consisted mainly of being a blowhard, with tenure that protects you from being fired no matter what you say- you too would find it amazing that anyone would want to retire.

I'm amazed anyone reads that ignorant hillbilly cracker.

thethirdPaul said:

The comment about 40 year plus Wal-Mart employees is somewhat deceptive.

Since mine is the only comment that employed the terms "40" and "plus" in close proximity, I assume you are responding to me. Let me reiterate my point: There are not enough poor, miserable, 40-year WalMart veterans to significantly affect general retirement trends.

Your post reinforces my point. If stock options enriched a large proportion of their early employees, then I must reduce my estimate of the size of the aforementioned population. So there are even fewer than I expected.

"...There are a hell of a lot more of us who would gladly tell our bosses to shove it if not for the issue of medical insurance. If I could buy into Medicare early, I'd be happy to pay whatever the full premium might be for the next 2-1/2 years. As it is, because of some severe degenerative disc disease, I am a slave to my current employer. No private insurer will touch me with a 10 foot pole.

What a system, eh?"
Posted by: Figbash on May 13, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Yes, being able to opt-in to Medicare starting at 55 would be a good thing. That's what is chaining half of the people in the office where I work. They know if they leave to do something that they really would prefer to do, they will not be able to afford private health insurance. Just a few years ago that was a phenomenon with just the ones that were over 55. Now it is with the ones that are over 40. We need a solution to the health insurance/employment problem badly. People need the freedom to work at what they want, work just part time or retire early if they like and not be obssessed by going bankrupt over medical expenses.

More to the point, if you're working construction or more physical labor, you may *not* be safe continuing to work after a certain age...

Even the best occupations, if done 40 or more hours a week, tend to become a JOB in short order. Though I know it isn't possible for everyone, anyone who has the wherewithal to retire and chooses not to either has a fantastic job (and we know how rare those are) or suffers severely from a lack of imagination. I retired at 58 and have never looked back. I have friends at work who could retire but are afraid to because they "wouldn't know what to do" with themselves, which I find astounding. For others it seems as if the job is the only thing that validates them, as if they have no identity without it.

To me few things are more depressing than the thought of dying at one's desk. I'd rather be in that line Richard Pryor talked about.

I agree with your general thinking but your examples (Wal mart, accts payable) are way off base. Try roofing housing, working on a road crew, oil field roughneck, etc. I would love to see the talking heads that think everyone should work into their seventies try one of those for a few hours, and then report back to us.

My first wife's father retired at age 55, from working as an operating engineer (construction equipment operator).

He died 2 months later, after his third heart attack. At 55; that man was all used-up.

Personally, I don't intend to ever stop working.

A lot of people in my biz are reluctantly retiring at 62 -- or sooner because their companies are buying them out. Stay and possibly have your salary cut or younger people laid off or leave with a full year's salary and hope for the best.