As the US population continues toward greater longevity, will working beyond 65 become the norm?
It ain't necessarily so, according to sociologist Beth Truesdale, who was interviewed on 10/19/2022.
Notions of delaying retirement usually involve scenarios of working beyond age 62. One wonders whether that is realistic when considering some surprising statistics. Fully a third of Americans aged just 55 to 59 don't work for pay at present. At 65, less than half of men hold paying jobs, and only 40 percent of women are employed.
When we consider such phrases as "80 is the new 50," it may stand to reason that if we're healthier, why not work longer? However, that's easier said than done when considering inequalities in such domains as education and income. Shockingly, males in the lowest-income quartile live to an average of only 77 -- a full 10 years less than men in the top 25 percent of income.
Ironically, folks in poorer health due to lifelong stressors are the ones who would "most need to keep working," we're told. They're also the people drawing the smallest Social Security checks, with the least money salted away for savings. What's more, people with fewer years of education most likely have worked in the most physically demanding jobs. Ms. Truesdale cites "the people who are too poor not to work," adding that for them, "retirement is an unattainable luxury."
All this transpires against a backdrop of pervasive age discrimination. Bars are among the job spots where one might have to "look the part."
And many who remain employed find themselves working for diminishing pay. Of those who lose their jobs in their late 50s or early 60s, "only one in 10 ever has a job that pays as well as the one they lost," we learn.
Adding to difficulties is the fact that many older Americans find themselves in the "sandwich generation," responsible not only for their own upkeep but also that of aging parents.
In an era of waning unions -- only 7 percent of private-sector workers belong to one these days -- that potential source of advocacy or support isn't as available as it might have been in an earlier age.
Congress needs to do something to address the waning Social Security trust fund. "If Congress does nothing, it does mean that all benefits will be cut by about 20 percent," Ms. Truesdale points out. "There's a need to close this funding shortfall."
A rise in the full-retirement age from 67 to 70 is equivalent to a 20-percent cut in lifetime Social Security benefits.
But, again, is it realistic to ask people to work until they are 70? Many people aren't able to do that. Another solution could come about through raising contributions to Social Security (i.e., requiring higher earners to pay the same proportions of their income as people drawing smaller salaries). This will hinge on which party is in power in Washington, and its priorities.
Only about half of Americans have a job-based retirement safety net, be it a pension or a 401K.
How do we provide for people who aren't able to work as long as we may be asking them to, moving forward? Disability insurance is one way we address this now, but it's extremely difficult to qualify for Social Security disability insurance, and the process can drag on for years. So we should look at ways to speed this process for people who are ill or injured, Ms. Truesdale notes.
It ain't necessarily so, according to sociologist Beth Truesdale, who was interviewed on 10/19/2022.
Notions of delaying retirement usually involve scenarios of working beyond age 62. One wonders whether that is realistic when considering some surprising statistics. Fully a third of Americans aged just 55 to 59 don't work for pay at present. At 65, less than half of men hold paying jobs, and only 40 percent of women are employed.
When we consider such phrases as "80 is the new 50," it may stand to reason that if we're healthier, why not work longer? However, that's easier said than done when considering inequalities in such domains as education and income. Shockingly, males in the lowest-income quartile live to an average of only 77 -- a full 10 years less than men in the top 25 percent of income.
Ironically, folks in poorer health due to lifelong stressors are the ones who would "most need to keep working," we're told. They're also the people drawing the smallest Social Security checks, with the least money salted away for savings. What's more, people with fewer years of education most likely have worked in the most physically demanding jobs. Ms. Truesdale cites "the people who are too poor not to work," adding that for them, "retirement is an unattainable luxury."
All this transpires against a backdrop of pervasive age discrimination. Bars are among the job spots where one might have to "look the part."
And many who remain employed find themselves working for diminishing pay. Of those who lose their jobs in their late 50s or early 60s, "only one in 10 ever has a job that pays as well as the one they lost," we learn.
Adding to difficulties is the fact that many older Americans find themselves in the "sandwich generation," responsible not only for their own upkeep but also that of aging parents.
In an era of waning unions -- only 7 percent of private-sector workers belong to one these days -- that potential source of advocacy or support isn't as available as it might have been in an earlier age.
Congress needs to do something to address the waning Social Security trust fund. "If Congress does nothing, it does mean that all benefits will be cut by about 20 percent," Ms. Truesdale points out. "There's a need to close this funding shortfall."
A rise in the full-retirement age from 67 to 70 is equivalent to a 20-percent cut in lifetime Social Security benefits.
But, again, is it realistic to ask people to work until they are 70? Many people aren't able to do that. Another solution could come about through raising contributions to Social Security (i.e., requiring higher earners to pay the same proportions of their income as people drawing smaller salaries). This will hinge on which party is in power in Washington, and its priorities.
Only about half of Americans have a job-based retirement safety net, be it a pension or a 401K.
How do we provide for people who aren't able to work as long as we may be asking them to, moving forward? Disability insurance is one way we address this now, but it's extremely difficult to qualify for Social Security disability insurance, and the process can drag on for years. So we should look at ways to speed this process for people who are ill or injured, Ms. Truesdale notes.