Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Is 67 too old to retire, or do people keep working anyway?

Posted in:

Illinois

When Rep. Raymond Poe, R-Springfield, stated his belief that such a move would contribute to unemployment by keeping older workers on the job longer (thus keeping young people out of jobs), and that 67 is too old for teachers to work, Emanuel was politely dismissive. A 62-year-old or younger “retiree” is not really a retiree, he said.

“The assumption you have is that people at 62 are retiring, and I don’t think that’s true. Or at 50. In fact, they’re going on with many years of work left in them, and they do work, which is a reflection of … a change that’s going on in society,” Emanuel said. “Actually they go on and continue many years of very healthy and productive work.” […]

“It’s good for the system, it’s good for the employees and it’s honest with everybody that’s expected to pay into it. That in fact they’re not retiring,” Emanuel said. “And at the Social Security level, people who retire at 62 get a lower benefit than people at 67. That’s some of the changes that are going on.”

* And a new Gallup poll kinda backs up Emanuel…

Some 39 percent of workers now plan to retire after age 65, up from 30 percent before the recession in 2007 and just 15 percent in 1995. Age 65 remains a popular retirement age, with just over a quarter (27 percent) of workers planning to retire then, a proportion that has remained fairly consistent over the past decade. Older workers generally expect to retire at a more advanced age than younger employees. Those age 40 and older are planning to retire at an average age of 68, compared to age 65 among people under 40.

The proportion of people who think they will be able to retire early has declined significantly over the past five years. Some 13 percent of workers are now aiming to retire in their early 60s, down from 18 percent in 2007. And the proportion of people who think they will retire in their late 50s has declined from 11 percent in 2007 to 7 percent in 2012. Just 6 percent of workers say they will retire before age 55, which is the same proportion of people who thought that in 2007.

Thoughts?

* Related…

* Editorial: ‘The moment of truth’: The mayor talked of the “moment of truth.” Quinn talks of a “rendezvous with reality.” We’d settle for a vote.

* WSJ Editorial: How to Do Pension Reform: Illinois Democrats are spearheading pension reform, and get this—they’re not merely tinkering around the edges.

* Chicago mayor seeks limits to COLA hikes for retirees

* Chicago mayor pushes for pension reform

* Chicago mayor brings clout to Illinois pension debate

* Chicago Mayor Says Without Pension Fix Residents Will Flee City, State

* Chicago Not Alone In Calling For Pension Cuts

* Emanuel presents pension problems to Illinois legislators

* D87 union: ‘We want seat at pension reform table’: President of the Bloomington Education Association Rich Baldwin said teachers can’t stomach everything in the package. He said he doesn’t know of any pension reform package the state’s unions have offered as a counter. “What we’re asking is we’d like to be at the table to discuss some of these things,” Baldwin said. “I’ll personally say some of what the governor is floating I could live with, but I can’t live with the entire package without the obligation that the state is going to commit to paying their part of the plan.”

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:00 am

Comments

In my personal opinion, the overall thought of age 67 is not a one ’size’ fits all. If the question is ‘is age 67 too old to work’, then general answer is no. However not all postions of employment carry the same descriptions. When a position for example calls for actual physical manual labor and endurance of the toll on the person’s body, I believe such conditions must be in the manner of condsiderations.

Comment by Cindy Lou Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:08 am
You won’t meet too many 67 year old coal miners.

Comment by Old Shepherd Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:11 am
Life expectancy in the United States continues to rise, so it’s not unreasonable that people will — and need to –work longer.

In 1930, average life expectancy was less than 60. Now it’s nearly 79.

I guess we’ve been doing something right all these years.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:15 am
Some people never want to retire. Others want to retire earlier than they do, but must work for financial reasons. Other retire earlier than they planned, either due to health or outsourced. And, some jobs are suited for younger workers, as per the above mentioned coal mines or police officers or firefighters. Pilots are required to retire at 60.

Judging from the people that I talk to, 62 is still the DESIRED retirement age, but they may not think it is still a possibility.

Comment by mythoughtis Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:18 am
My wife and I had the same discussion.

She said: “Can’t we just create desk jobs for all of those state troopers?”

And she’s right. That’s exactly what we’re gonna end up doing.

There are probably plenty of state jobs that can be done by people over the age of 65.

But do you really want a 66 year-old driving a snow plow during a blizzard in the dead-of-night? Or guarding inmates in a prison?

Moreover, as far as I’m concerned, Rahm Emanuel has about as much business making pronouncements about retirement age as Republican men have making pronouncements about women’s reproductive rights.

Rahm Emanuel doesn’t know what hard work is.

My father worked in a factory for over 30 years.

My grandfather was an operating engineer, driving a hay baler in the hot summer sun and plowing roads in the dead of night.

My great grandfather lied about his age so that he could get a job laying rails in Colorado around the turn of the last century.

67 is a fine retirement age for an investment banker like Rahm, and maybe even a doctor like his dad.

But the human body was not designed to do hard physical labor forty hours a week, 50 weeks a year, for 39 years.

What’s that? 800,000 hours.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:19 am
- which is a reflection of … a change that’s going on in society -

Yeah, that change being that retirement plans across the board have been becoming less generous so people have to work longer. I’m not completely sure whether that’s good or bad, but I don’t believe the real change is that people just want to keep working.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:19 am
I wonder if the 67 year-old plan was considered when the state offered retirement at “rule of 85″ or police or firefighters 20 & out or with any of the early retirement incentives offered.
Also, what Cindy Lou says makes a lot of sense that the appropriate retirement age can vary greatly. For example many of the wealthy folks retire in their forties and pursue other interests. It’s problematic that many of these same people and their subjects are pushing for later (or no) retirement for the rest of us. Of course they would just as soon work the rest of us to death, it makes economic sense for them.

Comment by Honestly Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:22 am
A lot depends on how you define “retire”. I don’t want to keep practicing law forever, but I also don’t see myself just staying at home with no outside work at any point until my health entirely prevents it. I expect to transition over time into something with lower stress, fewer hours, etc., but if my health keeps up, I want to continue to get out and have a ‘workplace’ of some kind as long as I can.

Comment by ChicagoR Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:24 am
My feeling is that 62 is too young to sit around in a rocking chair. My plan would be to retire as young as I can afford to and then get part-time employment until I don’t feel like working at all any more. I have a feeling I’m not alone with that plan.

Comment by What planet is he from? Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:29 am
A conversation with my mom during a college break ended in tears with the realization that I would need to work twice as long as I had been alive before I could retire. 40 years seemed an eternity then. Now, more than half-way through that stretch, retirement still seems as far away and I hope I will still be working well into my 60s.

Comment by 10th Indy Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:35 am
62 in most cases is to young to retire, people today are living longer so 67 maybe the right age.
Most people work longer because they don’t have lavish pension like our politicans.

Comment by mokenavince Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:40 am
67 may be “too old” (meaning change in status that is unwanted, undesirable or unworkable) for some and not for others. the current system and rule of 85 (whatever that number is set at) is much fairer. you know when you can pull the plug and you know what your retirement percentage will be. if 20 years and 33.4% works, great, your choice. if you need to max out, thats fine too.

the reformers need to fully appreciate how many employees will hit the door and whether enough of a knowledge base is left to run things. they may reform themselves into oblivion.

Comment by langhorne Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:45 am
I apologize for sounding curt, but it has been my experience that many state employees are desk jockeys and still retire fairly young. Is staying in a position until you are 67 really that untenable if you:

1. Get to work at the same time every day?
2. Are guaranteed 2 breaks and an hour lunch?
3. Leave at the same time every day?
4. Stay at a desk for your ENTIRE career?

There are certainly arguments to be made that physical and skilled laborers deserve earlier retirement options. But are office workers really of the same status and risks - especially when it’s possible to never work more than 7 hours (8 1/2 hours minus two breaks and lunch) a day every day for your entire career?! Not a lot of private office employees have a rule of 85 - or breaks or an hour lunch.

I think many people my age may never be able to retire. That’s a grim reality. And it has nothing to do with fairness or “the man”. We take out too many student loans and spend too much money and use too many credit cards and don’t save enough. The social safety nets are crumbling and we may not have social Security as we now know it.

One thing to keep in mind is that retirement is kind of a new concept. Humankind was conditioned to work until death or near death for thousands of years. It’s odd in a sociological sense that we are now debating whether retiring with many years to go before death is okay.

Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:46 am
A few thoughts…the idea that you will retire and find some part time work is laughable. Age discrimination is alive and well. It has been for me and those retirees I know as well…..even in minimum wage jobs you’re competing with 20, 30, 40 and 50 yr. olds. Also, if big salaries are a problem now with 55 and 60 year olds in the workplace, just imagine how much those salaries will inflate with 7-12 additional work years. I know, the hope is that those workers will die before they reach retirement, but most won’t! Then folks will be outraged at the salaries! Is it too difficult to think down the road at some of these consequences?

Comment by Thoughtful Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 10:55 am
The life expectancy argument is mostly a sham- lifespan is about the same as it’s always been. Life expectancy has gone up because a greater percentage of people live to adulthood. Wordslinger, you’re better than that.

The Gallup poll is misleading too- being forced to work into old age because you have insufficient retirement savings and/or no pension is different than choosing to continue working because you love your job. I’d love to see some numbers on the number of annuitants who get full time jobs after they retire. But the Mayor here is replacing statistics with anecdotes.

Finally, the type of work you do has a large impact on your ability to work into old age. Does anyone honestly expect people to dig ditches every day at work into their late 60’s?

Comment by chi Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:00 am
Yellow Dog Democrat is correct about the human body not being designed for doing hard physical work when it gets past 65. Granted, there will be exceptions to the rule but generally a greeter at Wal-Mart is about as physical as it should get. As the state employees are being asked to take a haircut with their pensions, I wonder if Quinn (or anyone else in Springfield) has suggested that our state elected officials also take a haircut with their legislative pensions? Kind of a “We feel your pain” moment so they can show solidarity with our other state employees. Certainly Cullerton, Madigan, and Cross have all been mulling that one over but each one figured that Pat Quinn will probably want to be the first state elected official to suggest it. It is only “fair”, isn’t it? Same goes for newly elected state officials.

Comment by Festus Hagen Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:01 am
All of the early retirement incentives have pushed a lot of people out the door even when they are not ready to go. When employers know you are eligible, you seem to attract more work, more responsibility and less staff and just decide it’s not worth it.

Comment by Soccertease Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:06 am
I hope to continue working as long as it’s physically possible for me. I’m an educator and have no intention of retiring at 55, even though many assume that’s what members in my profession will do. Many of my colleagues are well over 60.

I’m disturbed by the negative assault on my profession that has intensified over pension talks. It’s not like we had a choice getting in the current program, nor will we have a choice on needed changes, which will probably be paid for by increasing deductions in our pay.

Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:07 am
Why not just align the state retiree age to social security ages. For 60% of state employees the pension system replaces social security. A truck driver or ditch digger has to work to at least 62 to get social security and guards who work for private prisons have to wait till 62 as well. Align the state pension to the same reduction limits and align the COLA as well to the same COLA you get under Social security. Keep it simple guys. Then let your savings fund the ability to retire early.

Comment by Illinifan Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:10 am
This issue is complicated and clearly not one where one size fits all. There is a difference in the spectrum of workers from unskilled labor to skilled professions. The wear & tear on the body from manual labor does take a toll often forcing retirement…would the return of light manufacturing jobs provide an outlet for continued employment? At the other end, I don’t see mentioned the not-too-subtle pressures on older “desk” employees to move on and get out of the way…where the value of experience is often ignored by younger workers. In state employment, perhaps an expanded version of the under-utilized 75-day program would allow skilled retirees (no added pension cost, no added health cost, no profit component, etc.) would allow the state to have it both ways, all while reducing the high costs of outside consultants and contractors doing jobs that state workers used to do. I remember learning that the most powerful employee motivator was meaningful work. I hope that is still true for younger workers today. In general, I surmise that older workers want to be valued and want to continue to contribute in a meaningful way, but maybe not full-time. That can be a valuable asset.

Comment by JustaJoe Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:20 am
If I had the power to flit from one prestigious job to another like Rahm, I’m sure I’d feel the same way. But what do you do if you don’t want to do the same damn thing you’ve been doing for the last 35 years and there’s no one who will hire you for anything but a greeter job? (Maybe)

Comment by anon Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:27 am
I think there should be an early option with less benefit at 62 with any job. I also think teaching k - 12 should be a different retirement age than people in the other 4 pension systems. The job of teaching k - 12 has more challenges than clerical positions or other white collar jobs. There is president for this, w, don’t have police and firemen retiring at 67 because of the physically demanding job.

Poe (although I thought his statement mentioned above was odd) had a good point about 67 year old kindergarten teachers. The job is demanding and should have a different retirement age.

Also, no one is mandating that people work till 67, if some of these workers want to plug money into other retirement accounts like a ROTH IRA or other investments, they can retire earlier.

Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:31 am
At 67, IL has the nation’s highest retirement age for state workers.

Comment by reformer Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:33 am
There are too many people in the private sector who didn’t start saving for retirement until too late to even think about retiring at 62 or even 65.

Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:46 am
Let’s not forget that just as with retirement ages, one size doesn’t fit all when it comes to COLAs either. A large part of a retiree’s cost of living is health care costs which went up 4% last year on average. So while Rahm wants to take a “pause” in COLAs for a decade, I wonder if health care costs for retirees are going to pause? I wonder whether there’s going to be a pause in not adequetely paying into the pension funds for a decade. In ten years, without COLAs, pension will buy 50% less than they did in real dollars at retirement.

Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:49 am
==Does anyone honestly expect people to dig ditches every day at work into their late 60’s?==

Serious question: are there people who “dig ditches every day at work” even at age 35? Every day? These days aren’t ditches dug by people sitting on backhoes and operating mechanical trencher machines?

Clearly some jobs require more physical stamina and strength than others. Always have, always will. Clearly, people may age differently based on their family DNA, how they’ve taken care of themselves as individuals, and if they’ve avoided injury along the way. But always dragging out the ditch digging canard is really a lazy argument that goes nowhere.

Funding pensions and determining retirement ages is a serious problem which requires serious discussion.

Comment by Responsa Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:52 am
As a teacher, I think that the most difficult thing about teaching until I’m 67 is knowing that I would likely be doing it in the same building, same job, for 45 years. Ugh. There’s not much opportunity (unless you live in a big district) to change jobs. If I want to move to another district, I wouldn’t be hired because my salary would be “too high,” as in “higher than a college grad/first year teacher.”

I’ve said this here before: I would pay both a higher contribution, and take a lower % BEFORE I had to teach until I’m 67, based on those reasons.

Like everyone here has said, retirement age is too variable. Some can teach until they’re 70; others burn out at 50.

If retirement ages stays the same, I would stop teaching in my 50’s, and likely go into some other business. I would enjoy being a consultant for schools, be a cook, train athletes… point being, I agree with those who wouldn’t stop working, but recognize the need to stop teaching. 45 years is too long.

Comment by Burnham Wannabe Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:59 am
people should not assume that state employees work 7 hours a day - my family paid a price for the many years of 60 to 80 hour weeks

Comment by sadie Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 12:46 pm
as i watch my 81 yo dad climb onto a tractor…..

Comment by way south of chicago Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 12:48 pm
Responsa-

There are employees for the City of Chicago whose major job duties include digging ditches, laying pipe, carrying bricks, etc., with their hands or with simple machines (i.e., a shovel, not a backhoe). They have other duties too, and don’t dig a ditch every single day of their career, but it’s one of their main functions, and they do perform hard physical labor every single day of their career.

Comment by chi Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 1:13 pm
We have a multimillion, one percent-er (RAHM) trying to force something on some poor fixed income elderly family. The employee unions are not going to fight for the retirees benefits. The Union are not losing any dues payments so they could care less. The Unions will still be making the enormous political donations to the Democrats. So who is really hurt. The elderly retired worker on a fixed income.Gov. Scott Walker Wis. took money out of the Unions pocket with the right to work law. We had Unions rioting in the streets. Pat Quinn and Rahm want to take money and benefits from workers and retirees. I don’t see anything from the Unions. Because we have forced Union dues and they will not lose a penny and can still make the political contributions.

Comment by Bob Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 1:19 pm
Bob-

Are you claiming that union members- those currently paying dues- are not interested in the outcome of the pension debate? Or that “the unions” don’t care what their own members think?

Comment by chi Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 1:26 pm
That is an awfully cynical attitude, Bob. One that seems tainted by blind partisanship and influenced by the anti-public employee rhetoric usually spewed by the tribune and Fox news.
Unlike Wisconsin, the unions are working with legislators and the governor to arrive at solutions that are fair, sustainable, and constitutional for all their constituiencies, including their retiree members.
How did all those demonstrations work out for the cheeseheads anyway?
By the way Bob, no public employee in Illinois is forced to join a union. They do so because they know that being organized is the only way to survive in the public sector. Furthermore, no employee in Illinois is forced to make any political contributions via union dues or otherwise.

Comment by Bill Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 1:40 pm
My plan is to retire from the state and then do something else. There are so many unfilled positions and managers are having to pick up the slack– including the physical work. More demands and less support… Sounds like a reason to exit.

Comment by top of the state Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 1:51 pm
The spin is hilarious and the stereotyping depressing.

We have corporations now in high tech (non-physical demanding jobs)sector that refuse to hire qualified people over the age of 45 because of healthcare, wages, and the “social impact” on their workforce. They don’t fit according to the HR departments.

As these corporations speak of promoting “diversity” in their workforce they do not practice it.

These people that are expecting to work to age 62..67..many of them are going to get a rude awakening. Just because you are healthy, willing, able, and up to snuff on the latest developments in your profession doesn’t mean you’re going to get the job or have the choice. You’re old and no amount of training is going to fix that no matter how many classes you take plain and simple. Hell, you may file a health claim too. The corporate HR departments run the not able to grasp new technologies and the slow, tired, and slow to change and all the other stereotypes to justify their actions to the new grads coming in.

Age discrimination laws to protect people are an illusion now more than ever.

Case in point.

5.4 Million Join Disability Rolls Under Obama

A record 5.4 million workers and their dependents have signed up to collect federal disability checks since President Obama took office, according to the latest official government data, as discouraged workers increasingly give up looking for jobs and take advantage of the federal program.

…

Since the recession ended in June 2009, the number of new enrollees to Social Security’s disability insurance program is twice the job growth figure. (See nearby chart.) In just the first four months of this year, 539,000 joined the disability rolls and more than 725,000 put in applications.

As a result, by April there were a total of 10.8 million people on disability, according to Social Security Administration data released this week. Even after accounting for all those who’ve left the program — about 700,000 drop out each year, mainly because they hit retirement age or died — that’s up 53% from a decade ago.

http://news.investors.com/article/608418/201204200802/ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama.htm

Got that!

Unemployment is going down in part because disability claims are going up. Up by three-quarters of a million people per quarter.

For every so-called job that is being created two more people go onto the disability plan as their unemployment benefits run out.

The 10.8 mil on disability is rapidly approaching the total number of people unemployed at around 12 mil.

Yeah…good luck with that Imma gonna work until I’m 67 baloney, Not in corporate America your not. In the public sector maybe but not in the private corporate sector.

Comment by Oz Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 1:59 pm
Raising the retirement age doesn’t really solve any problems - it just shifts it to a differnt segment of our population. If the retirmenet age is raised to 67 that means that older employees, who would normally retire must stay in the workforce. That means less jobs for young people, who are already chronically under-employed. You need to factor in all the costs associated with a chronically under-employeed generation of young people, plus the added costs of continuing to employee elderly workers to see if there is really any benefit - either in cost or productivity. My guess would be no.

Comment by Waldi Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 2:05 pm
why is it the millionaires always know whats good for people. Everyone raise their hand if you would keep on working if you had rham fathers money. Come on now everyone raise their hands…..no one?

Comment by foster brooks Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 2:20 pm
I plan to retire at rule of “85″ which puts me at age 52. I also invested in def comp and have a sizeable nest egg. I have 2 years left to work and I will retire if that option is still available. I will have 32 years in with the state. I plan to stay retired and not work at another paid job again. I thank the state for my benefits and my pension that they promised me when I was hired.

Comment by thunder Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 2:29 pm
If you are listening to the house at this time you can hear your retirement health care fading away - the main reason I have stayed since 04

Comment by sadie Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 2:30 pm
Class warfare…………age discrimination. That’s all that needs to be said.

Comment by Inactive Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 2:32 pm
Non-alternative formula SERS employees must work 44.9 years to max out at 75% for their pension, appears the majority leave sooner. If all these folks worked to 67, wouldn’t the strain on SERS be higher paying higher percentages to more folks?

Comment by one day at a time Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 2:41 pm
Responsa @ 11:52 am

You may get the trench dug out with a backhoe but you still have to do the fine work by hand … things like uncovering the lst foot to a sewer line, diggging right next to a foundation, etc. As a 60 year old who’s been doing that this past week, I can tell you it takes a lot out of you …

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 4:10 pm
Bill @ 1:40 pm:

“no public employee in Illinois is forced to join a union … no employee in Illinois is forced to make any political contributions via union dues or otherwise.”

No, you aren’t forced to join a union but in a lot of cases you won’t work if you don’t. In the case of the State employee, you don’t have to join but in most job titles it is still the union that represents you for everything.

And the “fair share” contribution required if you are not a union memebr is a joke; $1 less than union dues. If you believe none of that “fair share” money is going to political contributions, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for you. Check your history … every, repeat, every time a union has been sued over fair share being exactly equal to union dues and a judge ordered the union books opened in order to determine the true fair share, the union has immediately settled out of court, usually giving all the money paid back to the plaintifs, paying their lawyer fees, and re-setting the fair share at a dollar or two less than union dues. The unions won’t open their books … so there is no way to know for sure (you can guess from various political filings) what percentage is actually going into political coffers.

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 4:24 pm
Oz @ 1:59 pm:

“Age discrimination laws to protect people are an illusion now more than ever.”

Actually, for State employees, they always were a joke. Last I knew, State employees can’t sue under Federal Age Discrimination laws. Because they are State employees, they have to appeal to the State through the Department on Aging. Not too likely a State employee will prevail in an age discrimination case when the State is handling both sides of the case …

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 4:33 pm
I’ll just answer from my personal experience. I held a knowledge job where I worked at a desk most of the time. I had planned to work until age 55 or so but when the 2002 ERI came along, I took the bribe and left at age 50. Since then I have not worked at a full time job. I have volunteered with various NFPs; on average that equals about one week of work a month.

Recently, I’m been doing hard physical labor building a garage and I’m feeling every one of my 60 years. My wife has noted the same thing; she is pretty beat after teaching a couple of hour children’s Sunday school class.

If you ask me, jobs requiring physical strength and endurance should be able to retire earlier than age 67. Desk jobs are a different matter; assuming the cognative skills are still there, you can perform that kind of job almost indefinitely.

But that’s just my 2 cents worth …

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 4:37 pm
The people who are working later and later into their 60s before retiring haven’t suddenly discovered better health or strength than 60-year-olds of the past, but they have discovered they can’t afford to retire with the beating they have taken in the volatile and now plateaued stock market holding their 401k payments. Back when people had pensions they felt safer about retirement.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 5:43 pm
I love how in his speech, Emanuel blamed politicians in the 1990s and 2000s, but I guarantee they will still be able to retire after 4 years while state workers get the shaft.

Comment by Flan Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 6:50 pm
The article I read on the Gallup Poll about ” 39% plan to retire after 65″ also quoted a statistic that since 2002, the average age of retirees has held steady at between 59 and 60. That doesn’t quite agree with the portion of the article posted here, but may reflect the difference between current plans/expectations for the future and reality since 2002. In any event, Emanuel’s statements about people working after retirement may be valid anecdotally, but I haven’t seen any actual study backing him up. For the retirees I know, there have been several who worked part time or on a hobby basis, but not a one has worked as Emanuel claims is the norm, and all have retired before age 65.

Comment by The Whole Truth Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 7:37 pm
Worker Comp claims could go way up if people are required to work additional years. That could swallow up any savings in pension costs. It would really just be shifting money from one pot to another. While people aren’t “digging ditches”, there is still carpal tunnel and eye strain. Perhaps a creative lawyer could come up with additional comp claims such as heart problems caused by prolonged mental strain and lack of physical activity because of job related tasks. I bet the pension reformers didn’t think about that twist, especially Rahm since mental stress requires actually using one’s brain.

Comment by lowest on the pole Wednesday, May 9, 12 @ 11:58 pm
lowest on the pole @ 11:58 pm:

Because of reduced stress, my high blood pressure went way down when I retired …

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 8:37 am