Just curious. Since life expectancies have went up, should we then expect people to work longer? Should people be expected to work until 70? Longer?
That’s a double edged sword. IMO, the FRA age should be raised again, but expecting most people to remain in their jobs longer means fewer jobs for the twentysomethings coming into the workforce in a world that is becoming increasingly automated. I am also curious about what others think.
Even if people are alive longer, many are not assets to the workplace at some point, depending on job requirements. This is similar to when folks should stop driving and doing a lot of other things. Physically demanding jobs wear out joints and other body parts. Jobs that require intense concentration have mandatory retirement at various ages, recognizing it can be catastrophic if the concentration lapses at a critical time. It would be a challenge to parse this and have differing FRAs—could be done but haven’t seen any proposals for it.
I agree, garland. (almost became a bio-stat major). But to me it’s a simple way in a metic that people understand to show the significant increase in life expectancy and how that can impact SS.
But for more accurate numbers (per SS):
in 1940, a 65 year old male could expect to live an additional 12.7 years and a female 14.7.
By 1990, it was 15.3 and 19.6, respectively; 20% increase for males and 33% for females.
It’ll be interesting to see their future updates.
Also, opting out should be a choice for the super wealthy who don’t need SS and are so inclined to give it up for others.
In my group of friends, most are being pushed out by their employers around 60. The companies want to bring in younger workers, who supposedly know more about “current” things (like electric vehicles). Really, they just want to get rid of those who make more. So if people are going to be expected to work longer, the government will need to spend a lot of time and energy enforcing age discrimination laws. That won’t happen, especially since it will affect those all-important (politically) unemployment figures.
Anyone can ‘opt out’ by not applying for benefits in the first place. Of course, not sure why the wealthy would. (They don’t get to be wealthy in the first place by giving up money. lol)
Agree. IMO, the feds should also drop the Medicare eligibility to 62, perhaps at a higher premium, since medical is the reason that many keep working.
Very true! Duh on me for saying such a thing.
For many people, my deceased parents included, social security is their only source of retirement income. It’s a fact that not everyone takes steps to diversify their retirement options. I feel sorry for those people but wonder what many of them are thinking. Especially with talk of raising the age for benefits and or reducing monthly benefits.
@bluebayou – could you give me a link for those stats? I haven’t been able to find it, and that would be useful when I argue this elsewhere (everywhere, it seems). TIA.
sry, my bad, as I forgot to include the link. Let me see if I can remember what i searched on.
here ya go.
See table 1
https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
btw: the other thing missing from this quick and dirty data is the effect of Spouse survivor coverage. The odds of one of a married couple making it to 90+ are pretty good today, and the SS mortality tables do not take that into account. The funding needs do account for survivor benefits, but the point is that a married couple will collect a whole lot more, at least actuarially, than each individual would separately if there was no marriage bonus. (survivor benefits get stepped up to the higher income spouse)
The same argument could be made for even lower ages for Medicare eligibility… or “Medicare for all”.
Perhaps in theory… but there is widespread age discrimination against older workers, and similar-appearing seniority discrimination as well. Note that an older worker at the same pay rate as a younger worker costs more to employers including subsidized medical insurance in compensation packages, increasing the incentive for age discrimination, despite its illegality in many situations. Some older workers have more medical issues that may limit their work abilities as well.
It could be, and is, but that would be economically incorrect, without significant cost and access controls. (And we ain’t ready for those, yet.) Adding three years to an extremely expensive program is a whole lot more sustainable than adding 65 years’ worth of claims. Plus it allows Medicare with claiming early SS for those that need it then as they are aged out of jobs. Moreover, the cost hit to the Treasury might not be that great as many low income 62 year olds are already receiving subsidies for the ACA.
With an 8% increase in benefits, and other money that can be used, a number of folks are electing to take their social security (they tend to be at max) at age 70. It’s not just mad money when a couple each getting the max of $3k a month today and over $4k monthly in less than 4 years. That’s a pretty danged good “salary” IMO.
I really worry about everyone over 50 who has lost their job recently. Many will never find a comparable job or paycheck.
For decades my husband and I assumed SS wouldn’t be around when we retired, but both our grandmothers were relying on it, so we told ourselves that we were paying to help support Grandma. I agree with the idea of eliminating the cap on wages, like is done with Medicare.