70 is the New 65

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Bob's not my name
Posts: 7405
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:24 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Bob's not my name » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:41 am

Cosmo wrote:Ok, as we live longer, we need to work longer to support our golden years. NYboglehead, all you did was support the argument that it is NOT a good thing, unfortunately.
Yes,it would be far better if we all died at 21, at the college graduation ceremony. We'd never have to work at all (except the gravediggers).

Really, this thread has been so illuminating.

foxfirev5
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:19 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by foxfirev5 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:08 pm

bengal22 wrote:
Levett wrote:"The 401k experiment has been a train wreck."

Hasn't this view been expressed, more or less, by Bill Bernstein and J Bogle?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lev
The 401K experiment has been the best thing for my household since sliced bread. The train wreck comment is in regards to the fact that companies have shifted from supplying an employee a pension to contributing to an employee's 401K. The best situation is when a person contributes to his 401K which is used to supplement his pension. But companies have twisted the purpose of a 401K and are bailing out on supplying pensions. The 401K, especially when the company matches a certain portion, is a great way to build net worth. Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Likewise for me the 401k has been fantastic. My company froze our meager pensions nearly 20 years ago. However they match 70% of the first 10% plus an annual fixed contribution of 5%. This combined with the low cost funds offered have given me a balance far above anything I would have ever dreamed. There's also a decent possibility that I will not outlive the funds in the plan. My grandkids might appreciate that.

User avatar
burt
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:47 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by burt » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:23 pm

foxfirev5 wrote:
bengal22 wrote:
Levett wrote:"The 401k experiment has been a train wreck."

Hasn't this view been expressed, more or less, by Bill Bernstein and J Bogle?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lev
The 401K experiment has been the best thing for my household since sliced bread. The train wreck comment is in regards to the fact that companies have shifted from supplying an employee a pension to contributing to an employee's 401K. The best situation is when a person contributes to his 401K which is used to supplement his pension. But companies have twisted the purpose of a 401K and are bailing out on supplying pensions. The 401K, especially when the company matches a certain portion, is a great way to build net worth. Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Likewise for me the 401k has been fantastic. My company froze our meager pensions nearly 20 years ago. However they match 70% of the first 10% plus an annual fixed contribution of 5%. This combined with the low cost funds offered have given me a balance far above anything I would have ever dreamed. There's also a decent possibility that I will not outlive the funds in the plan. My grandkids might appreciate that.

I too have enjoyed watching my 401k/IRA balance over the past couple years. However I realize I'm lucky. The 2008 crash didn't have to recover so quickly.

burt

Bob.Beeman
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:32 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Bob.Beeman » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:44 pm

Yes. 70 IS the new 65, at least for retirement planning purposes.

This should not surprise anyone, as retirement at 65 implies that we are kids and/or students for 22 years or so, work for 43 years to age 65 and then live another 15 years to 80. Sorry, but planning to spend 43 years working and 37 years being supported by others is impossible as a normal thing in any economic system.

In reality I am presently 67 years old. I was laid off from my (6-figure) Engineering job in 2003 after 36 years. My performance reviews were still excellent. The division I worked in simply ran out of money. Nobody wanted to hire any of the 55+ guys, except as part timers.

Fortunately, I had gotten some good investing advice long ago from the manager of my work group. He was not really a Boglehead, but he had similar ideas.

So when the end came, I wasn't totally out on a limb. A friend encouraged me to become a Math teacher. I volunteered at a local High School for a while while I took the required courses at Florida Atlantic University. I then started daily substitute teaching at $10.50 per hour, no benefits. After a couple of years of this, a local High School hired me as a full-time sub at $12.67 per hour with retirement and optional health insurance. My first assignment was for about 3 months in the class for kids with Autism and Downs Syndrome.

After teaching Algebra 2 and Geometry for 6 months for a teacher who was out on a prolonged family leave, I discovered that getting to bed after midnight every night and getting up at 5:45 wasn't for me. So I never did look for the full-time teaching job, but stayed as a full-time sub after that interim position finished. I had other interim assignments over the years, but the others were 3 months or less, and so less stressful.

Then the IT guy for the school quit, and I was named (still as a full-time sub) as the interim IT guy. This lasted for a couple of months, but continued after the hiring of a new IT guy due to the fact that IT support at this school involves way more work than one person can do. This is not surprising given the fact that most of our computers are about 10 years old.

I interact with teenagers every school day. I substitute in some classes, help kids and teachers with IT issues, and many other odd jobs. I learned web programming (HTML, JavaScript, CSS, PHP, SQL) and wrote the system that helps teachers reserve laptop carts for their classes. We just finished setting up lab rooms full of computers so that our students can take on-line classes as a required part of the curriculum.

As an unpaid part of my job I serve as Algebra 2 coach for the math club, serve as a chaperone at competitions, take part in school activities and last year I played "Pop" in our school's production of "The Pajama Game". As I tell the students, I am a "Senior" in High School.

And if you haven't sung at Karaoke night at a high school, you haven't lived. see "My Poetry".

So how did this work out for me? I still make $12.67 per hour (a little less than half of what new Math teachers make based on 7.5 hours per day and 180 work days per year), but I think I died and went to heaven.

There is no free lunch. When you are over 55 you will make a LOT less money than you did when you were younger and all of us who live long enough will have to re-invent ourselves at some point. I was fortunate that, for me, this happened in a fun and constructive way.

- Bob Beeman.

Jack
Posts: 3254
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:24 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Jack » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:53 pm

This isn't a story of life expectancy as much as is it a story of a decade long terrible economy. Millions of people have lost their jobs, lost the equity in their homes, lost value in their pensions, lost their health care and lost the raises they were accustomed to. All of these have combined to confront people with the uncomfortable fact they they may have to work until they drop.

Life expectancy isn't really the issue. The EBRI survey compares peoples retirement expectations in 1991 vs 2012 yet in those 20 years, life expectancy at retirement has only gone up about 1 year. At the same time, the Social Security full retirement age has gone up from 65 to 66, for no net gain.

Further, the gains in life expectancy at retirement are highly skewed. Those in the upper half of the income distribution have had much higher increase than those in the lower half of the income distribution. This study by the Social Security Administrationindicates that the growing inequality in income is correlated with increasing inequality of life expectancy. Those in the lower half of income distribution have barely seen any increase in retirement life expectancy since the founding of Social Security in 1936. If current trends in income inequality continue with the same trend as the last three decades, and the social security retirement age is increased as on the current track, people in the lower half will actually have fewer years of retirement than those retiring in the 1970s.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2010/V_demog ... tml#221776

DavidC
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:06 pm
Contact:

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by DavidC » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:21 pm

I have no doubt older Americans are living longer... I'm just having a hard time figuring out just how much longer they are living. Reviewing Table 21 (PDF, Excel) of Health, United States 2011 I see Male life expectancy increased from 14.1 years in 1980 to 17.6 years in 2009 (for Females life expectancy increased from 18.3 years in 1980 to 20.3 years in 2009). Those increases are smaller than the life expectancy increases at birth which 99% of the time is the life expectancy number thrown out by the media. I've also taken a peek at the numbers from the latest Social Security trust fund trustee report (see Table V.A3.) and they are more or less the same as the values from the CDC report (the SS trust fund table has the advantage of listing additional dates as well as 3 projected rates for years upto 2085).

I'm not finding anything right now that breaks down life expectancy for older Americans into sub-groups other than gender (I'm sure it is there, just not finding it). However the Health, United States 2011 report also contains a comparison for life expectancy by sex and education level at age 25 in 1996 and 2006. It is displayed graphically in Figure 32 (PowerPoint, Excel) but their assessment is that higher educated individuals life expectancy increased over that 10 year period while less educated individuals did not improve at all. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar effect occurs for older Americans too.
In true boglehead fashion my chief concern is saving enough to withstand 7 consecutive biblical plagues. - TheNightsToCome

DavidC
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:06 pm
Contact:

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by DavidC » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:03 pm

Besides Jack's good post, sscritic and nisiprius also link and discuss some sources in a thread from last year.

Note to self: next time I'll see if sscritic has previously answered the question before spending over an hour looking for the info myself :oops:. If you haven't heard yet sscritic rules :D .
In true boglehead fashion my chief concern is saving enough to withstand 7 consecutive biblical plagues. - TheNightsToCome

User avatar
ruralavalon
Posts: 13176
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:29 am
Location: Illinois

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by ruralavalon » Sun Sep 09, 2012 10:52 am

Levett wrote:"The 401k experiment has been a train wreck."

Hasn't this view been expressed, more or less, by Bill Bernstein and J Bogle?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lev
The 401k has been very good for me and my family, could not have retired without it. Have no defined beneft pension at all. I never had a match in the 401k, but did have a brokerage option which allowed a wide range of investments. The 401k let me save up to $17k a year and invest it tax protected.

There is a large portion of the workforce which never had coverage by defined benefit pensions. 401ks allow small employers to offer retirement savings choices with little effort at low expense, which they could not otherwise offer.
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein | Wiki article link:Getting Started

Bungo
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:28 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Bungo » Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:19 am

burt wrote: Back in the 80’s I saw a lot of people heading for the door with “30 and out” pensions. They all looked pretty fulfilled to me.
The 401(k) experiment has been a lot better than nothing, which is what the majority of workers would have had, now that the era of staying with the same employer for 30 years is over. This is especially true in the tech sector, where people change jobs frequently (and the employers benefit as much as the employees from this cross-fertilization) and most employers haven't even existed for 30 years.

User avatar
legio XX
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:37 am
Location: NYC

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by legio XX » Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:10 pm

I wish I could get this much discussion from my students!!

I'd like to be able to retire from the job I do to pay the rent so that I could spend more time/energy on my real work. Not sure if that counts as retirement - how about if I do it while world-travelling?

Since I can't retire I don't care if 70 is the new 65 - as long as they don't raise the age for senior discounts!

Vic

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by chaz » Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:47 pm

I retired at 74, the new 67.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

User avatar
FabLab
Posts: 1127
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by FabLab » Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:54 pm

chaz wrote:I retired at 74, the new 67.
You trendsetter you :D
The fundamental things apply as time goes by -- Herman Hupfeld

peppers
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by peppers » Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:01 pm

So my mother is 91. I can tell her she is only 86 now ?
"..the cavalry ain't comin' kid, you're on your own..."

User avatar
hoppy08520
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:36 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by hoppy08520 » Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:28 pm

Levett wrote:"The 401k experiment has been a train wreck."

Hasn't this view been expressed, more or less, by Bill Bernstein and J Bogle?

Correct me if I'm wrong.
You might say that W. Bernstein is not a fan of the 401(k):
William Bernstein in [url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Investors-Manifesto-Prosperity-Armageddon/dp/1118073762/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1361748234&sr=8-3&keywords=william+bernstein]The Investor's Manifesto[/url], c. 2010, p. 179, wrote: Over the past three decades, the powers that be have handed investors, particularly those saving for retirement, a very raw deal indeed. First and foremost, the traditional pension plan, which in the past had provided tens of millions of ordinary American workers with a secure income and dignified retirement, has been replaced with an investment mess of pottage: poorly designed, overly expensive, and thus miserably performing defined-contribution plans that seem almost consciously designed to fail.

Worse, the average American is assumed to somehow possess the expertise and, more importantly, the emotional discipline to execute a competent lifetime investment plan, a goal that even many Wall Street professionals fall well short of. In the coming decades, retirees, and our society as a whole, will reap the whirlwind of this folly.

The nation is only slowly beginning to wake up to the enormity of the situation, and it will not be remedied any time soon. In the meantime, I hope I have provided you with the tools to personally avoid becoming a casualty of the looming catastrophe.

littlebird
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Valley of the Sun, AZ

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by littlebird » Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:52 pm

Well, I AM 70. And I think I feel just about the same as my parents and grandparents - as I remember them - did at 70: not working any longer and thankful for it. Just attending to doctors and dentists visits for me and no-longer-driving spouse, considering neither doctors nor dentists in my area have evening or weekend hours, in addition to dietary limitations which only appeared in later years and general slower moving (and thinking), make me happy that I didn't have to work up to now. Not to even mention that I would have completely skipped the "go-go" phase of retirement and gone right into the "no-go" phase had I only been retiring now, at 70. Your mileage may differ.

User avatar
zaboomafoozarg
Posts: 1916
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by zaboomafoozarg » Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:31 pm

Bob's not my name wrote:Yes,it would be far better if we all died at 21, at the college graduation ceremony. We'd never have to work at all (except the gravediggers).

Really, this thread has been so illuminating.
Reminds me of a certain book/movie:

Image

:D
Last edited by zaboomafoozarg on Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
steve roy
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by steve roy » Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:27 pm

From Bloomberg:
... For people high on the scale of socioeconomic status, life expectancy is rising at a decent clip. For those at the bottom, it is stagnant at best - - and in many cases is actually declining. ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-0 ... l-off.html
So it pays to be higher on the education and wage scale.

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by chaz » Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:07 pm

steve roy wrote:From Bloomberg:
... For people high on the scale of socioeconomic status, life expectancy is rising at a decent clip. For those at the bottom, it is stagnant at best - - and in many cases is actually declining. ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-0 ... l-off.html
So it pays to be higher on the education and wage scale.
It always has. Good education and good income can not be beat.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Confused
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Confused » Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:24 am

Blanked for privacy

IlliniDave
Posts: 2270
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 7:09 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by IlliniDave » Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:49 am

Just a question--is there evidence to go along with that of increased life expectancy that cognitive decline is concurring later in life as well? Being in a career/with an employer that is somewhat technical in nature, you see very few people around beyond their early/mid-60s. It isn't so much that the company persecutes them, but they do structure the retirement system to try and get them out at or before 65, and occasionally dangle early retirement incentives. I recall my dad at age 70 compared to even age 60, and it makes me convinced the last thing I want is to be depending on is maintaining a high-paying job north of 70. Spending 20 hours a week saying, "Welcome to Walmart," or something for pocket money might be okay. But even at 51 I can see I don't have the mental endurance I did 20 years ago. So I'm aiming to make fifty-something the new 65 even if it means a simple and humble lifestyle.
Don't do something. Just stand there!

2Birds1Stone
Posts: 445
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:33 pm
Location: New York

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by 2Birds1Stone » Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:06 am

YIkes, luckily the way we work is also rapidly changing.

I wouldn't mind working part time, remotely, and on my own time when I get to that age.

I don't think these types of articles apply to most of the Bogelhead population. Many here have a very healthy savings rate which will afford retirement decades before common folks.

randomguy
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by randomguy » Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:52 am

Rick Ferri wrote:Older Americans are healthier and living longer. That's a good thing because late baby boomers and those younger will have to work longer before they kick back in the rocking chair. Retirement on the Golden Pond at age 65 is fast becoming a luxury that few will be able to afford.

70 is the new 65 is an article based on the 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) published annually by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).

Rick Ferri

The question is how many of them will be able to work til 70. There was a study a while back where they interviewed a bunch of 55 years olds. Of the ones that wanted to work to 65 something like 25% of them made it. Some left becasue of burnout but a majority left because of either losing a job or health issues.

aj44
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 11:22 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by aj44 » Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:26 am

The message that I personally get from an article like this is a reaffirmation that I am doing the right thing by aggressively saving for retirement.

I am 35 and have the goal of retiring at 55 and having a nest egg large enough that it kicks off enough dividends/interest from the 3 fund portfolio to replace our salaries today. I figure that will be enough no matter how long we live.

Current savings plus future anticipated contributions have us there assuming 4% growth.

cheapskate
Posts: 737
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:05 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by cheapskate » Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:43 am

HomerJ wrote: How many 69-year olds do you have working in your office?

People may be living longer, but keeping a job or even being able to do a job until 70 is not guarenteed.

A little difficult to work until you are 70 if you do construction for instance.
Not just construction. In most tech companies, 50 is the new 65. Really hard to find a job once you are past 50 in tech companies.

User avatar
DonCamillo
Posts: 1014
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:27 pm
Location: Northern New Jersey

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by DonCamillo » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:00 pm

IlliniDave wrote:Just a question--is there evidence to go along with that of increased life expectancy that cognitive decline is occurring later in life as well?
There is some evidence that cognitive decline is reduced by better physical health and greater mental activity. The reduction in smoking after the Surgeon General's report and government discouragement of smoking probably made a significant increase in longevity and a delay in cognitive decline. There is also evidence that people who speak two languages suffer less cognitive decline than people who speak one. That seems to be especially true of polyglots who speak four or more languages fluently.

I have friends still working in universities in their late 70s and early 80s. We do suffer cognitive decline, but discover ways to cope with it and compensate. "Old professors never die--they just lose their faculties."
Les vieillards aiment à donner de bons préceptes, pour se consoler de n'être plus en état de donner de mauvais exemples. | (François, duc de La Rochefoucauld, maxim 93)

randomguy
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by randomguy » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:19 pm

cheapskate wrote:
HomerJ wrote: How many 69-year olds do you have working in your office?

People may be living longer, but keeping a job or even being able to do a job until 70 is not guarenteed.

A little difficult to work until you are 70 if you do construction for instance.
Not just construction. In most tech companies, 50 is the new 65. Really hard to find a job once you are past 50 in tech companies.
Do you really think nontech companies are that different ? :) Seriously I know a lot of 55 year+ tech guys that do a great job and would have no problem getting jobs. I also know a bunch that will be screwed if there current job goes away. That is a pretty much universal truth. It tends to be easier to keep a job than to get one.

And it should be pointed out that their are studies that suggest life expectancy is going back down. We got a lot of easy growth from a reduction in smoking but the obesity epidemic is going to kick in about 30 years. Your guess is as good as mine as to how much medical advances will help or not.

Maverick3320
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 2:59 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Maverick3320 » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:23 pm

Confused wrote:
NYBoglehead wrote:
GRT2BOUTDOORS wrote:
Confused wrote:
Rick Ferri wrote:That's a good thing because late baby boomers and those younger will have to work longer before they kick back in the rocking chair.
How on earth is that a good thing?
The flogging will continue....please sir, may I work another 5 years? :twisted:
It's a good thing because we are living longer and seniors are becoming more active. In the past working until 65 could support a retirement with an average life expectancy. Simple arithmetic tells us that as we live longer will need to accumulate more assets to support a longer retirement. Not exactly a novel idea. Retirement at 65 is not written is stone, as our life expectancies increase our working years need to increase as well.
Still fail to see the "good thing" that everyone gets to work five years longer. Living longer is a good thing, sure, but working longer isn't. Not only does it affect the older workers, it also affects the younger workers that can't move up the corporate ladder until the older ones retire.
Having seniors stick around longer in the workforce isn't going to "displace" anyone else. Since they will be 5 years more productive throughout their lives, they will have 5 years more of income, and 5 years more of a higher level of consumption, all else being equal will simply lead to more jobs.

User avatar
zaboomafoozarg
Posts: 1916
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by zaboomafoozarg » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:32 pm

cheapskate wrote:Not just construction. In most tech companies, 50 is the new 65. Really hard to find a job once you are past 50 in tech companies.
It depends on the skills. I know competent developers over 50 who have had no trouble switching jobs because their skills are still in demand (general Java web app programming) and they are still able to learn new things quickly. I also know some developers and other IT workers who got into a niche position and took a couple years to find a new job after losing the previous one.

But overall, you're right, it is harder on average to get a new job at that age. That is why I'm trying to be FI by 45 or 50. If someone still wants me then and I still want to work, great - but hopefully I won't need to work.

bloom2708
Posts: 4111
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 2:08 pm
Location: Fargo, ND

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by bloom2708 » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:39 pm

I hope that 55 is the new 65 or 70. I'm out at 55. :beer
"We are here not to please but to provoke thoughtfulness" Unknown Boglehead

2015
Posts: 1507
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by 2015 » Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:30 pm

Rick Ferri wrote:Older Americans are healthier and living longer.

...
Where did this come from? It's patently untrue, according to many health studies on older Americans today.

See this:

http://www.cdc.gov/features/agingandhea ... a_2013.pdf
During the past century, a major shift occurred in the leading causes of death for all age groups,
including older adults, from infectious diseases and acute illnesses to chronic diseases and degenerative
illnesses. More than a quarter of all Americans and two out of every three older Americans have
multiple chronic conditions, and treatment for this population accounts for 66% of the country’s health
care budget.
and as to future generations (remembering that 2/3 of Americans are overweight, more than 1/3 are obese):
Unfortunately, current data on health-related behaviors among people aged 55–64 years do not
indicate a positive future for the health of older Americans. If a meaningful decline in chronic
diseases among older adults is to occur, adults at younger ages, as well as our nation’s children and
adolescents, need to pursue health-promoting behaviors and get recommended preventive services.
Studies have also shown that something like 2/3 of individuals retired before they planned either due to a serious health condition or job loss from which they could not recover.

Anecdotal stories of an older person here, there, and somewhere "still working" do not reality make, and hope is not an effective retirement strategy.

User avatar
Index Fan
Posts: 2532
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: The great Midwest

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Index Fan » Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:22 pm

Staying healthier longer is great. But there are plenty of people in their 50s and 60s who lose their job and cannot find another decent job because they are so old- employers prefer to hire younger people cheaper. Many end up dropping out of the labor pool prematurely, relying upon a spouse or family to get by, getting on disability, taking early Social Security, or working menial jobs. Look at the highest labor non-participation rate in 4 decades we have right now. That's a less-than-pleasant outcome.
"Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis." | -Seneca

randomguy
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by randomguy » Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:51 pm

The other tricky part of retirement planning is that people are starting later. If you got married at 21 and were done having kids by 30, they were out of house & college by the time you hit 45-50. Compare that to the couple that gets married at 33 and isn't done having kids til 41. By the time that last kid is done, it is time to file for SS:) Obvivously individual cases vary. Maybe those early years are prime savings ones. Or maybe they contain more eduation and underemployment. It also doesn't help that grandma is living to 95 so you don't get your inheritence as early as you did in the good old days:)

As someone earlier pointed earlier to some extent these studies reflect the time period. People in 2012 were still scared by 2008-9. It would b interesting to see how 2013 changed the perception. Or how if we make it to 2020 without a major unemployment crisis if people will be more optimistic when they don't remember being unemployed for 6 months.

User avatar
tennisplyr
Posts: 1615
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 1:53 pm
Location: Sarasota, FL

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by tennisplyr » Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:39 pm

I'm 65 and retired from a global Fortune 100 company at 61. The HR handbook said I needed to leave at 65 (thought that was illegal). Actually I left at 61 because the young people around me were too much to take. There were several age discriminating comments made to me, so I bailed. The CEO was younger than me. Finances notwithstanding, it's pretty tough to hang around at 70. I noticed a lot of my 60 year old colleagues have left as well. I've never been happier.
Those who move forward with a happy spirit will find that things always work out.

harryw
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:42 pm
Location: California

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by harryw » Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:58 pm

Confused wrote:Blanked for privacy
You had to resurrect a 2 year old thread just because you're worried that somebody may want to find out your gender?

Sibelius
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:27 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Sibelius » Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:25 pm

I guess that I was smart - or lucky - to start my business seven years ago when I was 53. As long as I can bring in the contracts I can remain employed. While we remain a very small business (nine employees) I can hire whoever I think can best do the job. I hired a 69-year-old software architect two years ago and a few months ago brought in a software developer, age 66.

Of course, I just hired a 26-year old Ph.D, which proves that averages are meaningless. Keep a good mix of skills, talent, and experience and you are more likely to succeed. Diversification. A good lesson that the stock market teaches us repeatedly.

User avatar
ruralavalon
Posts: 13176
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:29 am
Location: Illinois

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by ruralavalon » Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:50 am

randomguy wrote:
Rick Ferri wrote:Older Americans are healthier and living longer. That's a good thing because late baby boomers and those younger will have to work longer before they kick back in the rocking chair. Retirement on the Golden Pond at age 65 is fast becoming a luxury that few will be able to afford.

70 is the new 65 is an article based on the 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) published annually by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).

Rick Ferri

The question is how many of them will be able to work til 70. There was a study a while back where they interviewed a bunch of 55 years olds. Of the ones that wanted to work to 65 something like 25% of them made it. Some left becasue of burnout but a majority left because of either losing a job or health issues.
The "study a while back" you refer to is the 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).
2012 EBRI wrote:One reason for the difference between workers’ expectations and retirees’ experience of retirement age is that many Americans find themselves retiring unexpectedly. The RCS has consistently found that a large percentage of retirees leave the work force earlier than planned (50 percent in 2012) (Figure 33). Many retirees who retired earlier than planned cite negative reasons for leaving the work force, including health problems or disability (51 percent); changes at their company, such as downsizing or closure (21 percent); and having to care for a spouse or another family member (19 percent). Others say changes in the skills required for their job (11 percent) or other work-related reasons (23 percent) played a role. Some retirees mention positive reasons for retiring early, such as being able to afford an earlier retirement (33 percent) or wanting to do something else (28 percent), but just 8 percent offer only positive reasons.
Issue Brief, EBRI 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey, pp. 25 - 26.
Last edited by ruralavalon on Sat Nov 07, 2015 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein | Wiki article link:Getting Started

2015
Posts: 1507
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by 2015 » Sat Nov 07, 2015 1:29 pm

Also see this (from 9/21/15):

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
More than one-third (34.9% or 78.6 million) of U.S. adults are obese. Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, some of the leading causes of preventable death.
and this (from November / December 2014):

http://www.leadingage.org/The_Next_Wave ... _V4N6.aspx
As baby boomers approach retirement years, many continue working, for a variety of reasons including staying mentally and physically active, yet many are forced to retire early due to health issues. Seventy-four percent of people take Social Security early.

“You can’t work forever and the biggest reason for early retirement is a medical issue,” Hutchins reports. “Health is the great unknown and the key driver in our ability to work longer and meet expenses.”

The Merrill Lynch and Age Wave Retirement Study “Health and Retirement: Planning for the Great Unknown” reported 55% of retirees surveyed retired earlier than they had expected, 38% when they planned to and 7% later than they expected.

User avatar
DonCamillo
Posts: 1014
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:27 pm
Location: Northern New Jersey

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by DonCamillo » Sun Nov 22, 2015 9:12 am

In Otto Von Bismark's Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889 in Germany, which introduced modern Western pension systems, the age of retirement was 70. Although life expectancy at the time was 45, most premature deaths were infant and maternal mortality. Once people survived past childbearing, the average life expectancy was 70, which was the actuarial assumption made to fund the plan. Today, life expectancy at age 65 is age 85, so if we used Bismark's logic, 85 would be the retirement age.

In terms of mortality rates, then 85 is the new 70.

Today, we can think of people from 55 to 70 as the young old, those from 70 to 85 as old, and those over 85 as the old old. But I think many people think of old as 10 years older than they are, and don't consider themselves old until they don't know anyone ten years older.
Les vieillards aiment à donner de bons préceptes, pour se consoler de n'être plus en état de donner de mauvais exemples. | (François, duc de La Rochefoucauld, maxim 93)

Herekittykitty
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:11 pm
Location: Flyover Country

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Herekittykitty » Sun Nov 22, 2015 8:17 pm

Rick, thanks for the article. I always appreciate getting to read your articles. Regarding your post about hiring people over a certain age who are qualified - I'm 65 and would move to Texas..... oh, wait, you mean "qualified" - woops, I guess I won't apply then.... :wink:

Bob Beeman, what a wonderful, inspiring life story!!!!! How about writing a book about your experiences and in the meantime - putting some of that Karaoke on YouTube? I am professionally employed and like what I do, but sometimes think about what would happen if I left the track I'm on and reinvented myself and worked at something else for a decade or so and teaching might be something I would think about.

Don Camillo, interesting about Bismarck and the pension system in Germany. Also interesting that at age 65 it looks like I am in the "young old" group. Although I mostly think of myself as just plain young!!!!!

I would like to keep working full time for a few more years and could see myself working part time for a long time after that. What worries me the most isn't whether I can work (I can and do) or whether I would want to (I do - in part because I like a challenge and in part because while I would be okay financially if I don't, I will be better off financially if I do), and I don't worry about whether I would be able to learn new things (I regularly learn new things at work and on my own) - what worries me is all the stuff I read about age discrimination which makes me worried about whether I would get hired at all for anything.
I don't know anything.

MIretired
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:35 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by MIretired » Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:11 pm

I think a big chunk of increased longevity is doctors' ability to keep us on life support/change the tires.
If the gov. has found out that we are living longer, could they please tell this to employers and markets?
Jobs are a market, not one's personal choice alone. Seen all the news about wage pressure/ wage inflation?
Lay offs and such has been the one biggest motivators of mine for saving for retirement in high gear. -- 2nd was to get OUT of the situation of not having much choice. Brings back memories of being 18. --A household with no income or savings is almost forced to take almost any job and work for almost any amount. :D . Sorry for the depressing thought. :twisted: .

randomguy
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by randomguy » Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:26 pm

DonCamillo wrote:In Otto Von Bismark's Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889 in Germany, which introduced modern Western pension systems, the age of retirement was 70. Although life expectancy at the time was 45, most premature deaths were infant and maternal mortality. Once people survived past childbearing, the average life expectancy was 70, which was the actuarial assumption made to fund the plan. Today, life expectancy at age 65 is age 85, so if we used Bismark's logic, 85 would be the retirement age.

In terms of mortality rates, then 85 is the new 70.

Today, we can think of people from 55 to 70 as the young old, those from 70 to 85 as old, and those over 85 as the old old. But I think many people think of old as 10 years older than they are, and don't consider themselves old until they don't know anyone ten years older.
Do you have a reference for the fact that people in 1889 at age 65 had a life expectency of 5 years? That seems way too low. For example today, 88 year olds have a 5 year life expectancy. I am guessing that a 40 year old in 1889 might have had a life expectency of 30 years. That is obviously a lot different situation than looking at a 65 year old today.

And just to be accurate for a 65 year old, the men are expect to live to 82.6, woman to 85.2. That is more like 83.5:)

The hard to measure issue is that people are living longer but I am not sure they are healthier for much longer. There are exceptions (and they will all post after this) but in general most 75 year olds are not going to be able to put in a 40 hour week at any career. Most of the stuff you read about old people working well past 70 involve part time jobs (doctor sees patients 2x week, prof teaches a class,...). Maybe it it would be good to have more of those jobs but I am not sure how realistic it is.

KarenC
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:25 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by KarenC » Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:46 am

"How much you know is less important than how clearly you understand where the borders of your ignorance begin." — Jason Zweig

Call_Me_Op
Posts: 6819
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Milky Way

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Call_Me_Op » Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:55 am

Actually, we are not really living much longer than previous generations if you measure life-expectancy at age 65.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-s- ... 52940.html
Best regards, -Op | | "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein

User avatar
Frugal Al
Posts: 1681
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 10:09 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Frugal Al » Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:26 am

Call_Me_Op wrote:Actually, we are not really living much longer than previous generations if you measure life-expectancy at age 65.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-s- ... 52940.html
Who to believe? Let's see, a 2011 article in the Huff Post or the new (in draft form) RP-2014 Mortality Tables produced by the Society of Actuaries. I think I trust the Society of Actuaries more:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 12447.html

Still, there are some who are questioning the newly recommended tables. While they may be revised, I doubt it will be by much. http://www.octoberthree.com/news/articl ... ity-tables

randomguy
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by randomguy » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:04 am

Frugal Al wrote:
Call_Me_Op wrote:Actually, we are not really living much longer than previous generations if you measure life-expectancy at age 65.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-s- ... 52940.html
Who to believe? Let's see, a 2011 article in the Huff Post or the new (in draft form) RP-2014 Mortality Tables produced by the Society of Actuaries. I think I trust the Society of Actuaries more:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 12447.html

Still, there are some who are questioning the newly recommended tables. While they may be revised, I doubt it will be by much. http://www.octoberthree.com/news/articl ... ity-tables
Note that both could be right. People in uninsured pension plans could living longer while the average person isn't gaining anywhere as much. It all depends if the demographics (imaging that uninsured pension plans were mainly for professionals while insured ones where run by all the blue collar companies) of the two sets match.

If you look at KarenC numbers there has been a 7 year increase between 1890 and 2011 for 60 year old men. Note that the 1890 data is a bit limited (Mass men only). Thats not exactly a ton for 100 years. Trying to figure out why (how do more obesity, less smoking, different nuitration, better medicine....) gets messy especially if you are trying to project out for the next 30 years. And of course US demographics are shifting which will also change these white male numbers.

User avatar
DonCamillo
Posts: 1014
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:27 pm
Location: Northern New Jersey

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by DonCamillo » Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:27 am

randomguy wrote:
DonCamillo wrote:In Otto Von Bismark's Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889 in Germany, which introduced modern Western pension systems, the age of retirement was 70. Although life expectancy at the time was 45, most premature deaths were infant and maternal mortality. Once people survived past childbearing, the average life expectancy was 70, which was the actuarial assumption made to fund the plan. Today, life expectancy at age 65 is age 85, so if we used Bismark's logic, 85 would be the retirement age.
Do you have a reference for the fact that people in 1889 at age 65 had a life expectancy of 5 years? That seems way too low. For example today, 88 year olds have a 5 year life expectancy. I am guessing that a 40 year old in 1889 might have had a life expectancy of 30 years. That is obviously a lot different situation than looking at a 65 year old today.
True, Bismark's pension was not based on age 65. All I saw referenced was that it omitted child mortality and maternal mortality in calculating life expectancy. But one of the tables referenced above by KarenC showed life expectancy in the U.S. in 1890 of 20 years for a 50 year old, which is 70. If you add 15 years to both the 50 and the 70, it is not unreasonable to think in terms of 65 and 85 as the rough current equivalent of those ages.

The exact current mortality figures are only a snapshot of a long term process. The problem is that pension systems were originally designed to start around average life expectancy and now start much earlier. That makes them considerably more difficult to fund. If we take life expectancy disregarding child and maternal mortality as going from 70 to 83, that is an increase of 156 months in life expectancy in 125 years, an increase of more than one month per year. The funding situation is made worse as life expectancy continues to grow even for retirees. When my grandfather had a heart attack, the doctor came to the house and prescribed bed rest. He died three days later of another heart attack. My father had a quadruple bypass when he was 10 years older than his father lived, and lived another 15 years.
Les vieillards aiment à donner de bons préceptes, pour se consoler de n'être plus en état de donner de mauvais exemples. | (François, duc de La Rochefoucauld, maxim 93)

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by chaz » Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:11 pm

I retired at 74, and very happy since then.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

2015
Posts: 1507
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by 2015 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:18 pm

Spreading this type of financial porn is dangerous. As I demonstrated in the links above, boomers thinking they are "healthy" is delusional. As is thinking they will work until age 70. See this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... table.html

From the article:
“Working longer is a retirement plan like winning the lottery or dying earlier is a retirement plan. Being able to work longer is not a plan. It’s a hope.”
So what explains the discrepancy between boomer retirement expectations and reality? Most likely, a combination of health issues and age discrimination.

User avatar
sergeant
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:13 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by sergeant » Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:30 pm

harryw wrote:
Confused wrote:Blanked for privacy
You had to resurrect a 2 year old thread just because you're worried that somebody may want to find out your gender?
Thanks, I was wondering why Confused did this.
Lincoln 3 EOW!

gkaplan
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by gkaplan » Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:54 pm

Chaz sighting.
Gordon

Post Reply