Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Today’s college graduates might not retire till age 75

Imagine 75 y/o taxi drivers ... oh, wait, those jobs are taken by Samalies, ... Uber drivers then

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/today-s-college-graduates-might-not-retire-till-age-75-131755426.html

Comments

  • Life expectancy when Social Security was started was about 58 for men and 62 for women. The government figured they would not have to provide many folks with benefits, since most were expected to die before age 65. Now it is 76 and 81. And that is the average, which means many are expected to live much longer. We run our lifetime income projections to age 100 and are considering using longer numbers for our younger clients. Very few of our clients stop their lives and sit in a rocking chair at age 65. Many work because they want to...they like what they do, they own a business. Many retire from their main job and take a part-time job, often what they call a 'fun' job. There are a lot of folks who are unable to retire financially because of various circumstances. The definition of retirement is vastly different from today than it was for our grandparents. If today's college graduates live to age 105 or 110, I don't see working to age 75 as a bad thing, assuming health continues to improve as it has over the last 50 years. There have always been a percentage of people who must work past what they would like to be their retirement age because of financial issues. That is not going to change.
  • edited October 2015
    Thanks once again Bob for your usual level-headed observations vs a continuous chant of "the sky is falling". I wonder what a "Samalie" might be?

    Regards- OJ
  • BobC said:

    If today's college graduates live to age 105 or 110, I don't see working to age 75 as a bad thing, assuming health continues to improve as it has over the last 50 years. There have always been a percentage of people who must work past what they would like to be their retirement age because of financial issues. That is not going to change.

    There are two aspects missing - 1. will there be jobs for under 75 y/o and 2. if there is a job will an employer higher them? I don't think there will be, especially when you take into account automation, artificial intelligence and outsourcing of jobs. I'm sure there are many 63 y/o today who would like a job but can't get one.

  • @Old_Joe We had a "Samalie" cab driver in Portland, ME this summer...after being bumped from three different flights there, he drove us to Logan Airport in Boston. Nice guy...learned a lot about that country en route (loonng cab ride). He made a stressful day more tolerable for us...even stopped at Starbucks along the way:)
  • To Bob C.
    While it may be good marketing to project to 105 yr life expectancy, take a look at your client. Is she/he pudgy, exercising, on a Mediterranean diet?
    The current generation's life expectancy is less than their parents. A logical government policy wouldn't expend taxpayer money to ensure more time on SS or Medicare.
    Why do I now feel this urge to re-read Ayn Rand?
  • STB65 said:

    To Bob C.
    A logical government policy wouldn't expend taxpayer money to ensure more time on SS or Medicare.
    Why do I now feel this urge to re-read Ayn Rand?

    There will be medicare in name only ... similar to what is happening in Canada & Eng - long waiting times, reduced approved services.

    I'm guessing in the US there might be a 3rd medical insurance (1. Obamacare, 2.medicare ) - 3. private insurance. A person pays for Obamacare or medicare but also for those that can afford it, a private insurance (that was the insurance before Obamacare).

  • edited October 2015
    Like the Donald Trump thread highlighted by STB65, this one too seems misplaced under Fund Discussions.

    (However, unlike the other, this one does earn the coveted "gaf" rating.)
  • STB65, you raise a valid point, and we will reduce expectancy when the client tells us of family history, own health issues, etc. Life expectancy has nothing to do with marketing. It has to do with reality. If life expectancy is currently at 83 for women, that means 50% will live beyond age 83, and a good portion of those will live way beyond 83. As we tell folks all the time, "Tell me when you are going to die, and we will tell you exactly the path to take."
  • beebee
    edited October 2015
    BobC said:

    If life expectancy is currently at 83 for women, that means 50% will live beyond age 83, and a good portion of those will live way beyond 83. As we tell folks all the time, "Tell me when you are going to die, and we will tell you exactly the path to take."

    I would venture a guess that life expectancy of 83 year old women who are wealthy enough to seek out the services of a financial planners is higher than 50%.

    Wealth and health (life expectancy) often are highly correlated. Check out a quick search result on the topic of:

    "A wealthy man, born in 1920 who retired at age 65, could expect to draw Social Security for 19 years. His son, born in 1940 and retired at age 67, could expect to draw benefits for 24 years. Yes, he retired later, but he’s living longer.

    This would not be true for men and women at the bottom. They would draw Social Security for fewer years, if the retirement age rises, and their longevity does not."


    The Richer You Are the Older You’ll Get


    image

    and,
    this chart highlights the change in life expectancy for each subgroup (men and women):
    image
  • One small quibble, taxis will be 100% driverless by the time today's college students are middle aged.
Sign In or Register to comment.