1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Study: Retirement at 65 no longer realistic for many

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by MisterCreosote, Jun 10, 2011.

  1. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    The research, done by something called the Employee Benefit Research Institute, indicates that the only way a lot of folks will be able to afford retirement is by working into their 80s:


    I'm not even close to retirement, but I figured as much. I don't think I'll ever see my Social Security money again, and no way will my 401(k) be large enough to sustain me from 65 on, unless I shed my mortal coil at 66.
  2. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Here's my retirement plan:

  3. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    The retirement age of 65 was instituted in Germany in the late 1800s when life expectancies were shorter. Today, a person in the United States who makes it to age 65 can expect to live, on average, 18 more years according to the link below. (This life span has increased four years since 1960 alone.) So, much like the Social Security age of 62, the retirement age of 65 is an anachronism that does not reflect today's reality.

  4. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    The only way to save enough money for retirement if you do not make $200,000 a year on average from age 25-65 is to never get married or have children. Add the fact that so many people had their principal investment, their home, become a disaster, and the flat performance of many financial assets from 2000-2011 and there you have it.
    Because we Americans believe in rugged individualism for everybody but ourselves, "work till you die" is an inevitable U.S. social policy of the future.
  5. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Well, that was the way it was up until the 1930s, when Amurrica was great.
  6. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    If you are a state worker or work at Goldman Sachs, you'll be fine.
  7. Freelance Hack

    Freelance Hack Active Member

    I'm sorry, this is news?

    I catch a lot of flack from my Democratic brothers and sisters who chide me whenever I say our generation's age to receive Medicare/Social Security should me 70.

    If we're living longer, that means we should work longer. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
  8. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    That sounds great in theory, except that employers, especially large ones, have this tendency to toss aside anyone over age 50 in a buyout. I understand the fiscal reasoning for pushing SS/Medicare to 70, but you're going to have a large pile of people struggling, financially, to make it there, not necessarily through any fault of their own.
  9. BitterYoungMatador2

    BitterYoungMatador2 Well-Known Member

    Can't wait to work until I drop dead like my great-grandparents did before me.

    Where's Lee Greenwood when I need him? Probably getting another divorce.
  10. JonnyD

    JonnyD Member

    Saving money is hard. I give up.
  11. bumpy mcgee

    bumpy mcgee Well-Known Member

    If I die covering a girls track meet, I'm going to be really pissed.
  12. Mark2010

    Mark2010 Active Member

    I honestly don't see how anyone in the media business does it. Hell, it's hard enough making ends meet month to month. An illness, major car repair, job loss and you're screwed.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page