Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

Heard on the radio this morning...

that more and more people are choosing NOT to retire at age 65. this doesn't seem that unusual in this economy cause alot of people CAN'T retire or lost their retirement $$ but then it said that many of them are WEALTHY Americans who say they just got bored with retirement and decided to go back to work or they wanted to keep working as long as they physically could cause they enjoy their job. Does this seem 'fair' to you? Doesn't it seem better that these "wealthy Americans" who can actually AFFORD to retire do so and thereby free up some of the jobs for those that can't afford to retire and NEED to find jobs? Also, for those that just get 'bored' with retirement, there are TONS of charities and volunteering opportunities out there so being 'bored' is NO excuse IMHO...

Answer Question
 
DreainCO

Asked by DreainCO at 10:43 AM on Sep. 28, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 26 (26,859 Credits)
Answers (29)
  • lifes not fair and this will never be right. Can't make someone not work because they don't need the money
    Smiley001

    Answer by Smiley001 at 10:45 AM on Sep. 28, 2010

  • You're right, but there is no way to enforce that.
    mompam

    Answer by mompam at 10:48 AM on Sep. 28, 2010

  • I agree with Smiley. I think this practice also contributes to the lack of jobs for those in their 20s- People keeping jobs in to their 70s means more people in their late 20s living at home with mom and dad. Hard to support yourself with a Mickey D's job. I know people in their 70s who work 2 jobs (FT +) because they are obsessed with $$$$- no actual need, just a huge want-


    I say, get a hobby-or how about volunteering? Yes, in a way, it is selfish-

    Sisteract

    Answer by Sisteract at 10:51 AM on Sep. 28, 2010

  • welcome to freedom
    maybe Cuba does something like this
    fiatpax

    Answer by fiatpax at 10:52 AM on Sep. 28, 2010

  • Good Question. I can understand both sides. Ultimately I feel nobody has the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do in regards to an area such as this. However, I have at times thought that when great jobs could be available to younger adults with families, if a person could retire it would be nice if they did. As far as mandating it, No, people should always have the freedom to have what they can legally and in line with what their benefits are. We as conscious observers need to just appreciate it for what it is and respect the decisions made by others.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 10:55 AM on Sep. 28, 2010

  • Unfortunately, because this practice contributes to folks entering careers later in life, (30s vs 20s) and staying at home with their parents for more years, most will now need to work in to their later years- we just prolonged the process for the majority. Needing to work is one thing, insisting upon it, for whatever reason, has changed career dynamics for future generations. Sad people cannot see past themselves; think things through, but no cares as long as they are unaffected.

    Sisteract

    Answer by Sisteract at 11:03 AM on Sep. 28, 2010

  • Chances are if they are wealthy they are not doing jobs that would employ many of those who are laid off right now. I don't believe in telling people how to live or when they should quit working. If a company finds the person valuable they can hire anyone they want no matter their age or if they need the job. I don't think it is selfish at all.
    tabekat

    Answer by tabekat at 11:18 AM on Sep. 28, 2010

  • Why should people have to retire when they still have something to offer? As an employer I would choose experience over youth for almost any job I have. As an employer I also like the work ethic I find in older employees...it is sadly lacking in the younger ones.

    What would the supporters propose we do with the older generation..put them out to pasture. If there is complaining about them taking jobs now, what's next healthcare, shelter or food? Maybe we should just stamp everyone with an expiration date. It gets kind of creepy if you think about it.
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 11:21 AM on Sep. 28, 2010

  • The people that I work with that are in their late 60s, early 70's do not have the same expectation of work output as the balance of the staff. We are ICU nurses and this population of employees receives padded assignments, daily. The bulk of our dayshift staff is on average 50+ years old. If the bulk chooses to work until 70+, and the expectations remain the same, who will pull the load? How will the work get done? Will changes need to be made? What about the patients? Whose rights trump, the older worker or the patient population? I can see this being a huge problem in the future-

    Some industries (pilots) do have age limits-
    You want to work forever, become a business owner-
    Sisteract

    Answer by Sisteract at 11:26 AM on Sep. 28, 2010

  • On the other side, there are companies who find ways to get rid of older employees because they can then hire younger people at less pay which of course improves their bottom line and the bonus the company heads receive. It goes both ways in the business world. Neither thing is totally fair but no one ever said life or business was going to be fair.
    meriana

    Answer by meriana at 11:27 AM on Sep. 28, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN