# "Time to Retire the Idea of Retirement"



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

American article, out recently, posting for discussion:

http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2013/10...24f243e160ba02d2a0000ea&_LID=157988160&page=1

"But before making heroic efforts to rescue retirement, maybe it’s best to question whether it was ever a good idea in the first place. Adventures, massages and golf are luxuries; they might make life more pleasant but not more meaningful. In contrast, building a legacy through family and playing a role in one’s community was, historically, both the privilege and responsibility of a generation’s elders.

In other words, maybe retirement was never such a good idea, anyway. Its escapist thrills and partying mentality has only depleted the wisdom and productivity of older Americans, probably contributing to dementia, depression and other illness while undermining younger generations that used to have more reliable babysitting resources at their disposal.

Economic reality is closing in on Americans. By rethinking popular but misguided concepts, they can vastly improve their material and mental well-being and contribute to America’s economy and communities at the same time.

Americans should plan on working as long as they are able. If their abilities decline, they should think in terms of de-intensifying their work schedules rather than ending them, as long as that is possible. The added years of earning, likely at or near peak levels, would probably do more to end the later years’ funding gap than any other solution."


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Is it really right that retirement is viewed as adventure/hedonism? I know that image is marketed to us, but I don't think that's necessarily a cultural norm in North America.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Yeah, I'm not sure how accurate the stereotype has ever been. I know and have known a lot of retired people, and I can only think of one couple (my current next-door neighbours in fact) who spend most of their time playing golf. Everyone else is either working part time or working on projects, things they love to do. My father revised Einstein's theory of special relativity during his retirement and got a paper published on it. A friend of mine in his mid-70s went back to school and retrained for a new career; he now works as a mediator and loves his job. 

There are even groups that are trying to turn "non-retirement" into a movement, a second act: http://www.encore.org


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Whether it is a realized cultural norm or not; that is certainly how retirement used to be marketed in NA. Freedom 55, anyone?


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

I used to have 'retirement age' as a data element in the program. Now I have a continuum... a column of data (salary), which you can vary at will.... gaps for a sabbitical, a reduced salary profile, or a traditional full salary stoppage.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Those who choose to work until they die should not attempt to reconfigure society to suit their personal opinions. Live and let die.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Who will decide when the employee is no longer productive to the employer?


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

sags said:


> Who will decide when the employee is no longer productive to the employer?


I think in some cases the employee decides; in others it's the employer. At my girlfriend's last office, they had a 78-year-old secretary who ended up leaving on her own accord when it became clear to her that she was no longer capable of keeping up with new technologies and procedures. But if she had tried to stay much longer they probably would have shown her the door anyway.

I don't think there needs to be a "reconfiguring of society," but the reality is that most Americans will probably never be able to retire in the traditional sense, so they'd better get used to the idea of working longer.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I don't think there needs to be a "reconfiguring of society," neither do I, but I can't imagine being forced to work for someone because I have to in my 60s or 70s.

I want to work on my own terms or by choice at some point. That's what I'm working for today.


----------



## 1.5M (Apr 21, 2012)

Indentured servitude for life. Sure. From the point of view of the few rich owners, it would be great to have an ever larger pool of servants, salaries will go even lower than they are today. It's like going back to the middle ages. Who wouldn't want that?


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

The underlying assumption with this idea though is that the "work" one does actually has a net benefit to society. A picture of the town elders making wise decisions and helping their communities comes to mind...


I would argue though that golfing all day, or sitting in a boat minding your own business is probably a lot less detrimental to society than a lot, perhaps even _most_ employment positions available today. 

Sure if you make enough money to retire but choose to carry on in a different career in which you are certain has meaning and benefit to your community or family or society, that's great. But if you _have_ to work into your 60s and beyond I bet there's a darn good chance that it's in some menial, trivial, wasteful or downright harmful place of employment.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

I've been retired for 8 years. Believe me, even on a bad day, it beats work!

I was counting down the days until I was a free man. In today's work environment with cell phones, pagers, 24/7/365 computer systems, who could even contemplate working after 65, or even be able to hack it? Maybe someone who loves their work but how many people can say that? 

I worked in IT tech support where I was on call 24/7/365 with a pager, worked almost every weekend and had 20 weeks vacation I hadn't taken because I had no backup person. I quit at 55 and I would have loved to continue working until 60, but I couldn't drag myself into that place any longer. 

Ralph Waldo Emerson lived from 1803 to 1882. He couldn't even imagine an environment like we have today.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Huh....I suppose I should have quoted the first section of the article as well: 

"Time to Retire the Idea of Retirement

Americans are simply not saving enough, the economy provides less opportunity and ceasing work has all sorts of ill effects personally and socially

Financial advisors do a lot of things, but retirement planning is pretty much on the top of their list. That is because of all of life’s financial milestones, retirement has the biggest price tag. Whatever a client’s “number,” the lifelong quest to save and invest for an uncertain future is quantitatively the zenith of the advisor-client relationship.

But, as is generally known, things have changed since the time retirement rose in popularity in the postwar era. Average life expectancy at birth in the U.S. is 75 for men and 80 for women, according to the Social Security Administration (using 2009 mortality rates). For men, that is 14 years higher than it was in 1940 when the Social Security Administration began issuing monthly checks to those who reached the retirement age of 65.

(In fairness, it should be noted that the average life expectancy for a man who has already reached age 65 has risen not 14 but just 5 years, to 17 more years of life from 12 more years, since the advent of Social Security.)

Rising longevity, advances in health care and increasing affluence made current conceptions of retirement possible: images of graying but physically fit couples at the beach or energetically wending their way through a golf course became regular features of Madison Avenue’s ad portfolios.

But America’s affinity for high-end consumption that this image of the good life represents is in jeopardy. First of all, it is hard to promote private savings in a culture that views consumption as society’s cherished goal.

Secondly, the declining base of taxpayers makes an already dubiously financed Social Security system fatally vulnerable. At the latest possible moment, the government will be forced to lessen the generosity of Social Security benefits for workers under 50 years old or massively increase taxes on the working population.

Thirdly, America appears to have entered a stage of protracted slow growth. According to data from the World Bank, America’s GDP growth rate for the past 5 years has been 2.2% (2012); 1.8% (2011); 2.4% (2010); -3.1% (2009); -0.4% (2008).

Mean-reversion optimists might argue that it’s time for a new wave of economic growth that will lift private and public funding levels. But the tepid economic activity of recent years has occurred amidst a backdrop of historically unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus programs. They don’t seem to have worked and may actually have crowded out productive uses of capital.

What’s more, sophisticated analyses — taking into account an aging population, low birth rate and diminished immigration — suggest that 1% or less than 1% growth is the new normal.

What all this means is that American views of retirement are outdated and unrealistic for most. The average 401(k) balance is somewhere around $80,000, according to Fidelity Investments.

A study by the New School for Social Research puts total retirement savings for the wealthiest segment of Americans at their peak pre-retirement earnings—and specifically those who make use of all available deferred contribution retirement accounts—at $240,000 on average. (Fortunately these wealthy people often have other assets, as well as Social Security.)

With the average male living 17 years and the average female 20 years past the age of 65, it’s hard to see how the cleverest of financial advisors can make such sums last at anything near preretirement consumption levels. Divide that $240,000 asset pool by 20 and one is left with just $12,000 of spending money a year. 

Entrepreneurs are already at work with clever solutions to the problem. A new outfit called Happy Hubs is packaging the retirement dream complete with private chef, in-house massages and surfing and whitewater rafting adventures … in Costa Rica.

Costa Rica is a beautiful country, and may be a fine choice for a select bunch. But for the majority of Americans who want to be in a place where English is spoken and children and grandchildren are close at hand, retirement in cheap Latin American or Asian destinations is not going to cut it."


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

One of my colleagues at work told me his father who is over 90, had been retired longer than he had worked. He worked for Air Canada. 

*That's my goal.* I quit at 55 with 35 years of service, so *I have to make 90*.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I hope for the same pwm. 

I'm working now because I have to. I hope to work because I want to eventually, not because I have to.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I get tired(far off from retiring)of just the general demands of the daily ''grind''
-being paid late
-dealing with difficult clients
-dealing with employees
-emails/phone calls ect ect
I wake up every week not knowing what ''problems'' i'm going to be dealing with(not unique from anybody else)
Just be nice not to have to get up every week day getting prepared to ''eat'' some sort of ****-To lift the responsibility of having to tend to my demands is the biggest reason i dream of giving the finger to the system and getting off the grid.
It is also one hell of a challenge......I can't believe it is only 240k asset pool for the top percentile.


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

Donald, what you describe there is the reason I have lived a specific level of lifestyle for the past 12 years - could have lived MUCH larger, spent more on a house, had all the trappings of the Joneses etc.... but instead saved 70% of our income, invested in things that pay me to own them, quickly retired all debts, our small mortgages included... not exciting stuff, but as a result soon I will be able to live my life how I want to live it - every day I will wake up and do what makes me happy. Some people might roll their eyes at this, but to me it is EVERYTHING.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I hear you loud and clear jon.
About once a month i have a day i ''wish'' i could just tell someone to go f their hat(and have no repercussions).
Like today lol,had to tend to a job i contracted on a house i did work for in 09(the client has a laughable ''problem'' that is not even an issue but of course i ''have'' to nod and smile and give the almighty consumer what they want.I don't hate my line of work everyday but it boils downs to dealing with humans(i understand when people spend money on products/services they want it ''perfect'' but a lot of times it is unreasonably and i feel like a ''punching'' bag-is a cracked tile that big of a issue in your life,that kind of **** and there looking for bear).


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

I tend to believe that for most people in North America yes things have changed, how people will cope with that realization is yet to be determined.

Myself I am living the Freedom 55 view.

I winter in Mexico learning Spanish, read more in a month than any five years, yes massage in Mexico cost a fraction of Canada so I go three times a week, I rarely know what day of the week it is.
Travel to the UK once a year and as a result have developed an interest in the history of England.
I do enjoy talking with people about any number of topics.

I don't miss anything about work.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

This is a funny thread. MoneyGal posts a link to an article that says "Most Americans have saved so little that they won't be able to retire, so they'd better get used to the idea of working longer," and just about everyone here posts comments that say, "retirement is great, working sucks." 

Disconnections-R-Us.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

I thought the key nutshell from this article was the following:



> But America’s affinity for high-end consumption that this image of the good life represents is in jeopardy. First of all, it is hard to promote private savings in a culture that views consumption as society’s cherished goal.


I think this is really the heart of the matter. Spending less accomplishes multiple goals- makes it faster to save for retirement, and means you need less money to actually retire.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Spudd said:


> I thought the key nutshell from this article was the following:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is really the heart of the matter. Spending less accomplishes multiple goals- makes it faster to save for retirement, and means you need less money to actually retire.


Agreed.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The article uses demographics, but ignores one key reality of the demographics.

Today, there is a shortage or jobs and wages have been stagnant as a result. Corporations have been earning record profits, executives have paid themselves handsomely, and company stock holders have seen their wealth increase.

The employees..........haven't fared so well. Wages are stagnant or have been reduced. Part time, casual, and contract employment have put downward pressure on wages.

But.......back to the demographics.

Baby boomers are going to retire........by the millions, and employers are going to be scrambling to find replacement workers.

Baby boomers aren't stuck on the assembly line forever. They own real estate that can be sold for cash, and the vast majority of private pension plans are owned by them. The baby boomers will do just fine. 

The resultant shortage of labor will drive wages up. Companies that rely on low wages as part of their business plan.......will be out of luck.

When people earn more........they can pay their bills and save some money for retirement.

In today's world that dual task simply isn't feasible for a lot of people.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

brad said:


> This is a funny thread. MoneyGal posts a link to an article that says "Most Americans have saved so little that they won't be able to retire, so they'd better get used to the idea of working longer," and just about everyone here posts comments that say, "retirement is great, working sucks."
> 
> Disconnections-R-Us.


I don't think there is a disconnect at all.
IMO, this is a generational gap.
Those saying "retirement is great, working sucks." are already retired, some have been retired for many years now.
They are the leading edge of the first wave of boomers, or the early retirees among the following waves of boomers (1950 - 1960).

Whereas those that are being told they cannot retire because psst...there is no social security left, are the generations following those.
Those that entered the work force in the 1990s or later are being told they are essentially screwed where retirement is concerned.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

sags said:


> Baby boomers aren't stuck on the assembly line forever. They own real estate that can be sold for cash, and the vast majority of private pension plans are owned by them. The baby boomers will do just fine.


I'm not entirely sure about that. 

1. Even if they sell their homes for cash, they still have to live somewhere, and living somewhere costs money. Sure, some of them are living in homes they've owned for a long time and that have appreciated in value, and they could buy a cheaper place to live so they can use the rest of the cash after taxes to help fund retirement. But I don't know how many boomers are actually in that position.

2. The "vast majority of private pension plans" may be owned by boomers, but the number of companies offering pension plans today is smaller than it was in the 1960s-1980s. In the early 1980s, about 60 percent of workers in the US had a pension plan. By 2007, fewer than 40% did.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> I don't think there is a disconnect at all.


I was just referring to the fact that most comments here had little to do with the subject of the article MoneyGal linked to.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> The resultant shortage of labor will drive wages up.


If that were true, this would already have happened.
It aint' happening.
That is where outsourcing comes in.
Not just more and more jobs are being outsourced, but more and more job _types_ are being outsourced.
First it was manufacturing, then call centers, then I.T., now it's all kinds of jobs like medical diagnostics, back office, and so on.

As long as there are countries with lower real wages, this labor arbitrage will continue and you won't get the type of wage boosts you are speaking of.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I wonder what Toyota, GM, or Ford would say if asked how many old workers they would like to keep on the assembly lines or hire? 

How about the banks? Are they looking for seniors to fill employment? 

How about construction contractors.........in the market for some old folks climbing around on a roof or tossing drywall around? 

Maybe transport drivers could continue driving past their best years? 

It is all fine for academics, journalists and bloggers to discuss how everyone will just have to work a few more years........but the reality is that a lot of people are doing a lot of jobs that aren't compatible with advanced age.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Oh, I dunno. I have a friend in Vermont who builds timber-frame houses, and he's still working at 71 -- not because he has to but because he loves it. And wow is he in great shape.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

brad said:


> I'm not entirely sure about that.
> 
> 1. Even if they sell their homes for cash, they still have to live somewhere, and living somewhere costs money. Sure, some of them are living in homes they've owned for a long time and that have appreciated in value, and they could buy a cheaper place to live so they can use the rest of the cash after taxes to help fund retirement. But I don't know how many boomers are actually in that position.
> 
> 2. The "vast majority of private pension plans" may be owned by boomers, but the number of companies offering pension plans today is smaller than it was in the 1960s-1980s. In the early 1980s, about 60 percent of workers in the US had a pension plan. By 2007, fewer than 40% did.


1) True, they have to live somewhere, but their need for space is greatly diminished, so they can downsize from a house to a small apartment if necessary. The stats are that 70% of Canadians own homes, and most of those with built up equity are baby boomers. 

2) True again, but baby boomers have already earned their benefits from their pension plans. Some of those plans are defunct for new employees......but that doesn't affect the baby boomers who hold those pensions.

It may not be a "perfect" answer, as many baby boomers don't want to give up their homes to fund their retirement, for example. But it may boil down to less what they "want" and more of what they "have" to do.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yes Harold, you are exactly right on the outsourcing, 

But there will still be many jobs that are considered "low income" service jobs today, that will have to raise wages significantly to attract workers.

A small example of how fast the trend can happen..........is I drove my son out to Edmonton in 2006. While there, I observed "help wanted" signs everywhere.

A job at a grocery store paid $18 dollars an hour..........and they were all competing for labor. Hotels were begging for workers at $18 dollars an hour.

These jobs in Ontario paid $10 dollars an hour.

When there is a shortage of labor.........all types of businesses are effected. 

Maybe business will adopt a more appreciative attitude towards older workers, when there is a shortage of any workers..........but it hasn't happened yet.

The baby boomer exodus has just started as a trickle. It will become a tsunami.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

"Baby boomers aren't stuck on the assembly line forever. They own real estate that can be sold for cash, and the vast majority of private pension plans are owned by them. The baby boomers will do just fine."

Probably fine...because they are working _forever..._into their late 60s.

Freedom 55 is dead except for those who save and invest wisely.

How on earth is a younger generation supposed to get any jobs when people continue to work for 40+ years?


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I know quite a few older contractors also(plumbers/elecritians and even a few roofers/masons)
they are not setting job speed records but they "could" be busy everyday if they want(they pick and choose jibs or only work for certain contractors and dictate the pace and pay)
there is a huge demand for skilled trades,and I'm happy I work in the sector.Because the demand outstripped the supply our wages are on par with Even lawyers and other professionals(I never have a day I'm not billing out at or near 100 a hr.
That's why it costs 8k to get a roof done nowadays-free market-its only going to go higher also.
that's what I find striking about this economy!every trades guy I know is dying of being overworked and making serious money-its a good thing sags in my "world"maybe things will change!I do not fear skilled trades immigrants steal my work.I don't think I know a single Chinese/east Indian or southeast Asian that is a carpenter-i don't know if they exist even.At least where I live.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

My Own Advisor said:


> How on earth is a younger generation supposed to get any jobs when people continue to work for 40+ years?


+1..for young people to get work, some of the older, expensive people need to move over, move down or move out a some point -preferably - they should move over, and provide some mentorship to younger people looking to establish a new career.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

sags said:


> I wonder what Toyota, GM, or Ford would say if asked how many old workers they would like to keep on the assembly lines or hire?
> 
> How about the banks? Are they looking for seniors to fill employment?
> 
> ...


Funny you mention it sags.

I've been retired for 3.5 years and last month went to work for a friend that owns a roofing company.
Just a new challenge something I have never done but I am enjoying it.
I found out in the first two weeks how out of shape I was but am handling it now just fine.

I will be wintering in Mexico starting at the end of Oct. but when I return I may go and work some more in March roofing for a couple of months.

The only part that is hard for me is packing 90 pound bundles up 35 feet and the legs know now what a 45 degree angle is 10x12 .


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Taking a shot at me ?you make it sound tough but if your physically fit its not(you get conditioned to physical work)doing 40 push up sounds hard for most men 40+,but should it be?By the way most everything is roof top delivered and 45 degree angle is a 24/12.10x12 wrong dimention example if you are referring to a roof sloop,your thinking of lumber dimentions?ie:2x6 or 2x8?
Have a good time in Mexico,thanks for sharing!just goes to show you "bombers"can be arrogant pricks I guess.....what's your point Daniel a?You better than blue collar or am I not fit enough to talk in your presence?


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

donald said:


> Taking a shot at me ?you make it sound tough but if your physically fit its not(you get conditioned to physical work)doing 40 push up sounds hard for most men 40+,but should it be?By the way most everything is roof top delivered and 45 degree angle is a 24/12.10x12 wrong dimention example if you are referring to a roof sloop,your thinking of lumber dimentions?ie:2x6 or 2x8?
> Have a good time in Mexico,thanks for sharing!just goes to show you "bombers"can be arrogant pricks I guess.....what's your point Daniel a?You better than blue collar or am I not fit enough to talk in your presence?



?????????????????????? strange post. 

Nothing my guy has is roof top delivered.


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

Whoa donald, I think you need to take things down a notch bud... I don't think Daniel was questioning your manhood.:rolleyes2:


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

What's with the post than Daniel?clearly you are not on a construction crew!seems to me you are mocking.what's with your post???????what kind of jibrish are you implying?
I dont know you and you don't me so do us a favour and leave your biases out of this.And don't look to deflect,you where taking a pot shot at me for reasons Im not sure.I don't get the humour in your post if you were trying to have a laugh with sags at my expense.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

I don't know you or sags I was simply responding to his post. 

Mocking ?????????????

Chill dude. 

My post had absolutely nothing to do with you. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

donald said:


> 1. You better than blue collar
> 2. if your physically fit...


*1.* Donald, those are your words, not Daniel's; and this isn't the 1st time you have misunderstood a poster's comment. Why do you always take things personally when speaking about jobs/professions? Read #35 again, but rationally.

*2.* That's just it, not everyone is, and that's all there was to that comment.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

A neighbour went back to work at age 78 after being a white collar type for years. His younger friend was building a new home. For 2 weeks he was in big pain but then enjoyed his new-found fitness. Now 5 years later, he must use a walker. Use it or lose it!


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

I think companies need to start implementing phased in retirement where one can begin to taper off his work schedule gradually over a period of time. For example, one could start by working a four day week and then go to a three day week before quitting completely. This would allow a person to essentially be semi retired while still on the job. It would allow for a transition plan to transfer the duties and knowledge to another person, while mentoring new hires and allow the retiree to gradually adjust to a post work lifestyle. Instead of that, what we have in most companies is what I experienced. I was in the "front line trenches", taking pages, fixing problems overnight and handling trouble calls pertaining to the software I supported until the last day in the office when I handed in my pager and ID card, and went home for the last time, after working for 35 years on the same floor in the same building. I was responsible for several mission critical software platforms and they had no plan to transfer my responsibilities to another person. Someone else just had to jump in and sink or swim. I would have been very happy to continue working at a gradually reducing pace for a year or two, but that was not even considered. Obviously there would have to be consideration for the pension for this period, as part time work cannot count as full time when calculating the benefits, but I know this can be done.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

pwm, you make a good point. I think what it comes down to is the modern office work format has become more rigid than ever before. The options seem to be contractor or FT/40hrs or nothing. I have never worked in any company that managed part time work. There is an unfortunate obsession by corps and govt to build and locate towers in the downtowns of large cities, where most people don't actually live. They seem to think that the answer to society's social problems is to waste billions in taxpayer money to erect towers in the worst part of the city. Most of these employers don't even allow remote work, except of course outside of work hours when they want you to answer cell phones, pagers and email. Very inflexible. I think it's pretty hard to find meanginful part time work, outside of min. wage service or retail type jobs.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

I actually think that in some fields (e.g., software development, consulting), the trend is very much along the lines of what pwm suggests as a solution. The company I work for has several flavours of part time (32 hours/week, 30 hours/week or "flexible part time" in which you are simply paid for the hours you work, although in that case you have to stay below a monthly minimum). And they have a pretty liberal policy on working remotely; I've been working remotely (at home) since 1994 and a few hundred of my colleagues work remotely. Lots of software companies have similarly flexible companies -- 37signals is coming out with a book called "Remote: No Office Required" that discusses the advantages of remote working -- see their blog at http://37signals.com/svn.

Mentoring and transferring knowledge is also something that companies are starting to pay more attention to, and that's also a large part of the mission of "second act" organizations like Encore Careers, which tap into the knowledge and experienced gained by retired people.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

My company is formally moving towards flextime for all employees (no or very limited requirement to attend onsite meetings), and the work week is 35 hours.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I see this (work tapering) happening more in the IT industry but it's certainly not the norm in other business lines or industries, at least to my knowledge.

I think more organizations need to do this....get the 60-year-olds out of the jobs the 20- and 30-somethings should have.

Yes, I can appreciate the loss of "organizational knowledge" but I can't help but think 20-somethings would have a much shorter learning curve, are more ambitious and have more desire to work than most 60-somethings. If you've worked for 40 years in an organization, that's enough isn't it?? 

Get out and move on and let the younger generation have a crack at things.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

My Own Advisor said:


> Get out and move on and let the younger generation have a crack at things.


Sure, but older folks tend to have two valuable qualities that young people frequently lack: experience and judgment. Smart young people can learn fast, but experience is gained over time. That's why in many companies (including mine) people with a BA degree from a state university and 20 years experience are paid a lot more than a 24-year old with a PhD from Harvard and 2 years of experience.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

brad said:


> Smart young people can learn fast, but experience is gained over time.


Exactly.

You can't replace experience & talent that easily; and you can't expect those lacking enough learned strategies via experience, to be able to problem solve all that well.

Also, loss of talent [older], as well as high turnover [younger], is very costly. Like it or not, and especially these days, the younger crowd isn't the most reliable nor productive. And they probably spend [waste] much more time checking their FB accounts while at work.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I have been thinking about this topic recently, because as I've taken on more responsibility in my career, it has become clearer to me that my value is not so much in knowing what needs to be known (that's an absolute given), but in being able to negotiate *and sustain* organizational agreement over time. That is a skillset that generally takes time to develop.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

My Own Advisor said:


> 1. I can't help but think *20-somethings* would have a much shorter learning curve, *are more ambitious and have more desire to work than most 60-somethings.*
> 2. worked for 40 years in an organization, that's enough isn't it??


*1.* I disagree that younger = higher ambition/motivation. How many of these young people want to retire at 30/40, and even younger? Freedom 55 seems very old to many these days.

*2.* At 60 or so, there is no need to move out of the way completely, but working p-time, I think works well for everyone involved for reasons already mentioned.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I agree with #2 T.gal, not needing to move out of the way completely, (go part-time, modified work, advsior roles, etc.) but most 60-year-olds I know work because they have to (pay bills) and don't want to work.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

So...the solution then is to change the conversation about saving/retiring and/or about consumption and lifestyle, not force people out of the workforce who need the income...because they've had "enough" time in the workforce. Right? 

I mean, if the 60-year-olds you know who are working "even though they don't want to because they need the income," the solution isn't removing them from the workforce, is it?

I think the "40 years in an organization" is probably a dated statistic. I don't actually know any 60-year-olds who worked in a single organization for 40 years. I'm 45 and probably need more than all my fingers to count my various employers since I started full-time labour force participation at 23.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It was only last February when the CEO of Yahoo, banned all remote working. She wants everyone in the office full time.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/25/technology/yahoo-work-from-home/index.html

Employees (future retirees) would be able to come up with solutions, but companies appear to be heading in the opposite direction.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Yahoo got a lot of criticism for that decision, though, and I think a lot of other companies saw it as a bad move. And Yahoo isn't exactly a leader, so it's not like they're setting an example; some people see moves like this from Yahoo, Best Buy, and HP as flailing attempts from companies that are on the way out and are grasping at any strategy that might help them survive. See this post for an alternative perspective: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3650-rally-cry-for-sinking-companies-all-hands-on-deck


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

I allow my salesmgr, salesman, programming and accounting staff to all work from home. It seems to agree with everyone of us.


----------



## pacman (Sep 6, 2009)

steve41 said:


> I allow my salesmgr, salesman, programming and accounting staff to all work from home. It seems to agree with everyone of us.


:chuncky:


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

MoneyGal said:


> So...the solution then is to change the conversation about saving/retiring and/or about consumption and lifestyle, not force people out of the workforce who need the income...because they've had "enough" time in the workforce. Right?
> 
> I mean, if the 60-year-olds you know who are working "even though they don't want to because they need the income," the solution isn't removing them from the workforce, is it?
> 
> I think the "40 years in an organization" is probably a dated statistic. I don't actually know any 60-year-olds who worked in a single organization for 40 years. I'm 45 and probably need more than all my fingers to count my various employers since I started full-time labour force participation at 23.


 I worked for one employer for 6 years and another for over 30 years in the 39 years before retiring.
I do agree this is not a common thing going forward.


----------



## Islenska (May 4, 2011)

I hit the big 60 this summer and my part-time retired pharmacist plan took a big alteration, due to shortages at a couple of stores I put in almost full time work currently. It's OK but not what I had planned, but I know at least it is my call for how long I want to do this.

Could put up my feet and live off the nest egg, but am sure most are wanting to do something meaningfull as long as you can.

The bucket list is presently on hold!


----------

