# People over 60 Stampeding to Job Market



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

This is the title of a report today from TD Bank economics. In it they state that fully 1/3 of all new jobs since the recession were taken by people 60 or over. This is despite th fact that people 60 or over only represent 8% of the workforce. This is very surprising to me. 
This finding is consistent with an article in the G&M today interviewing an experienced actuary who thinks people will just work longer if they haven't saved enough for retirement. 
Makes me feel lucky to have a well funded retirement that started at 56.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

I also left the work world at 56 and couldn't be happier.
When I worked I spent money casually 1,000.00 here a 1,000.00 there because I had it and knew the following month there would be more.
Today my income is fixed and requires a balanced approach not a hard thing to do. I have all the time I want to do what I want and enjoy hobbies.

Genetics suggest I will make it to 80-85 and I do stay active.
I thought about working part-time after leaving the main job but I'm having to much fun. Starting next year I'll spend my winters in warm places.
I've not had one boring day yet so retirement sure agrees with me.

Like Malcolm having a DB pension met that I didn't need much in the way of RRSPs which contribution amount was reduced due to the DB pension.
The RRSP is more a back stop.

I really think people need to look more at their own genetics when planning.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Last year my wife and I spent $20,000, not including mortgage interest. (no kids, yet!) This includes some nasty costs such as maintenance fees and rental repairs. And a small holiday to Collingwood 

I never realized how little you need to retire, until I starting tracking (and controlling) our spending. 

If people realized the potential of controlling their spending, they could achieve better earlier retirement.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I suspect it will only be a matter of time until "problems" with an older workforce start to manifest themselves.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

I believe the same thing sags.
Reality at 50 v 65 can be quite different, at least in retirement we march to our own drummer.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Unfortunately I think too many will realize too late, that they have saved too little.

And be forced to either work longer or later in life or to live under some sort of self imposed financial austerity.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

I'm more worried about them convincing the government to vastly increase retirement benefits at the expense of us younger people.

Low-income seniors form a large and fast-growing percentage of the population, making them a powerful voting bloc. Who knows what kinds of nasty surprises are in store for us.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Sherlock said:


> I'm more worried about them convincing the government to vastly increase retirement benefits at the expense of us younger people.
> 
> *Low-income seniors form a large and fast-growing percentage of the population*, making them a powerful voting bloc. Who knows what kinds of nasty surprises are in store for us.


I don't know where you get the evidence for that. People over 65 are the wealthiest cohort in the country, and the incidence of poverty in that cohort has been decreasing over time: http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil19a-eng.htm

See also this report (from 2004), which talks about rates of senior poverty "plummeting" over the past decade, while net worth for every other cohort has fallen: http://www.vifamily.ca/node/423


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Sherlock said:


> I'm more worried about them convincing the government to vastly increase retirement benefits at the expense of us younger people.
> 
> Low-income seniors form a large and fast-growing percentage of the population, making them a powerful voting bloc. Who knows what kinds of nasty surprises are in store for us.


From the mouths of babes....


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> I don't know where you get the evidence for that. People over 65 are the wealthiest cohort in the country, and the incidence of poverty in that cohort has been decreasing over time: http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil19a-eng.htm
> 
> See also this report (from 2004), which talks about rates of senior poverty "plummeting" over the past decade, while net worth for every other cohort has fallen: http://www.vifamily.ca/node/423


That is now. What about in 2050?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Well, if "they" vastly increase seniors benefits for the seniors of 2050, isn't it "us younger people" who are going to benefit? Anyone over 27 will be age 65 by that point.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

I'd bet the country will look very different in 2050 as it did in 1950.
I don't think realistically anyone can project even a trend in such a long time.

I likely won't be around in 2050


----------



## stephenheath (Apr 3, 2009)

Sherlock said:


> That is now. What about in 2050?


In 2050 you won't be the younger people anymore.... heck, even if you're in your 20's you'll be the old farts about to retire by then, and the young people will be wondering if you're going to grab their earnings


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

But some of us will retire with large TFSAs and RRSPs. Most will retire with little or no savings, maybe just a house. The have nots will expect the government to take money from those who saved for retirement and give it to those who spent all their money frivolously. And when there are that many of them, the government will have to listen (if they don't, a different government will be voted in). Perhaps they'll lobby the government to tax the TFSAs. The TFSA is great but how safe are we to assume it'll always be there, there are those who want to either eliminate them completely, or reduce annual contribution limits, or cap total contributions.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Consider that the medical system and CPP came in before most of us started our work life. Clearly those things were not properly funded in the beginning taxes went up. I don't recall in the 70s or 80s even in the early nineties hearing much in the way of complaint.

What has changed is we now play in a world economy and have much less control.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I can see a future of increased "unjust dismissal" lawsuits related to loss of productivity due to age. Would it be defensible to terminate older folks based on productivity? Will smart lawyers argue that slowing productivity is an acceptable side affect of older employees and therefore not justification for termination?

I can already see the tv ads........are you an older person who lost their job because of productivity.......call our office and we will sue for you.

If a company hires an older person, and they get sick or disabled, is the company responsible for them forever.........now that there is no mandatory retirement age? i remember more than few occasions where companies had to wait until the person was 65 years old so they could rid themselves of employees who were never at work.

Will there be increased costs to employers for insurance on older employees?

Legal questions that I have never seen addressed anywhere.

As is often the case, governments plunge in without contemplating the unintended consequences.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

There are many cases in Labor Relations Board decisions where people who are not fulfilling there contract obligation to the employer ie off sick all the time are let go. It does take time as the standard is high.

I see older people going back to work as being in the same boat as the young working part time or entry level.


----------

