HappySqurriel said:
When the retirement age was set at 65 people were entering the workforce at 18 (or younger), working until they were 65, and mostly dying by the time they were 70 (or so). In this set up people were dependents for about 1/3 of their life and productive members of society for 2/3 of their life. Today people are going to school until they're 25 (or 30) and living until they're in their mid 80s. If people retire at 60 they will spend nearly 2/3 of their life as dependents on society and 1/3 of their lives as productive members of society. Our problem isn't that there are too many people working, the problem is that there aren't enough people working in productive fields to support the vast number of people who've become dependents on society. If there were fewer people going to school until they are 30 to get their PHD in basket weaving, and there were fewer people who retired at 50/55 on their government pension, we would have a stronger economy and there would be more jobs for the young. |
I disagree, there aren't enough jobs and the more people we get out of jobs with retirement the more jobs there are for the young. Though the greater problem is the blue collar work has been shrunk down. Too many people getting degrees, masters, PH.d's, not enough jobs for them, no other jobs for them to fall back on (Since, they're all over seas). So what do people do? Like I'd agree about the retirement age, but when it come down to it, there just aren't any jobs and any little bit to free up jobs will help.
