|
|
Post by justjohn on Feb 18, 2006 6:28:24 GMT -7
   Retirement age 'will rise to 85' By Paul Rincon BBC News science reporter, St Louis The age of retirement should be raised to 85 by 2050 because of trends in life expectancy, a US biologist has said. Shripad Tuljapurkar of Stanford University says anti-ageing advances could raise life expectancy by a year each year over the next two decades. That will put a strain on economies around the world if current retirement ages are maintained, he warned. He also told a science meeting in St Louis that 50-year or 75-year mortgages may not be unusual in the future. Dr Tuljapurkar was speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in the Missouri city. "People are going to do things they didn't get round to in their working lives. Current institutions are really not equipped at the moment to deal with such long lives," Dr Tuljapurkar said. "We are going to have to plan a lot more carefully, which people are not very good at." Lifestyle trends The Stanford researcher has been looking at relationships between historical trends in ageing, population growth and economic activity. Based on this, he came up with a scenario in which anti-ageing technologies will increase the most common age of death by one year per year between 2010 and 2030. Dr Tuljapurkar then applied this scenario to four countries: the US, China, Sweden and India. In the US the cost of social security and medical care would almost double if people retired at 65 He found that his projected trends in life expectancy would have profound effects on the economy, lifestyle and population demographics. "It might be possible to go through two mortgages, for example, or even have 50-year or 75-year mortgages," Dr Tuljapurkar explained. In the US, the cost of social security and medical care would almost double if people retired at 65 under Tuljapurkar's scenario. But an increase in the retirement age to 85 would bring costs down to today's levels. However these trends would also create a "permanent underclass" of countries where opportunities for increased life expectancy were not the same as in the industrialised world. "We can't even get retrovirals to some countries now," he told journalists. Story from BBC NEWS: news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4726300.stmPublished: 2006/02/17 23:57:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Feb 18, 2006 9:52:21 GMT -7
I do not believe that the longevity of a person can change with the progress in medicine. Even in middle ages there were people who were able to live until they were 80 years old - if spared of other contageous diseases, children diseases etc which makes people die younger. But still - people usually do not live to be a hundred years old. Maybe some will - because of the genetic but.... I cannot imagine working until 85!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Feb 23, 2006 4:30:48 GMT -7
Wow. Do people really think things through? Just because someone can live to 100 years old doesn't mean they will be in a condition to work for any longer. I don't think there will be too many people alive at age 80 who will be physically or even mentally able to work, even if they'll have another 20 or even 30 years of life left.
Europe has had the problem for longer than America with a low birthrate, aging population, and governments nearly bankrupting themselves to pay for the welfare benefits with fewer young workers to pay the bills. Unfortunately, this has been happening for several decades already, and no answer has been found. It will be interesting to see how America will deal with the problem once the Baby Boomers all retire en masse. But to work until 80 is, in my opinion, just not realistic.
Another reason - is a person in the near future literally expected to work every day of his life from finishing school until death 60, 70, 80 years later? What will a person have to look forward to? It was a great advancement in humanity when people could retire after many years of work. Will we have to now give up retirement? I don't want that kind of life!
|
|
|
|
Post by jimpres on Feb 23, 2006 7:42:31 GMT -7
Eric,
I agree. I tried to retire in 1998 but then my wife got sick and I needed Health Insurance for her.
So I went back to work and am still working.
Life events can change your plans.
Jim
|
|
nancy
European
Posts: 2,144
|
Post by nancy on Feb 23, 2006 8:52:50 GMT -7
My father taught me this about life: "You work hard, then you die." Later he modified it a bit to "You work hard, get hardening of the arteries (Alzheimer's), then die." Luckily for him, he retired at age 60 (forced out because he was too old :  , had a more-or-less fun and comfortable retirement on Cape Cod, traveled to Poland 3X, did not get Alzheimer's and died at age 80. So, I guess not everything he taught me was correct .... |
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Feb 25, 2006 6:27:24 GMT -7
Speaking of retirement... Turkmenistan's unbelievable leader has decided to cancel pensions for pretty much everyone. That is going to cause a crisis of unbelievable proportions... Pensioners there were barely able to live as it was, but now...
|
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Feb 25, 2006 7:06:42 GMT -7
Eric,
Retirement at 85 is not bad. That will give us time to flip hamburgers another 20 years for the Chinese, who will own everything in America when we are forced to start paying off our debts. All the skilled jobs will be in India.
Holy Cow!
Kai
|
|
|
|
Post by varsovian on Mar 1, 2006 7:43:17 GMT -7
Can someone explain what Jim said about health insurance - I don't understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimpres on Mar 1, 2006 8:38:19 GMT -7
Varsovian,
I retired in 1998. I had SS and Medicare. My wife did not she is ten years younger then me.
She was worried about health insurance. So in order for her to have it I had to buy it or go back to work. I went back to work. She developed myositis a life threatening disease. She has been ill ever since. She still has four more years before she can get SS and hopefully Medicare.
So I am still working in order for her to have health insurance.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Mar 1, 2006 16:00:19 GMT -7
Jim
May I say this: Your decision to continue working for as to maintain medical insurance for your wife in her time of need; was a wonderful thing you have done,not for your self, but, your thinking for her.
She did not wake up one morning to say, today I will be sick and my husband will have to give up his retirement plans to continue working for my behalf. She had not control of her destiny.
Your love and devotion to her, superseded your own personal wants and desires. For this you have shared with one and another, the love and absolute devotion that will bind you both for eternity.
Bless you both
Charles
|
|
|
|
Post by joshsmom127 on Mar 1, 2006 18:16:33 GMT -7
Jim,
This might be a stupid question, but have you looked into SSI or SS disability for your wife. If she is that ill shouldn't she be eligible for some government help?
God bless you for caring for her so much that you gave up your retirement for her. What a lucky lady she is.......Mary
|
|
|
|
Post by varsovian on Mar 2, 2006 7:41:24 GMT -7
I feel for you, and I feel mad about a dumb system which makes you worry about money at a time like this. It's not right, and it's very alien to my experience. (I've never lived in the US)
|
|
, had a more-or-less fun and comfortable retirement on Cape Cod, traveled to Poland 3X, did not get Alzheimer's and died at age 80.
