Quote:
Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN
One thing I don't like is people sitting in comfortable offices in a controlled environment telling us at what age we should retire. Republican, conservative, liberal, democrat, none seem to have a clue.
|
Yeah. That's definitely a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed. If you have a physically demanding job, I don't understand how you can be reasonably expected to do that work in your 60's. In addition, if you don't have a strong union with that job, you don't know whether you are not going to be pushed out due to ageism depending on the company and good luck finding another similar job at that age.
On the other hand, I had an O&G company as a client in Houston years ago. I was brand spanking new to that industry at the time... I noticed that the client's admins of the people I worked with were hardly spring chickens and past retirement age. Well, it turns out those old overly chatty hens were making almost 6 figures with benefits you would not believe which is standard in that industry. The last thing those ladies were thinking about was retirement because of their cake job at a desk and the increased SS payments, added pension and 401K that they would receive when they did finally retire in their 70's.
My point is that I think there should be exceptions based on what you can do and physically what you can no longer do and/or is not good long term for someone to continue doing. Many have a different situation so IMO, it should not be a one size (specific age) fits all. Seems kind of obvious from a practical standpoint to me, but we are talking about the government.