Working longer in 'retirement'

January 22, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Before the most recent recession began in late 2007 and wiped out many a savings account, other factors already were forcing more Americans to delay their retirement dreams.


Mainly, weâ??re living longer, which means retiring at the traditional age of 65 demands living longer without a paycheck. The average life expectancy was 61 years at the advent of Social Security in 1935 and now itâ??s 78 years.


Working longer before retiring wonâ??t be such a terrible thing for many Americans who are able to sit behind a computer, but will be a strain for construction workers and others whose skills are in physical labor.


Have Americansâ?? perceptions of retirement been permanently altered by the recession? If youâ??re planning for the future, at what age do you anticipate retiring?


ADVERTISEMENT
  • A few months ago, my father and I were talking about his potentional last years in work. Since he is getting close to retire early age, we have discussed this. Currently, it is not fiscially responsable for most people to retire, unless they have a grose amount of money at their disposal. Granted, he wasn't planning on retiring for atleast another 5 years anyway, the recession has just confirmed what we already are seeing.
  • Whoever conceived the 401k was an agent for business owners. They will gladly give up a 50-100% match because noone can afford a 2% contribution. Now with unemployment running at 8%, anyone with a job will sacrifice everything for just a minimum paycheck. What needs to happen right now, right here, is a national workers strike.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.

ADVERTISEMENT