BTW - when you talk about people working longer, don't assume we are all leaving the work force early because we want to. While firing people because of their age is illegal in the United States, giving them poor performance reviews, making their lives miserable, etc can be done and often is. Older workers are expensive, too independent, represent roadblocks in the path of the younger generation - and BTW, if the organization can get them out before they're fully vested, it can save itself a ton of money.
Bin there dun that, made it to being vested just barely, with the help of a staff advocate - who was later transferred to a position where she could do less harm or good. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > Subject: RE: Genesis > Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:16:03 -0500 > > > > > People will have to work longer. As life expectancies continue to > > increase, retirement age will have to increase too. > > > > I understand that, and that's reasonable. The retirement age for Social > Security in the US has been moved up from 65 to 67 for folks my age and will > be 68 for folks a few years younger. > > Germany will absolutely have to get rid of retirement at 55. But, I've seen > international studies on aging, and only 3 developed countries (as of 6 > years ago) seemed to be marginally OK with handling the aging of their > population. The rest were in various degrees of trouble from big to very > big. > > Part of it is that, even with advances, we tend to slow down in our 70s, at > least on average. We cannot expect the same hours of work of a 75 year old > as a 30 year old. > > I had been interested in this, so I did three different scenarios. I have > results in a number of different forms, but let me just give a couple. > > First, assume Europe's population distribution and a constant life > expectancy of about 78 years, and the EU fertility rate of 1.5. We'd get > the following age distribution: > > Now 50 years > <20 21.7% 15.8% > 20-40 26.8% 19.9% > 40-60 28.4% 24.3% > 60-80 18.4% 25.9% > 80+ 4.8% 14.0% > > Then I added a 1 year per decade increase in life expectancy. I got: > > <20 21.7% 14.4% > 20-40 26.8% 18.2% > 40-60 28.4% 22.2% > 60-80 18.4% 25.0% > 80+ 4.8% 20.2% > > Finally, I took a long term ZPG society, with the life expectancy increase > of 1 year per decade. I got: > > <20 30.4% 24.0% > 20-40 28.1% 23.4% > 40-60 23.0% 21.9% > 60-80 14.0% 19.5% > 80+ 4.6% 11.3% > > You see the biggest contributor is the near 30% drop in population per > generation due to the fertility rate, not the aging of the population > because people live longer. > > Dan M. > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
