The opening move is to cite the German National Retirement Benefit, first proposed by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in 1881. about 40 years” Life expectancy in Germany at birth 40 years old at that point. However, in an era before infant mortality was greatly reduced by vaccines, other medical advances, and improved nutrition, there was a large difference between life expectancy at birth and life expectancy in adulthood. bottom.
And Dana G. Smith, the author of this propaganda for raising the retirement age, because we know:fact less than 60% of American adults lived that length. “
Another way to say “less than 60%” is “it’s over 50%, but I’d like to present this with the term ‘less than'”. or A passage from the Social Security Administration briefly explains the difference between life expectancy at birth and life expectancy for working-age adults.
Looking at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s, one might conclude that social security programs were designed in such a way that people paid taxes and worked for years, but not long enough to receive benefits. life expectancy at birth In 1930, men were 58 and women 62, with a retirement age of 65. I never worked and never paid social security.A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy in adulthood.
As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who reach adulthood can expect to live to age 65, and those who live to age 65 look forward to receiving benefits for many years to come. .
But in linking that U.S. government website powerfully and clearly, “Social Security programs are designed to get people to pay taxes and work for years, but they don’t live long enough.” It is wrong to come to the conclusion that To collect benefits,” Smith quickly asserts. It began as a symbolic offering, accessible only to the lucky citizens who survived into old age. ” this is violently It’s a fraudulent presentation of history and data, and the framework for this entire article on when people should retire, written in the political context of the pressure to raise the social security age.
From that point on, the main questions are:
From an economic standpoint, delaying retirement age probably benefits everyone’s bottom line. But economics aside, what are the mental and physical implications of raising the national retirement age?
The first presented answer applies to 45% of people working in the “knowledge-based field”. 45% is shown here as a large number. This is in contrast to what had previously been said to live to be old enough to claim “less than 60%.” Social security early in the program. People in these knowledge-based fields should be able to continue working until their cognitive function declines significantly, the article suggests.
One of the experts consulted by The Times said, “The cognitive skills we can maintain generally do pretty well into our 70s.” , there is absolutely no reason to set a retirement age in your 60s.” Big “if”, but move on.
But it takes 15 paragraphs to arrive at the reality that not everyone has a sedentary job and takes good care of their health. US life expectancy decliningA good chunk of the decline is happening among people under the age of 50, thanks to many factors such as poverty, firearms and drug overdoses, but I think it’s at least mentioned.
“People who do manual labor can’t keep up with this very hard job at age 65,” one expert told The Times. “Their need for retirement needs to be respected.” But this quote is more of an article than the same expert characterizes his retirement age of 65 as “a 20th century number.” It will come out in the second half.
Additionally, Dr. Lisa Cooper, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Equity, told The Times: “So if they can’t retire until they’re older, it means they don’t get the same Social Security benefits as whites.”
The Times may not have as many readers, but the fact that many still engage in manual labor is becoming more and more painful and difficult before reaching their current retirement age. A writer and this newspaper. And the idea that retirement should not simply be a matter of convenience for the employer, but should be available only to workers who are absolutely incapable of doing their job effectively anymore, appears only in the last paragraph of the work. This article also suggests that in a country that doesn’t require paid sick leave, paid parental leave, much less paid vacation, for many people the only time in their lives when they have to relax and take care of themselves is when they retire. I don’t think it is. .
Of course, the implication throughout is that worrying about retirement age isn’t for the wealthy.The subtext is that this question about retirement age only applies to people who need Social Security after retirement. $1,827 per month With a maximum of $4,555 (applicable only to those who earned the Social Security cap, currently set at $160,200, for 35 years or more and did not retire by age 70), few people can live comfortably on Social Security alone. not here. If you’re going to do that, it’s because it’s basically become impossible to work. Retirement was an emergency. After all, we live in a country where TikTok Walmart retirement is an issue, and workers in their 80s don’t have access to social security or, heaven knows, employer-funded pensions of any kind. You can finally retire not thanks to people crowdfunding your retirement needs on social media.
But of course none of these would register for an article that started by misrepresenting the history of retirement programs and life expectancy to ask a very important question. too much? ”
Related story:
Biden lures Republicans to (literally) stand up for Social Security and Medicare
Republicans Claim They Want To ‘Save’ Social Security, But Like Most Republican Stories, That’s A Lie
TikTok Walmart’s retirement is no reason to celebrate, it’s a dystopian nightmare
