Posted by rsp777 on 3/8/2019 11:47:00 AM (view original):
Who in the hell thinks ANYBODY should retire LATER. 73??? They should lower it to 60 if they do ANYTHING. This country is headed ***-backwards into a MASSIVE recession and civil unrest and if anyone can't see it they're simply in ignorant denial. When the presidouche loses the office by impeachment OR the 2020 election his 35% base is going to flip out so much it will become something resembling a civil war. I can't believe that rational people still support a criminal liar and just don't even CARE what he does. It's mind-bending how this minority of hate and fear mongers cling to him like burrs in a field on a flannel shirt. dummy is a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger, which the dark lord's base seems to be infected with like measles on non-vaxxed children. How did so many people get so terrified of anything different or progressive in SOCIETY? I'm glad I'll probably check out sometime in the next 25 years and miss the oncoming shitstorm. If you have children you should be TERRIFIED of what ONE MAN has done to our country, because this divide HE ALONE has created grows miles larger by the day. Your children and grandchildren will be left to build a bridge the size of which humanity simply cannot comprehend.
I don't see the link between virtually anything in this rant and retirement age...
Since the Federal retirement age was established in 1937 it has advanced from 65 to 67, two years. Over that same time, life expectancy in the US has increased from about 61 years to about 79 years.
Of course, that's terribly misleading. Since retirement age is ~65, we can find data for life expectancy at age 65. In 1937 it was between 12 and 13 years. Right now it's about 19 years.
Both of these data points are important. More workers are surviving to retirement age, so total life expectancy matters. But life expectancy from retirement age likely is closer to the true representation of the change, since the largest chunk in the pre-65 improvement in death rate consisted of people who died before entering the workforce. So say we push it 6 or 7 years. That would put people in SS for about the same amount of time as they would have expected to withdraw benefits when the program was established.
I'm not necessarily advocating pushing the age. But I can see a case for it. Whereas I certainly don't see a case against it in your meandering post.