The graying of the American workforce continues: Baby boomers are working longer and earning more than their predecessors did in what Americans typically think of as retirement years, new research finds.
Almost 20% of Americans ages 65 and older were employed this year, according to a new report from Pew Research Center. That’s nearly double the share of those who were working 35 years ago. In total, there are around 11 million Americans 65 or older who are working today, comprising 7% of all wages and salaries paid by U.S. employers. In 1987, they made up 2%.
And not only are more Americans at or above the traditional retirement age of 65 working, but they are also earning substantially more compared with what older workers earned in the 1980s. Now, the typical older worker earns $22 per hour, compared with $13 per hour then. Their wage growth—some of which can be attributed to their working longer hours than older Americans did in the past—has outpaced that of workers ages 25 to 64 over the same time period, according to Pew’s research, which is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and the Federal Reserve’s 2022 Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking.
The interesting thing is when you think about how social security is supposed to work.
The younger generations need to work and earn a decent wage to subsidize the older generations retirement.
The longer the older generations stay in the work force, the less openings there are for the younger generations to contribute to social security.
Wait until AI takes jobs -_-
AI will only take jobs that pay well while we humans are all working in factories and McDonald’s.
Robots powered by AI will be making burgers and assembling on the factory floor.
We’ve had the tech to replace these jobs with bots for years and we haven’t. But artists were replaced overnight.
I know plenty of employed artists.
Oh? That means that every artist is employed and AI hasn’t impacted them at all? Weird.
That’s not how RRSP works.
No, but it’s still correct.
Retired individuals make use of tax funded systems all the time and those only work if younger people pay taxes.
Kind of. But working longer also means that person costs less in social security, and the plan was designed as a pyramid scheme. But we can’t grow in population forever. So if this is the glut of old people, they need to work longer. That’s why one of the “fixes” to any system like that is increasing the retirement age. Also the economy isn’t a zero sum problem where I can take your job, really. It’s more like a living system. Jobs get created and lost, it grows from the bottom up.
That’s a good point.
Somethings I didn’t realize I don’t know of till now. When does one withdraw money from social security? Like do they have to request it from the government? A government worker might have a retirement age but for most Americans, it’s more of a guide. I know plenty of people that are in their 70s and they never plan to retire. If they continue to get paid on w-2 and report earnings to the IRS, does that mean they are ineligible to receive social security benefits?
I suppose if they are not able to collect social security money, and they continue to pay into it but they retire later then you are 100% correct and it’s not as big of a problem for the younger generations as I thought.
Although I would say that the job market is in fact a competition. No matter if you are someone with seniority and experience, someone with little experience willing to work for less, or simply an automaton.
subsidize old folks retirement? why? didnt they work for 40+ years? shouldnt that have been long enough to save up a retirement fund?
deleted by creator
I’m talking about in the USA. It is supposed to work the way you say. But in reality, you aren’t paying into an individual account for yourself. You pay into a pool that the government uses as soon as it receives the money for the current recipients of social security.
Really it’s a ponzi scheme with declining contributors and an increasing amount of people cashing out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwO2hEO13iY
some severe misinformation about that video :
For one it’s 9 years out of date and thus cannot apply to todays demographic of massive influence of Airbnb and gentrification.
For another while it mentions the national debt it fails to mention HOW the national debt (cough military) became that bad. It is mainly an accountant error (president is basically an accountant)
For another it fails to mention the taxations that are actually in place for pensions (I’ll mention below) and it also fails on how to make the connection about how those pensions are ‘wealth transfer’ programs. And speaking of wealth transfer, it got the definition wrong. Wealth transfer isn’t paying into someone’s pension. The definition is actually hereditary in that it goes the opposite way: what the older generation leave to their family upon death or invest for schooling or help out with buying houses for their children .
For another the crux comes up at 3:01 and your entire argument is boomers are struggling to sell stuff…if this were true they could always take a page from essentially the rest of the world: sell your stuff offshore or to companies like Airbnb . In fact it’s one of the major (global) issues right now with finding enough housing because everyone is selling their properties (and there isn’t enough) and it’s all owned by offshore because there is always offshore buyers and there’s always capitalists on the Airbnb market. And I may remind you that a lot of younger generations now fill up the capitalist roles who are more than willing to turn a profit. I find it hard to believe that selling your property is the end all problem here when practically the rest of the world is on fire because of how easy it is to sell property for a hefty chunk of money and many vulnerable are homeless as a result(many of those vulnerable are boomers with financial and medical issues btw). The richer Boomers with property simply do not need a millennial to buy their property to turn profit. They got many buyers offshore waiting with baited breath. But what is an issue you should be paying attention to : capitalists such as airBNB are your problem here raising the prices. That is being run by everyone younger than boomers too who did receive a transfer of wealth. Not just boomers.
For another 6:15 many of these issues that younger generations are facing are put in place by younger than boomers. It’ll reiterate what I said in another post: if a boomer leaves a job and the job description changes/gets sent off shore or etc, this isn’t what boomers are responsible for. This change comes from younger generations changing the job description locking their own fellow generation out so they can make a buck. Just look to Zuckerberg and how much he makes selling private information. He’s a millennial btw. Cuz the richer younger generation are probably even more successful at greed than the boomers. There’s an even more exacerbating differential on class now than before when you have a diversity of generations filling the billionaire roles now. That isn’t on the boomers. That’s on capitalism. Retiring Boomers are no longer the only people at the capitalism table making bad decisions. So they can’t simultaneously exist in a job and also retire to not exist on the job to take all the blame. That’s just unreasonable and unrealistic to point all problems that way. At that point it’s only about shifting responsibility. It has nothing to do with fixing it.
And another: it doesn’t even mention the OAI nor 401k which is currently present in the USA and applicable in the same way as an RRSP and CPP is. It’s pretty clear that their pension comes from a very similar tax structure as to what common wealth countries do. With these pensions the important thing to keep in mind is that a company will not take a prerogative to invest in an entitlement program so it would be in earnest that the employee needs to keep on top of it to contribute their percentage for their private RRSP or 401. an employer may decide to contribute but it isn’t compulsory anywhere. Well almost anywhere…… in Australia the superannuation is compulsory. But in North America it is not.
(Note: If this is taking you by surprise and you have a dumping stomach feeling please rush to an accountant to help you understand what your next step should be regarding your 401 immediately)
that is something perhaps not being taught to you alongside in school about these other topics. When it really should be.
deleted by creator