Time to Retire Retirement Age?

0

This issue includes our annual Special Report called “Eight Over 80.” It’s the third time we’ve published such a section. Frankly, I never figured we’d make it this far. When we started this endeavor, I assumed we’d run out of 80-plus workers after a couple of years. After all, how many hard-working people in their 80s (and beyond) could there be in Los Angeles County?

Well, it turns out, a lot.

The feature reminds us that for many people – certainly not all – working is a real joy. It gives many of us pleasure, provides some purpose to our day and, most of all, defines who we are.

If you love what you do and you’re able to do it, why retire at 65? Or, for that matter, at 80? And it turns out that a surprising number of folks here have come to that conclusion. Far from running out of candidates, we have more than we can publish.

Of course, there’s a broader context here: In the coming years (or even months), the widely recognized retirement age of 65 may well get pushed a notch or two to the north to help solidify the finances of the Social Security system.

To be sure, the idea of a later retirement age hasn’t been popular in Europe, given the rioting over it, but there’s a fair actuarial case to be made for it.

Those who were 40 years old at the beginning of the Great Depression could expect to live to 70. So a retirement age of 65 made sense back then.

But the average 40-year-old today can expect to make it to 80, at least according to charts on file at the National Center for Health Statistics.

A different way of looking at it: Those born 100 years ago had only a 43 percent chance of making it to 65 years old. Those born 50 years ago had a much greater chance of 71 percent. And those born more recently have an even better chance of 83 percent.

I could go on, but the point is simple: We’re living longer. And that makes a retirement age of 65 look increasingly quaint and unsustainable.

If you read the accounts from those in our special report this week, you’ll see that for some people at least, working well into your golden years is a welcome idea.

• • •

The best quote of the week goes to California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, who sponsored a bill to ban blaringly loud television commercials – and got pats on the back from practically everyone. She told the Wall Street Journal last week, “If I’d saved 50 million children from some malady, people would not have the interest that they have in this.”

Television ads have gotten louder recently. Much louder. I know that for a fact. I mean, I have no scientific proof, but I have no other explanation for the ringing in my ears and the cracked crystal on the mantle. My kids have knots on their heads because they all keep

lunging for the remote the instant a commercial pops up.

I dare you: This weekend just try taking a nap in front of the TV.

It’s too bad that we zap the ads. Commercials – many created in Los Angeles – can be entertaining, funny and even informative.

Advertisers and broadcasters believe that by blasting the volume, TV viewers will be forced to pay attention. I think the opposite. If commercials were aired at normal volume, we’d all be far less inclined to hit the mute button. In fact, we may actually watch them.

Charles Crumpley is editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at [email protected].

No posts to display