Hacker News Reader

Comment by skookumchuck | Hacker News Reader

I don't get this entitlement to retire at 55 or even 50. The retirement age should be 65.

You can't do most blue collar jobs at 50, much less 65. Shoveling asphalt, laying track, climbing on top or under heavy machinery, or chasing criminals is backbreaking work. The bodies of these people are permanently worn out by the time they hit 55.

Some are promoted into management, but most org charts are naturally pyramids, so there aren't enough of those jobs for everyone. So what to do with someone who is now too disabled for another blue collar job and is not a "competitive candidate" for a white collar job?

I am just a casual observer of American politics and I don’t have an opinion on it. But here in Denmark the retirement age for a police officer is 65. That these people should be particular worn out is not something that is in public discussion.

They just get thrown in the unemployed pool and their income average drops dramatically with severe ripercussion on the final pension calculations

I know because in europe we have an unrealistic retirement age and my father like many other lost his job in the 2008-2012 crisis. Been unemployed ever since.

What happens is that in the 50-65 braket you’re a huge liability with severe productivity drops and companies tries to fire you at the first chance they get.

The european system at least has some protections against unreasonable terminations, so we aren’t fully appreciating the maddnes it would be a free job market, but company closing or figuring out how to fire the old employees in masse drops huge chunks of unemployed for life into the society.

This is becoming a serious issue and it is going to peak in 20 years when all the people like me that don’t enjoy full time national contracts and their protection will get past their productivity prime.

It is illegal to discriminate against anyone for being over 40 years old. That goes for hiring, firing, or promotion decisions. But, yes, it's hard to prove. Enforcement tends to be through civil lawsuits, too, which can be hard to fund and win.

>"so we aren’t fully appreciating the maddnes it would be a free job market"

Of course not, as you probably wouldn't have this weird "retirement age" thing in the free-market absent government intervention. It's almost unheard of, and I'm not surprised. Reading through this thread of all the little "abuses" and "loopholes" that people are figuring out to game the Government-decreed system of retirement is very worrying and eye-opening.

>...You can't do most blue collar jobs at 50, much less 65.

The vast majority of blue collar jobs are in the private sector and they don't get pensions with COLA and free medical when they turn 50 or 55. It doesn't seem fair that government workers are treated differently.

If someone is disabled there are government programs to help them, but I see little evidence that the many of those government workers retiring at 50 are actually disabled or incapable of work since many go on to have another career.

I agree, private sector workers should also get free healthcare.

I don't know how long that will take to actually pass. We can at least stop tying insurance to particular employers. Even in public sector jobs, it can be risky to switch jobs to live in a better neighborhood or work for a better boss (maybe one that doesn't discriminate based on age, for example).

Most government jobs are not blue collar jobs. They're bureaucrats. Half of the jobs in the public school system are administrative, not teaching.

Meh, I've known cops retiring at 55 they are in better shape than your typical 55 year old programmer, same with other blue collar workers. They may not be able to run down a 25 year old perp but physically they are above average.

With regular activity, your strength doesn't really start to decline until you're over 60.

I doubt much of cop work is chasing anyone. It's paperwork, sitting in the patrol car, investigating, following up, running license plates, sitting in court, canvassing the neighborhood, collecting evidence, guarding, routine sweeps, etc.

I don't get how in a world where about 10% of the work goes into actually producing nescessities, and all the rest goes into 'make work' or even worse producing things that are health hazards or nearly straight to landfill junk, we still think we need to 'work more/longer/harder'!

Our 'productivity' has gone up by at least 2% per year. If you understand compounding you realize how significant that impact is. We're in front of a next generation work automation tsunami. The notion that 'working longer' is 'needed' as a consequence of anything besides a completely failed and derailed socio-economic model is absurd.

The point of the article is there isn't enough surplus in the economy to pay these people for 40 years of retirement doing nothing.

My point was there is masses of surplus, even too much, and it is just a distribution/allocation problem.

Yes, too much of it is going to pensions, for example.

It's funny. When people ask "where are the jobs?" the 1% respond "there's no work to do any more. robots are doing it all. automation means we're just too damn productive".

So, presumably there is a surplus.

Except no.

When people ask "where is the money?" the 1% respond "not enough money. Not enough surplus. You need to work until you are 68 now".

This contradiction is, oddly enough, rarely addressed.

Perhaps the problem isn't not enough work or not enough money. Perhaps they are both scapegoats for the real problem: wealth inequality driven by (among other things), tax evasion.

> The notion that 'working longer' is 'needed' as a consequence of anything besides a completely failed and derailed socio-economic model is absurd.

Yes and no. I used to have this same intuition but think that people today, even on the low bracket, have a better life than the previous generations mid-wealthy had. Think how much an iphone would be worth in 1950, and think how many people have it today. It is definitely a great measure of wealth. Look at the internet that has made entertainment virtually free: if you have an internet connection there is no shortage of content ever. And we still produce more content! Who works to produce more content if you could not watch all of youtube right now!

We will turn to idleness only when the benefits we get by further work are less than the value of it. When auto-piloted airplanes with auto-drilled oil and auto-cooks and auto-hotels will make everyone travel a lot more and work less, but maybe at that point we will want to work to get our seat to go to Mars, or the latest art exhibition, or the greatest meal, or better life for your kids.

the argument is that police work is more physically demanding and stressful, there's not too many desk jobs.

that said the benefits in some states are ludicrous, cops spike their payout the last few years and retire with $200k pensions and healthcare for life at 50, then move on to your 2nd careers. In the private sector even if you max out your 401k you'd never come close to that sort of retirement.

> In the private sector even if you max out your 401k you'd never come close to that sort of retirement.

Folks that could and would provide for their future selves like this via 401k programs cannot, as you point out, on account of contribution limits. Saving outside tax-advantaged accounts is certainly doable but hardly seems fair vs the pensioner's tax treatment mentioned in the article.

Police work is not that dangerous....

https://fee.org/articles/by-the-numbers-how-dangerous-is-it-...

I'm sure there are some jobs that are too physically demanding to do at 65. My dad retired from a manufacturing job at 55 because it was putting too much of a strain on his body. Luckily, my parents have always been frugal and my mom could retire at 55 with a teachers pension. But teachers pensions are a lot more reasonable 2% of final salary x years worked up to 30 years.

What's physically demanding about a teaching job?

From the post....

My dad retired from a manufacturing job at 55 because it was putting too much of a strain on his body

My mom retired because she could and they wanted to enjoy their life together while they were still relatively young.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com