Wednesday, June 15, 2005
By Steven L. Taylor

Via WaPo: GOP Senators May Make 69 Retirement Age.

Given that the law already has already started to phase in a retirement age of 67, I can’t see anything wrong with slowly adding (over two decades, according to the story) another two years.

There is nothing speifically sacrosanct about 65. It isn’t as if the body automatically shuts down at 65 and so that number was chosen for reasons of biological imperative.

Not to mention that at the rate we are going, by the time such a proposal was put into place that the life expectancy will probably have creeped higher a tad.

It is certainly worth consideration.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (11)|
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.

11 Responses to “Raising Retirement Age to 69?”

  1. Don Singleton Says:

    Retirement Age 69

    This seems like a very good idea. People are living much longer, and if they increase this number it will make it harder for companies to force people to retire at 65.

  2. Gary and the Samoyeds Says:

    How much does that worsen the rate of return? Is it negative now?

  3. Jan Says:

    I have read recently that life expectancy in the US has begun to fall for the first time in decades. Due to obesity and the like, scientist now say that this generation of children will likely have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. (I just read it a few weeks ago but I don’t remember the source.)

  4. Neo Says:

    Let’s cap off a bad day with making the minimum wage $10.00/hr.

  5. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

    I think I saw the same report.

    I remain skeptical on that count.

  6. Mark Says:

    I think this debate is fine for people with jobs in collegs but I do believe that people in factories, loading docks, heavy work and other physical labor are in danger if we raise the age that much. I can teach until I am very old but it is not very physical. Most blue collar labor people have jobs that are hard to do as you get older.

  7. Mark Says:

    Sorry about the spelling above

  8. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

    This is true, and the normal objection. However, is there really that radical a difference, on average, between 67 and 69 in terms of physical ability? (or even betweenb 65 and 69?)

    And while there is no doubt that being a blue collar worker is harder on the body than being a white collar worker, I am guessing that most people in the 60s, even in blue collar jobs, have advanced beyond working as a basic-level dock loader.

  9. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:


    I do it all the time (speed and accuracy don’t mix).

    And for what it’s worth: I didn’t even notice.

  10. PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » PoliBlog on MSNBC Says:

    [...] that all of the electrons I have spilled this week on lengthy posts, the one they picked (on raising the retirement age to 69) was a quickie I entered this morning whilst breaking my fast before headi [...]

  11. Irrational Woman Says:

    Dangerous Jobs and Retirement Age

    I was reading an article at MSN this morning about the Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs and I was reminded of a post I read a while back at Poliblog. I had intended to make this comment on the post at the time, but never managed to get around to it.

blog advertising is good for you

Visitors Since 2/15/03

Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics



Powered by WordPress