Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Pension - Social Security
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Fill in a brief DW Simpson Registration Form
to be contacted when new jobs meet your criteria.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121  
Old 11-22-2010, 06:40 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 84,215
Blog Entries: 6
Default

http://money.usnews.com/money/retire...ncreasing.html

Quote:
Many countries are contemplating or are already in the process of raising the retirement age for their national pension systems. However, in many places, this is simply a reversal of earlier declines in the retirement age. Many governments relaxed retirement-age rules in the 1970s and 1980s, and are now restoring retirement ages to their former levels.
....
Countries with the lowest retirement ages. The most strikingly low retirement age is in Turkey. The former retirement age of 60 was abolished and replaced with a requirement of about 25 years of contributions to receive a full pension. The OECD calculated that many workers who begin working by age 20 will be able to retire around age 45. The next lowest retirement age is 57 in Greece, up from 55 in 1959. In Italy, the retirement age declined from 60 in 1949 to a low of 55 in the 1980s and 1990s, and then climbed back to 59 today. Under current law, the retirement age will increase to 65 in Italy by 2030. A few countries now have a national retirement age of 60, including Belgium, Hungary, Korea, and Luxembourg. France's current retirement age is 60.5.

Places with the highest retirement ages. The countries with the oldest 2010 retirement ages are Iceland and Norway, both age 67. The United States currently has the third highest retirement age: 66. By 2030, the United States and Denmark will also tie as the countries with the oldest retirement age. Both nations have legislation in place to raise the retirement age to 67. However, the United Kingdom is currently projected to overtake all other countries by 2050 with a retirement age of 68.
....
It can be extremely difficult for lawmakers to raise the retirement age. "The political cost for increasing pension age is borne now but the benefits, in terms of lower expenditures, only appear in the future after the government's term," says Whitehouse. Nonetheless, most countries have tinkered with the retirement age at some point since their national pension programs began. Between 1949 and 2010, pension ages were constant for both men and women in only six countries: Finland, Iceland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. It appears that pension ages may be just as volatile over the next 50 years. Eleven OECD countries plan to increase pension ages between now and 2050 for both men and women: Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Austria and the Slovak Republic will increase pension ages for women to equalize them to those of men. Switzerland will increase the pension age for women, but it will still be one year below the retirement age for men.
Hmmm, what was happening in the 70s and 80s.... hmmmm... could it be that the glut of boomers came into the workforce and thus could support more retirees than had been possible before? Hmmmm?

Yeah, too bad those boomers didn't have enough kids themselves so that they could retire early.

Movement in a different direction:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1613521620101116

Quote:
Bolivia's leftist government said on Tuesday it had agreed a bill to nationalize the country's pension system and lower the retirement age to 58.
Get smoking, comrades!

Canada:
http://www.thestar.com/article/89256...nt-begin-at-67

Quote:
Next year will be the last before Canadians start to collect less from the Canada Pension Plan if they retire before age 65.

The percentage lopped off pensions started as early as age 60 will be increased gradually between 2012 and 2016. At the same time, the bonus for pensions started later will be increased.
....
“Projections from the chief actuary show that a gradual increase in the normal retirement age from 65 to 67 (and of the earliest retirement age from 60 to 62) between 2012 and 2023 would create policy flexibility for a number of different choices,” they write in a new paper released this week by the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation.

“A retirement age increase leads to a more balanced distribution across generations of the costs of population aging than a contribution rate increase,” they argue.
....
The professors argue that an age increase would ensure younger and older generations would share the cost of an aging population.

Note, however, that their proposal for a later retirement age would not be fully implemented until near the sixty-seventh anniversary of 1959, the year Canada had a record 479,000 births.

So, true to form, baby boomers who have already had it easier winning the best jobs, best pensions and best homes would be less affected than the younger baby boomers. Also the proposal would be harder on low-income workers, who tend to die sooner than those with higher incomes.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-22-2010, 06:42 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 84,215
Blog Entries: 6
Default

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/20...-to-69-is.html

Quote:
We’ve all heard the analogy of the pig in a python, the fact that the baby boomers represent more people than their parents’ generation, outnumber their own children and far outnumber their 4-year-old grandchildren. Social Security was a product of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal plan to protect workers in the latter stages of life, after retirement. It was set up to benefit those past the retirement age of 65. Despite that, the average age at which workers officially retired was about 68.

Since then, we’ve pushed the retirement age down a bit, allowing early retirement with reduced Social Security benefits at 62. Many Americans now retire at 63 and 64. Folks draw benefits earlier. It doesn’t take an economist to see that expense might be a worrisome issue.

Here’s the rest: We’re living longer. Quite a bit longer.

....
In 1940, retiring workers collected benefits for an average of 14 years. Today, that number is up to about 22 years. When today’s 4 year olds retire, retirees would collect Social Security for almost 26 years. In other words, an already beleaguered Social Security system falls farther behind demand.
....
If, for instance, we were going to draw benefits for as long today as we did when the system was young and healthy, we shouldn’t retire until age 75. As for those 4-year-olds we worry about, their retirement age should bump up to 80.


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 11-22-2010, 09:55 AM
limabeanactuary's Avatar
limabeanactuary limabeanactuary is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Studying for Anglo-Saxon
Favorite beer: Bass Ale
Posts: 14,142
Default

Actually, it has.

I'll have to get back to you, b/c I have to put in all the SocSec tables in my calculator to check it out. But upper age mortality has improved drastically over the past few decades, if I recall correctly.

In the early 20th century, mortality improvement was mostly in younger ages, but that's not true now.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-20-2010, 06:37 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 84,215
Blog Entries: 6
Default

SPAIN:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12423394
Quote:
Spain's prime minister said Friday the government is set on raising the retirement age to 67 from 65 in the new year, despite strong resistance from some opposition parties and labor unions who are threatening another general strike.
....
Spain's main parties have already agreed to extend the number of working years on which pensions are calculated. It is currently based on wages from the last 15 years. The parties have yet to set a new figure but it is expected to be either 20 years or 25 years. This means workers will have to contribute taxes for longer before being able to draw a pension.
....
Moody's ratings agency this week said it was maintaining its negative outlook for Spanish banks and would review the country's debt rating for a possible downgrade.


Only Nixon can go to China, and only a Socialist can tell the unions to get real.

And of course there are protests
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...a65f297e00.521

Quote:
Tens of thousands of Spanish workers staged strikes in 40 cities Saturday to protest state plans to up the retirement age to slash public deficit, the highest in the eurozone after Greece and Ireland.

The strikers gathered in central Madrid carrying red flags and holding placards such as "No to retirement at 67", police said giving the estimates, adding they were essentially from the main UGT and CCOO unions.

"It's a direct attack on the rights of workers, who have already suffered in the crisis for two years," said Juan Carlos Caceres, a railway union leader.

Raising the retirement age "makes no sense because there is a very high level of youth unemployment," said Maria Eugenia Marcos, an unemployed telecommunications worker.
However, the 56-year-old said the protests against the reforms were "weak" as many people realised that something needed to be done safeguard future pension pots.
I love the Britishism "pension pots". Not so much calling pension plans "schemes", though.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-20-2010, 06:38 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 84,215
Blog Entries: 6
Default

UK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/j...e-changes.html

Quote:
Under Government plans, companies will no longer be able to retire someone at 65 from next April. Ministers hope the measure will encourage people to work longer to tackle the UK's pensions shortfall.

But ahead of the Department for Business's response to its consultation on the default retirement age, which could be published as early as this week, business groups are warning they are not prepared for such a significant law change. Both the EEF and the CBI claim the Government has ignored business concerns over ditching the retirement age, including the fear that if a manager asks an employee when they plan to retire it could lead to accusations of ageism.
Well, that's the situation in the U.S. Why not ask your Atlantic brethren how they deal with it?
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-20-2010, 11:23 AM
Chuck Chuck is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,468
Default

Are all these plans really saying people must retire later to receive full pension benefits? Or that they just don't start receiving full pension benefits until later?

While I am sure that point does not convince the protestors, it is (if true), I think, an important distinction, at least for the younger crowd. If you have 10 yrs or more to go, how hard could it be to plan/save to support yourself for the first few years of retirement.

If it is not true, then I think adding that option in a reasonable manner would be a win-win compromise (though again I am sure it would not make the crowds happy).
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-20-2010, 11:54 AM
limabeanactuary's Avatar
limabeanactuary limabeanactuary is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Studying for Anglo-Saxon
Favorite beer: Bass Ale
Posts: 14,142
Default

I don't necessarily know the details in the Spain plan.

I've seen all sorts of changes proposed in the EU, with all sorts of timetables. In some of the cases there are discontinuities in the retirement age rules, and that's of course pissing off a lot of people not making the cutoff date. Instead of being phased in, it's abruptly "next year, minimum age to get public pension benefits is 60." or something like that, when previously it had been 55 or 50. [Seriously, I think earlier in this thread there was a 10-year discontinuity like that]

I think in the case of places like Spain, Greece, and Ireland, they're not talking about changes coming ten years for now for possible pensioners, but changes =right=now=. I could be wrong, of course.
__________________

Now offering online seminars, live seminars, and everything else under the sun and over the moon for actuarial exams.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 01-10-2011, 06:23 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 84,215
Blog Entries: 6
Default

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/05/daniels-robots/

Quote:
The latest to advocate such a change is Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R). During an interview with the New York Times’ David Leonhardt, Daniels claimed that raising the retirement age makes sense because people will eventually live to be 100 years old by “replacing body parts like we do tires”:

Clearly, means testing. Clearly, retirement age, over time. What you’re saying to these younger people is –- who, by the way, I think, barring disasters, are going to live to possibly old ages, as we have always thought of it…They will live to be more than 100, because, again, barring accidents or something, or war, well over. They should. They’ll be replacing body parts like we do tires. If you ask a young person who’s paying any attention to this, “How old do you expect to be, and how long would you like to be a vital working person?” they’re not going to find this offensive. Thirty years from now, you might work at 68, 70, 72….

Aside from the obvious folly of raising the retirement age now in anticipation of human body-part replacement technology that may or may not exist at some undetermined point in the future, Daniels is basing his policy preference on the same faulty understanding of American life expectancy espoused by loads of would-be Social Security reformers.

While average life expectancy has indeed been rising, it is largely as a result of increases among upper income earners working in white-collar jobs. Middle- and low-income workers have not seen the same increases and would be disproportionately affected if the retirement age were raised. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research put it, “there has been a sharp rise in inequality in life expectancy by income over the last three decades that mirrors the growth in inequality in income”
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 01-17-2011, 03:41 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 84,215
Blog Entries: 6
Default

To keep my bile down, posted w/o comment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011404962.html

Quote:
According to economist James K. Galbraith, though, this is exactly backward. In an article in the latest Foreign Policy magazine titled "Actually, the retirement age is too high," Galbraith, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, contends that older workers should be encouraged to retire earlier, not later. With the economy creating few jobs, he writes, "common sense suggests we should make some decisions about who should have the first crack: older people, who have already worked three or four decades at hard jobs? Or younger people, many just out of school, with fresh skills and ambitions?"

The answer he says, is obvious - send the old folks home. He calls for a three-year window in which the age to begin receiving full Social Security benefits drops to 62. "With a secure pension and medical care, [the new retirees] will be happier," he writes. "Young people who need work will be happier. And there will also be more jobs."
....
Galbraith writes ominously that the effort to increase the retirement age is "the most dangerous conventional wisdom in the world today." But sometimes the conventional wisdom is not only conventional, but wise as well.

Galbraith's article:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...isdom?page=0,7
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 01-17-2011, 04:48 PM
Brad Gile's Avatar
Brad Gile Brad Gile is offline
Member
CAS SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Studying for whatever I feel like
College: Alumnus of Brown and UW-Madison
Posts: 11,341
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
Galbraith's 59th birthday is January 29th, so he will be 62 on 1/29/2014. Will he step down from his ivory tower at that time?
__________________
Brad Gile, FSA, MAAA
Affiliate Member of the CAS
Dedicated Retired Actuary

Spoiler:
Obama sucks and we all know it-TDA


Spoiler:

That's been the funniest subplot of this whole thing, the people on the left attacking this bill for not being even more of a steaming pile. - erosewater
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
pension, retirement, retirement age

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.18530 seconds with 10 queries