Originally Posted by
symbian simian
Can't qoute Fangs directly for some reason, probably my age....
FWIW, I see the selfishness in my position.
I disagree that wanting to change something vs wanting to keep the status quo is by definition more selfish.
I got stuck for those 5 years, age 67 would give me less than half that time to make up for that.
Career earnings for those staying till 67, and ugrading 2 years later would higher, not lower. They will only make less if they retire at 65. Not saying it's fair, but your math is wrong, provided everything else remains the same (I know...)
I would vote in favor. If it gets voted down, I would accept that without *****ing, just like age 65 when that happened. Thing is, none of us will get a vote, so none of this matters.
(APC really needs autocorrect)
APC
does need a functional autocorrect on the desktop version (in addition to getting rid of the darn green banner which pops up every 16.9 seconds)!
While I appreciate being honest about your motivation, I respectfully disagree with your logic as expressed. Changing the rules mid game to effectively benefit one group
is inherently unfair and selfish, at least in this situation. It’s like changing the number of baseball innings to 11 just because you aren’t winning in the bottom of the 9th. “Us” wanting to keep the innings at 9 is not selfish. It’s the rules we all signed up for.
And while I get that an additional 2 years now would help
you make up for the 5 spent ‘stuck’, I would argue that for the vast majority, it would make it worse, like a second kick in the junk. For others, it would. be a ‘new’ injury
In reality, this is a pretty minor issue, but I’m not so sure about your statement about career earnings. On a spreadsheet, the total column
might be larger for some, but giving me 500k in 10 or 30 years isn’t the same as 500k tomorrow. it’s “this year dollars” versus “then year dollars“. Granted, we can’t know what those future earnings would total, so it’s really tough to qualify. But regardless of who’s right on that small point, it only matters if I
also go to 67….
At the end of the day, every single person who does not go to 67 will be irreparably harmed, IMO.
But again, if you’re 63 or 64, I can’t really blame you for wanting to continue flying, and making money. I might feel the same way if I were in those shoes. Just trying to explain why I think so many are opposed to 67 (as if we haven’t all heard all of these arguments 100 times before already, L O L)