Search

Notices

67,68, or even 70

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-26-2019 | 02:32 PM
  #1  
Thread Starter
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Default 67,68, or even 70

Watch CNBC with Phil LeBeau saying serious discussions about raising retirement to 67. 68, or even 70.
Said people are living longer in better health. This getting crazy. I'm sure some senior guys with lots of toy payments and 4 alimony payments might jump at it but this is getting to be ridiculous.
Reply
Old 12-26-2019 | 03:02 PM
  #2  
pangolin's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 4,083
Likes: 0
From: CRJ9 CA
Default

I’d like 67 personally. But that’s me.
Reply
Old 12-26-2019 | 03:21 PM
  #3  
Goin Streakin!
 
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
From: Hogless
Default

Flew with a CA who asked everyone he saw if they’d heard anything about age 67 happening. Proceeded to spend 3 days telling me how good it would be for me. On day 4 I asked him how age 65 affected him. His response was a 30 minute diatribe about how it screwed him over. I believe the only reason he stopped was the look on my face. To his credit he immediately changed his tune about the benefits to everyone.
Reply
Old 12-26-2019 | 03:37 PM
  #4  
TransWorld's Avatar
Gets Everyday Off
 
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 1
From: Fully Retired
Default

Originally Posted by Ivana Humpalot
Watch CNBC with Phil LeBeau saying serious discussions about raising retirement to 67. 68, or even 70.
Said people are living longer in better health. This getting crazy. I'm sure some senior guys with lots of toy payments and 4 alimony payments might jump at it but this is getting to be ridiculous.
Was this for Social Security full benefits? It is already going up to 66.5. Or was it for Pilot mandatory retirement?

Back when Social Security was established, the ages 65 and 62 were selected. 65 was the average age of death for women. Men only made it to 62, on average. So the odds were you would never get any benefits.

In 1900, the average life expectancy for men in the US was 45.
Reply
Old 12-26-2019 | 04:47 PM
  #5  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 193
Likes: 15
Default

Originally Posted by TransWorld
Was this for Social Security full benefits? It is already going up to 66.5. Or was it for Pilot mandatory retirement?

Back when Social Security was established, the ages 65 and 62 were selected. 65 was the average age of death for women. Men only made it to 62, on average. So the odds were you would never get any benefits.

In 1900, the average life expectancy for men in the US was 45.
That low number (45) is a bit misleading. A couple hundred years before that life expectancy was in the 30’s. But it’s not like everyone was keeling over at those ages. If you lived to adulthood you would probably live well past those ages. They had many “old” people back then who weren’t just randomly lucky. What brings those numbers down is the insane infant and child mortality rates. With so many dying prior to age five from all those diseases that we don’t have to worry about anymore, it skewed the number way down.
Reply
Old 12-26-2019 | 06:52 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Default

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-life-expectancy-drops-third-year-row-reflecting-rising-drug-overdose-suicide-rates-180970942/

Actually we should be dropping the age back towards 60.
Reply
Old 12-26-2019 | 10:18 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Ivana Humpalot
Watch CNBC with Phil LeBeau saying serious discussions about raising retirement to 67. 68, or even 70.
Said people are living longer in better health. This getting crazy. I'm sure some senior guys with lots of toy payments and 4 alimony payments might jump at it but this is getting to be ridiculous.
"some" won't jump on it? MOST will definitely jump on it. Forget your reasoning though. Who wouldn't like to retire with a million more in their pocket?

Signed Senior Guy.
Reply
Old 12-26-2019 | 10:34 PM
  #8  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Ivana Humpalot
Watch CNBC with Phil LeBeau saying serious discussions about raising retirement to 67. 68, or even 70.
Said people are living longer in better health. This getting crazy. I'm sure some senior guys with lots of toy payments and 4 alimony payments might jump at it but this is getting to be ridiculous.
You mind sharing the link?
Reply
Old 12-27-2019 | 12:59 AM
  #9  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 438
Likes: 8
Default

There’s enough space cadets in their early 60s that need baby sitting.
Reply
Old 12-27-2019 | 06:30 AM
  #10  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 369
Likes: 62
Default

I would love to retire today but certain factors will make me stay longer. Healthcare is a huge issue for me. Even if I go to 65 and have Medicare, my spouse is 4 years younger than myself and when I start to add up that cost I will stay longer than I want to. Bid back to 787 FO and fly maybe 60 days a year for $200k. Easier to stay.

I would guess some airlines are pressuring the FAA to change the rule.
Reply

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices