|
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 104504)
Social security starts at 62.
Past... |
Originally Posted by 130JDrvr
(Post 104548)
62 1/2 at a reduced rate...
Past... |
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 104553)
No, 62. Even if you were born in 1960 or later.
Originally Posted by tone
If I get my eye poked out by some snotty-nosed kid with a rubber band and paper clip, I will lose my FAA medical. Is that descrimination? No, it just means I probably can't fly as well as I could before this hypothetically happened. If I live to be as old as 60, I ALSO can't fly as well as I could before that age. There's no descrimination. Just accepting the law's of nature. People grow old, that's why we retire. Let's keep it at 60!!
For you to say that if you live to be 60, you'll not be able to fly as well as you could before that age, is well, just STUPID. I suggest that you probably can't fly that well now, because you certainly can't think that well now. Have you ever seen Bob Hoover fly his Shrike Commander? He's been over 60 since the Mid-80's and he flys the **** out of anything with wings. What you fail to realize is that as one gets older, all things being equal, what you lose in reaction time and motor skill, you make up for with experience, and having been there and done that. Maybe you wouldn't be able to effectively fly an F-16 or F-18 in combat. That does take fast reactions, but to say that you can't fly a Boeing or Airbus is ridiculous. These planes don't require lightening-fast reactions, they require intelligent, level-headed responses to situations that we train for, talk about and think about. As for "accepting the laws of nature", I do. But to me that means that if I drop something, it's going to always fall to the floor.:D |
Originally Posted by Jetjok
(Post 104596)
If you were born after 1959, your full retirement age is 67. So if you elect to start receiving benefits prior to that, you will receive a reduced benefit, based on your age at the start of receiving benefits. If you can afford to hold off until your full retirement age, you will have done very well with that "investment."
I don't think that I'll live to be 90. |
Originally Posted by Jetjok
(Post 104452)
So it's an age thing?
Originally Posted by Jetjok
(Post 104452)
All of the above are beginning ages for the above situations, with the one exception of Social Security. None of the above have not-greater-than ages, like the arbitrary Age 60 retirement of pilots. Why is that? Because in all of the above cases, it's assumed that a person both matures and gets smarter with age (IMHO).
Originally Posted by Jetjok
(Post 104452)
Maybe that's why they've put the lower age limits in place for many of the above. Personally I don't think that it's age discrimination to not allow someone under the age of 18 to drink and/or drive. I think it's common sense, and if you don't believe me, just check with your insurance carrier and ask why insurance for younger drivers is so high. It's because they are, as a group, bad drivers.
As a group 60+ are more likely to die of a heart attack/stroke than a 20-30 year olds. Stop the "grouping" excercises....
Originally Posted by Jetjok
(Post 104452)
So my question to you is: Why must "society find an age that can be accepted to define when someone is or isn't fit to hold some position." Wouldn't it be better to come up with tests, both physical and cognitive, that would be better predictors as to when someone should retire from a given job?
See it's easy for you to discriminate with a young person saying it's experience. I agree that a young person is less experienced than he will be 10,20,30 years down the road. But that 17 year old might have more experience than a 40 year old in another situation. Yet you're going to clump all "youngsters" as immature? Some 18 year olds are fine to drink because they know when to say when, some 55 year olds are alcoholics and can't get up in the morning without a brandy and a scotch before work. Some pilots (like yourself :) ) can be perfectly fine in the cockpit at 70. If I was a 16 year old that grew up with Bob Hoover, Chuck Yeager, Evelyn Johnson ( I hope you know who she is) as personal mentors and could ace any flight exam, would you want me as your capt in the 727 as you're flipping switches? Probably not.
Originally Posted by Jetjok
(Post 104452)
Maybe that's the same reason why there are beginning age limits on other aviation-related licenses. But the same can't be said for the Age 60 rule.
I understand everything you've said, and I agree with some of it. What I really don't get though is how you don't see the same discrimination happens to both young and old. |
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 104628)
Retirement at age 62 vs 67 - 30% hit for early payment: assuming zero interest rate for time value of money, the break even point is 78yrs 7 mos. Assuming a 5% interest rate, your break even point is right around 90yrs.
I don't think that I'll live to be 90. Rather than my trying to convince you of the logic of this, I'd ask that you read the following link. It's one of many that I've read over the past year or two. Hopefully you and everyone else nearing retirement will at least consider this. If not, that's ok too. It's your money and life. http://www.boston.com/business/perso...rity_benefits/ |
Originally Posted by koz2000
(Post 104640)
Yes, why do you think it's coined the Age 60 rule?:D
That is exactly what discrimination is. You assume that a younger person isn't mature, based solely on age not the person. Why not look at the individual, just as you want to be looked at individually as an older person. So my question to you, why is it always the old fart in the left lane going 15mph under the speed limit...:D As a group 60+ are more likely to die of a heart attack/stroke than a 20-30 year olds. Stop the "grouping" excercises.... The same reason that you say all 18 year olds are too immature to drink/drive (not in combination BTW...) Yes it would be nice to test only on individual basis but that will probably never happen. I was driving my dad's pickup around the farm well before I was 12. I could have easily passed the driving test. I got my DL at 16 never had a wreck (and still haven't) or a speeding ticket until I was past 24 and that was due to me being called to work at the last minute. But wasn't I one of thoes "dangerous" drivers. See it's easy for you to discriminate with a young person saying it's experience. I agree that a young person is less experienced than he will be 10,20,30 years down the road. But that 17 year old might have more experience than a 40 year old in another situation. Yet you're going to clump all "youngsters" as immature? Some 18 year olds are fine to drink because they know when to say when, some 55 year olds are alcoholics and can't get up in the morning without a brandy and a scotch before work. Some pilots (like yourself :) ) can be perfectly fine in the cockpit at 70. If I was a 16 year old that grew up with Bob Hoover, Chuck Yeager, Evelyn Johnson ( I hope you know who she is) as personal mentors and could ace any flight exam, would you want me as your capt in the 727 as you're flipping switches? Probably not. You and nobody else really knows that. ICAO just changed the rule. In 20 years there will be enough data to make a fair determination of the effects of flying past 60 as a 121 pilot I understand everything you've said, and I agree with some of it. What I really don't get though is how you don't see the same discrimination happens to both young and old. This is only one example of how you turned my post around. I'll do some more rereading myself and get back to you. |
Well, I "THINK" that all pilots over 60 are as a group, bad pilots. Its only common sense.
Now how rational does your comment sound? Those same insurance companies will tell you that older drivers have more accidents and are more expensive to cover than middle aged drivers. For the record, my first comment above is sarcasm. My point being that you are sweeping people with a very broad brush that you don't feel is fair for others to do to pilots 60 and over. Its got to work both ways. FJ |
I don't disagree with you about "older" drivers being more of a problem than middle-aged ones. But it's not because they (as a group) are immature, whereas with the younger ones, it's exactly that. That and a lack of experience. At some point in time, the terms "children" and "adult" were created. Maturity on the other hand can be exhibited by almost anyone, of almost any age. However, maturity without experience is primarily exhibited by people who are younger, rather than older people. It's a function of time, I believe. And it really doesn't have to work both ways, in fact, to a degree, it can't. Thankfully. Because if it did work both ways, how would you feel if your wife and two children got on a commercial flight, flown by a 16 year old pilot?
|
Originally Posted by Jetjok
(Post 104781)
I don't disagree with you about "older" drivers being more of a problem than middle-aged ones. But it's not because they (as a group) are immature, whereas with the younger ones, it's exactly that.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:40 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands