...or because they're too lazy and filled with a sense of entitlement that everything should be handed to them. At least this is true about my girlfriend's brother.

My Stepfather retired from the navy, got a job with a major insurance company, worked his way up to a high position in their training department while going back to school to earn a few more degrees. He is retiring this month at fifty-mumble. His plan is to start teaching full time.

So essentially he's starting his third career when he's "supposed" to be retiring.

My mom is a Physical Therapist who specializes in the elderly. She's planning to keep working until she is physically incapable of working, or is older than all her patients.

@wagenejm: He's staying in school because he thinks things should be handed to him? I don't quite understand. Coming back to school is costing me much more than I can afford and is much more work than when I had a full-time job. Are you sure it's not a sense of obligation to contribute intellectually to society that is keeping him there?

First, the idea of "retirement" has become a fanciful notion for most Americans. I would say it's steadily become that way over the past 3 decades.

Second, unless the economy turns around and actually GROWS again, we're going to see a generation of young Americans saddled with student loan debt. (Academia could be the next economic bubble to burst.)

My sister in law just graduated college, and she's having the worst time finding a job. Poor girl. She's stuck waitressing.

I have no problem with older people working - it's a give and take, push and pull. Yes, the young people are suffering because older people are still in jobs, or are taking the jobs the young ones would normally be taking (like being a barista at Starbucks), but we all need to pay the bills.

That said, I wouldn't want to be replaced, and I think that's the overriding reasoning. No one wants to be replaced, and because if the job climate, people feel replaceable.

Older individuals who remain at a full-time, paying job not because they need the money, but because they "need something to do" should go volunteer somewhere. If they don't need the money, they should seek a different way of fulfilling their psychological need - cause there's someone out there who has an intense desire to fulfill their physical need to afford proper shelter and food on the table.

Yeah, I dread graduating soon.... too much competition, these older folks have a lot more experience than any graduate will.

And I didn't pick one of the so-called useless Liberal Arts majors.

@wagenejm: The opposite of having things given to you is taking them from others...

Maybe we do need death panels after all.

@morlo: But who do they think should be doing the handing?

The government? employers? Their friends and family?

@Pixel: My father-in-law spent 22 years in the Marines, then another 18 or so in grade school education (he was a great history teacher!) and then got his PhD and is currently teaching college.

Yes, right now he is pulling 3/4 of his military pay (I think its that, he was a Colonel), Teacher Retirement (TRS here in Texas) and is on tenure track. The man is only 64...

But I'm like him. I'll never retire. I enjoy running my business FAR too much.

@wagenejm: @32ndnote:
My girlfriend works for social services, where she helps people on welfare find jobs so they can get off welfare. She talks of this everyday, but not so much the entitlement thing.

She says that too many people are staying in school instead of working, and she sees that with many of the people that she works with. She just got accepted to a CSU, which she was extremely lucky because they are so over crowded they have cut admissions down to almost nothing. She was one of only 200 people accepted for her program.

Her theory on this is that most people are wanting to stay in school since its easier at the moment, and that yeah its "safer" than the job market. BUT, she thinks that in a couple of years when things start to turn around that we will have too many people who are educated but not skilled since they just went to college but have no working experience.

Lose lose situation I guess.

Damn old people. Dey took our juhbs!

For a young person, it just comes down to that old paradox:

"No job without experience, no experience without a job"

Unfortunately it's a huge buyers market where employment is considered. Even retail jobs are being gobbled up by people with tons of professional experience. If you don't have experience, you have to either find some creative way to market yourself or settle for something low wage while you look for better opportunities.

Send them to Carousel.

The boomers are hanging onto their jobs with a vice-like grip and fear in their eyes. I could be wrong but it probably has to do with their miserable savings rates for the last 20 years or so (when they were making their most money).

This is the point in time where the boomers should be gracefully exiting the workforce, the gen x'ers should be filling the power positions and the gen y'ers coming up behind to fill the jobs left by the gen x'ers. This is especially evident in union controlled jobs where all the gen x and y'ers were just flushed out of their jobs so the 55-60 year olds could keep theirs.

Right now it's just a log jam and everyone is getting pretty pissed off about it (at least around where I work).

@dragonfire81: But a lot of students forget about internships. It's important to think ahead. I had two internships and some freelance work (which I got from volunteering) under my belt by the time I got into my senior year of college and started applying for jobs. That counts as work experience.

@pecan 3.14159265: Screw that guy with the "intense desire." If someone at retirement age wants to continue working, is able to do the job competently, AND his employer is willing to pay him, than that individual is under no such moral obligation to "get out of the way" of some young buck.

Now, my advice to Mr. Intense Desire is simply this: Backstab early and often. Works for me.

@dragonfire81: I keep hearing that, but it's just not true. The problem is, no one wants to start at the bottom to get the experience to move up to the position they think they deserve.

I'm thoroughly convinced that when I graduate in two years I'll have no choice but to form a commune of fellow unemployed graduates that will eek out an existence on squatted land in the Appalachian mountains. Basically we will become hillbillies, well educated hillbillies.

@G.O.B.: Come on!: +1 I was just watching that on DVD this morning and hoping I could find a way to say that today!

@HIV 2 Elway: Renew!

@HIV 2 Elway: haha....oh wait I shouldn't laugh, I am up for renewal next year

That has to be one of the best Consumerist Kitty pictures!

Let the Boomers keep their jobs as long as we get them the hell out of Congress. They've thrown enough wrenches in the works for one generation.

Another factor is that many of us boomers postponed having kids until later -- mid to late 30s, and even 40s. So we are still raising children, putting them through college, etc. My husband and I cannot afford to retire for at least five more years, when our youngest should be through with college.

@bloggerX: Agreed, squee!

@Quake 'n' Shake: I agree that there isn't any obligation. But I think, like along the lines of that "I only hire ugly people" post, I think the people who are there because they love their job and need the money sometimes do a better job than the people who are just there for giggles and to escape boredom.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't mean that older professionals who are near retirement age should just leave their jobs to give young people the job, but if you're retired, or have enough money that you don't need to work another day in your life - don't go off and be a barista at Starbucks to pass the time and escape boredom. Volunteer for a homeless shelter or read books to kids or something. Cause someone who needs the money, needs that barista job.

@bloggerX: I want to eat them both they are so damn cute.

As one of the older participants, I can say that I just don't want to retire. A bunch of us (all over 60) formed this company to develop a new product and, if it works as expected, we'll have created a bunch of new jobs. We're actually having fun doing it. When the company is mature, we'll probably do something else but sitting on our butts is not an option.

I was surprised when my own dad called and said he was going from month-to-month work in a management postion (hired to clean up a mess left by the last group) to a full time position in a major city.

He's 80.

I would have to say he has A LOT of experience. Expects his employees 5 decades younger to keep up with him, too.

@pecan 3.14159265: Ahhh.. I see where you're going with this. I was thinking along the lines of a professional such as in my field who continues working well past retirement eligibility. Your barista analogy puts things into perspective.

Well- it doesn't help that Wall Street squandered hundreds of billions in value on their stupid money making schemes- a lot of people who should have had "safer" investments lost a significant amount of their retirement- so they'd LIKE to retire, but can't- and its easier to say "awwww, I just like to feel useful" than admitting you need the $$$.

@ElizabethD: You parents, what with you wanting your own lives and all have ruined everything for your kid's generation. Because of people like you I was born in the late 80s.

@thewriteguy: No kidding. A generation of kids in debt up to their necks!

Even several of our friends have college loans, car payments, and a mortgage - at the same time. And with the cost of college skyrocketing, it's not uncommon for it to cost $50,000 around here (per year).

Secondly, it's sad that people have to keep working to maintain friends and connections when they are older. I'd retire at 28 if I could because my friends generally come from church and music groups/bands. But I guess people that pour their lives into work lose their lives when they lose their jobs?

I think we're looking at this in the wrong way. Young people, let the old people slave away at the computers and the desks and the meetings. While they're doing that, just go sign up for untold riches by working for the Dollhouse.

"Or because school is a much safer place to be than the job market right now."

-- just ask Katstermonster about it :P

Also, seriously old folks, please retire, else we'll pass a health care reform bill with death panels in it.

@pecan 3.14159265: I second that - while there's no obligation to quit, not working frees up time to involve yourself in others' lives for their benefit!

@Kasira:

Yeah, its one of those things that start with a grain of truth, then a twist this way, and a spin that way, and a little bit of salt along the way... and tadaaa a plausible sounding phrase that isnt exactly true.

I think that's a typo in the main summary here. The study breakdown in the source article, insofar as the reasoning behind staying employed goes, is a comparison between those 65 and older to those under age 65. NOT age 55 and older versus younger. I think the problem was that they used age 55 as an age break for explaining employment trends, but age 65 as an age break for employment motivators.

In fact, with regard to the age group around age 55, the story states: Among workers ages 50 to 61, fully 63% say they might have to push back their expected retirement date because of current economic conditions. So, over a majority of those in 55 year old age group are concerned enough about their finances to stay in the job market. Among women in that age group, the number saying they will stay in their jobs due to financial issues jumps to over 70%.

Those over 65 have qualified for most of the benefits which would allow them to work without money being their primary concern. Just makes sense. But for those under that age, financial concerns appear to be a huge factor.

@socalrob of the 24 and a half century:

I got a law degree at 33, and with the 30 year loan repayment, I'll only be paying my loans off at 63, so I will need to work long beyond that to save any real money for retirement, if I ever get to retire.

The health insurance issue is understated both by the article and the respondents. Out of pride? they don't want to seem desperate? or reveal they have a pre-existing condition?.
My parents have a dozen or so friends between 55-65, who would love to retire and could afford it. Their houses are paid off or a low payment, they've made all their major purchases, kids out of college, eligible for partial pensions. They just can't get any medical coverage at any price, because of age and/or a pre-existing condition. A few are so sick they should really be on disability, but most are perfectly well, recovered from whatever condition would exclude them. So they hang on until Medicare kicks in, holding jobs that younger people need.

@itiswhatitis:

Alright everybody, back to the pile!

@Cogito Ergo Bibo: You're absolutely right. Most people working between 55 and 65 are doing it because they have to, and they're holding out for the full benefits that only come once you reach 65. After 65 (which is what the original survey reflects), the reported results do not surprise me. Of course this is all going to change once Social Security bottoms out in what, 3 years now?

@aswearengen: so with your 30 year loan repayment, you are not managing to save anything out of your monthly paychecks? What percentage of your earnings are going to the loan payments? What kind of law do you practice?

@bizzz:

Interesting point.

My parents (mid 50's) both work for state and local governments, are union-repped, and are getting generally fucked with furloughs. Better than cuts, but it sucks. They did a poor job of managing money when my sister an I were younger but have turned themselves around and are saving on top of their expected pensions and Social Security.

How many laborers that are otherwise unemployable are using seniority to force out younger workers because they a)always expected their jobs/pensions to be there, and b)forgot that having more money in savings was a good thing?

@G.O.B.: Come on!:

@MostlyHarmless: No we won't, young people never go to the polls. The congressmen will pass anything as long as it keeps the old folks back home happy.

(though I did think your comment was funny. As I always said to my parents: be nice to me, I get to pick which home to put you in.)

@bairdwallace:

Ping!

Seriously, this is just like the jerk the other day that claimed his wife was in Med school but was considering not working because she wouldn't be able to "afford" her loans!

If your loans are at 30 years, not only will your payments be very small, but you'll likely see several reductions in the interest rate (assuming you pay on time and Congress makes further rate adjustments).

If you're pulling in anywhere near the income a lawyer should be making (low six figures), you shouldn't have a problem with your JD loans.

@UltimateOutsider:

Social Security is theoretically fine until 2040. Theoretically because I'm not sure where the omnibus bills and the military appropriations are coming from.

Any Republicans want to chime in on why raiding the SS Trust Fund was SOOOO important to go to war in Iraq?