• guyrocket@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Life expectancy for men = 73.2 years in the USA.

    So if I retire at 66, I can expect about 7.2 years of retirement. That would even be 1 year before my social security retirement age of 67. And I will have worked 52 years to achieve that retirement (I started a part time job at age 14). Work 52 to get 7.2.

    Not exactly a great deal, is it? Shouldn’t retirement be at least a decade?

    • ATQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      If you want the government to pay for your “retirement” then the retirement age is 66. But you can retire literally whenever you want as soon as you have the resources. Which might be in your late 40s or early 50s depending on education, career, and personal goals.

      Also keep in mind that “life expectancy” is an average that is reduced by men that die from car accidents, strokes, and whatever else much earlier than 66. The life expectancy of a 60 year old male in the US is 80.

            • ATQ@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Did you expect that younger generations would just inherit all their wealth? I’d have thought that this kind of landed gentry outlook wouldn’t be what a tankie like yourself would promote. Instead, due to the linear nature of time, young people of every country in every stage of human history generally have less wealth than their elders. Because they’ve had less time to accumulate it. What part of that are you struggling with?

                • ATQ@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Awwwwh, don’t have a link for hurt feelings huh? I accept your apology. 😂🤣😂