21–30 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"...you aren't necessarily done working for the rest of your life, just that working has become completely optional" Optional - as long as you live in your parents' basement and don't want to start a family. :-)
Dependence is the new independence!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're defining retirement as "you don't have a job and aren't looking for one", which is an egregious stretch of a definition. They're not financially independent or retired, they've given up looking for work worth doing.
No, that's not it - of the people 20-24 who "don't have a job and aren't looking for them", the number of people who said it was because they were retired doubled. Other answers were "disabled" and "staying at home". That being said, I don't see how anyone can retire at 20-24 - if it was 30-34 it'd make a lot more sense. . .
It shouldn't be called retirement. It is probably more like a temporary hiatus. Also, it isn't just 20-somethings. US employment has been somewhat of a raw deal in the last 15 years for all age groups. Some people have realized that working to live just isn't worth it. There's a lot of bullshit work assigned in a typical corporate job, and this 'impedance mismatch' forces some people with financial strength to quit a…
When I started working I worked jobs I didn't want to do for the rest of my life, but it wasn't just about the money. I leaned skills, learned to work and learned I better find a new, better job - even if it is only slightly better. Some jobs only leave you with one important thing - a work ethic, and that is what gets you a better job, someday. I know, I'm just one person, but that is my story and I'm sticking to it. Maybe it will only get one person off their butt and doing something they don't enjoy.
It shouldn't be called retirement. It is probably more like a temporary hiatus. Also, it isn't just 20-somethings. US employment has been somewhat of a raw deal in the last 15 years for all age groups. Some people have realized that working to live just isn't worth it. There's a lot of bullshit work assigned in a typical corporate job, and this 'impedance mismatch' forces some people with financial strength to quit a…
They're defining retirement as "you don't have a job and aren't looking for one", which is an egregious stretch of a definition. They're not financially independent or retired, they've given up looking for work worth doing.
The article did a poor job of explaining its titular premise, imo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're defining retirement as "you don't have a job and aren't looking for one", which is an egregious stretch of a definition. They're not financially independent or retired, they've given up looking for work worth doing.
If they're neither working nor financially independent, what are they living on? Not a rhetorical question; I don't live in the US, and am a bit vague about its welfare system. Is this essentially about people moving back in with family?
For one, they could actually be looking at jobs but passively. i.e. if you check the newspaper or websites for jobs, but didn't apply to any, you're not counted as 'looking for a job', so you're not unemployed either even though you obviously are. Passive job search is not included in the figures.
Other than that, note that unemployment is measured in periods of 4 weeks. i.e. if you have a consulting gig for 8 months, and are then out of a freelance job for 5 weeks (after which you get another gig), and get interviewed during that time, you'd be unemployed, despite the fact you may have earned a normal annual income that year.
Anyway, that's just to say that unemployment numbers may be off. It doesn't answer your question yet.
But indeed there are also people who can't provide for themselves and are considered unemployed. A lot of them live at their parents, another significant chunk is simply living on debt. Creditcard debt is huge in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're defining retirement as "you don't have a job and aren't looking for one", which is an egregious stretch of a definition. They're not financially independent or retired, they've given up looking for work worth doing.
If they're neither working nor financially independent, what are they living on? Not a rhetorical question; I don't live in the US, and am a bit vague about its welfare system. Is this essentially about people moving back in with family?
Previous generations had two reasons to move out and rent on their own - marriage and health insurance. Nowadays Americans are marrying at much lower rate, and parents can keep kids on their insurance until the age 26.
So maybe this is the new normal, and the previous status quo of 20-something moving out and getting a job immediately was a distortion.
It shouldn't be called retirement. It is probably more like a temporary hiatus. Also, it isn't just 20-somethings. US employment has been somewhat of a raw deal in the last 15 years for all age groups. Some people have realized that working to live just isn't worth it. There's a lot of bullshit work assigned in a typical corporate job, and this 'impedance mismatch' forces some people with financial strength to quit a…