Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Even Harper derangement syndrome sufferers

say something almost nice occasionally. Some positive words from Andrew contrarian Coyne. Brian Lee Crowley puts it best. Age 65 is no longer the exhausted tail end of life. And the research is eloquent about how central work is to the lives of those able to engage in it, including those over 65. For many, idyllic pictures of early and prolonged retirement without work are, in fact, not that attractive. Why? Because working is and has always been bound up with human fulfilment, with being productive, useful to others and responsible for oneself. That’s why most people, not just a majority, but around 90 per cent of them, express great attachment to their work, independently of income, education, social class and whether they work for private companies, not-for-profits or the public sector. In both Canada and the United States, the vast majority of people tell pollsters they would continue working even if they no longer needed to, including if they won the lottery. More than four-fifths of Canadians say they would like to continue to work even if they had enough money to retire. And nearly half of Canadians of working age already expect to work beyond the age of 65, and not just for economic reasons, according to a survey done for one financial institution: “Nearly all of those who expect to work beyond age 65 cite one or more lifestyle reasons, including remaining mentally active, enjoyment of their jobs and the interaction with their co-workers.” In other words, future retirees are coming more and more to realize that work (although not necessarily any particular job, a distinction many people seem to have difficulty grasping), is closely related to happiness.

3 comments:

melvin said...

Well, for the very first time I find the conclusions in one of your posts, bunk.
I am a hell of a lot older than 65 and live in a community in which the average age is 75. The quote "future retiree's" is in itself hilarious.
At best it's speculative opinion much like dreams of a better tomorrow. Frankly, everyone should want to become and will become a retiree if they are fortunate.
I have no objection as a senior to pulling with all Canadians to handle the emergent world financial meltdown. I do object to senior's who are the most vulnerable to being the first at the gate.
With billions wasted every year on subsidies and boondoggle, isn't that were we should start the cuts. Isn't the well being of pensioners more important that the CBC which sucks up over a billion dollars a year?
How about 100's of thousands for cheese factories or dance companies and the list goes on and on.
Senior's have and will continue to support reasonable efforts on behalf of our country...but, lets start with the frills before we cut the bread and butter.
I have been an active supporter of the conservative party for many years and I have to say I'm worried. I have signed up new members for the conservative party,held many meetings in my home for MP's and Cabinet members and at the moment I wouldn't dare attempt to go recruiting in my neighborhood.
When I turn on the boob tube and watch the CBC I am reminde3d that they gt the billion dollars while myself and the other old geezers get the cuts!

Roy Eappen said...

Any changes will not affect you Melvin. I am 50 and count on having no government pension. But I respect your opinion.

Adrien Pouliot said...

The reality is that, in Quebec at least, the Melvins of this world have not contributed enough to get the state-provided pension they are receiving. So why should the Generation X and Y pay for them? In Quebec, the contributions to the Quebec pension plan started at 3.5% and stayed there for about 20 years until somebody woke up and realized that the plan was going broke. Contribution levels increased to 5% and then 8% and in 3 years, the rate will be close to 11%. So the boomers are laughing all the way to the bank while the few remaining workers left behind (2 workers for 1 retiree vs 7 for 1 20 years ago) are saddled with the equivalent of $200,000 of debt. The boomers have raped and pillaged the future of the generations behind them. When you looks at the enormous debt and unfunded liabilities that they are burdonning their kids and grand kids, they will have to bear the shame of being the first generation to leave less to their kids and grand kids than they received from their parents. So yes, they should see reduced benefits while, and here I agree with Melvin, cutting all the other pork.

√Čric Duhaime's recent book, The State against the Youth, is a great wake-up call to the X and Y generation and to the boomers who are ashamed of what they have done.

I Support Lord Black