Retirees

August 16, 2004 11:49 AM

Where are all the 55-65 year-old people?

There must be just as many of those in the white-collar, private-sector workforce as there are people in their 20s and 30s, and yet everywhere I've ever worked the distribution was always uneven, with many more younger than older people. Do they all hit 50, get laid off, and migrate over to the phone company, the government, or freelance consulting?

posted by luser to work & money (21 comments total)

My parents? Dad's at home watching TV, and Mom's at work.
posted by aladfar at 11:51 AM on August 16, 2004

To clarify here, I'm not gathering datapoints, more interested in people's impressions of why this is (if you agree with the general premise). For instance, I'm not interested in where your mom & dad are right now.

(on preview) Yes, like that, not really interested.
posted by luser at 11:54 AM on August 16, 2004

At 58 and 57 (I think...) both my parents are retired. I think this is increasingly common. Also, I think they get attacted to different industries. I'm working in a marketing firm right now, and nobody but the highest executives are over 50.
posted by ChasFile at 11:56 AM on August 16, 2004

There must be just as many of those in the white-collar, private-sector workforce as there are people in their 20s and 30s

What makes you assume as much? I always got the distinct impression that the retirement age started around 50-60 years old, especially for white-collar workers who amass retirement savings easier than blue-collar ones do.

Granted, I don't think people are usually required to retire till they're in their mid to late 60s or whatnot, but I know many who retire earlier if they've saved up enough. Some neighbors of mine are in their mid 50s and are considering retirement.

And my parents both just turned 50 and are still going strong, but I anticipate them retiring in another 10-15 years tops, and that only because my youngest sister is still in her early/mid teens. If it weren't for her they'd probably retire in about 5-10 years, having put me and my other sister through college already.
posted by cyrusdogstar at 12:02 PM on August 16, 2004

Arguably, there are not as many 55-65 workers as there are workers in their 20s. Someone with a demographic site could actually look this up, but I'm just going to handwave. Reasons why there might be less 55-65 year olds in the white-collar work force:

1. Some of them have died.
2. Some of them have retired.
3. Many of the women never had jobs in the first place or stopped working when they had kids and never went back.
4. Back when they started working, white collar jobs were a smaller portion of the overall employment picture, so these older people are actually out there working in trades and not so much in offices.
5. They're less visible in the cube farms because the ones that are there are often in management by now.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:04 PM on August 16, 2004

Florida. They're all in Florida now.

I look at this question as akin to someone saying, why does the military have so many more privates than generals? In the average corporation, the older people will have either moved up, or moved out - either way, they'l be outnumbered by secretaries and interns.
posted by Jart at 12:07 PM on August 16, 2004

1. Some of them have died.
Any health statistics for the generations. My parent’s health is poorer than their parents.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:12 PM on August 16, 2004

Here's a report on the aging workforce, which contains some demographic statistics. Just wait until the baby boomers start retiring en masse in about 2010--then Social Security will really be screwed.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:23 PM on August 16, 2004

There must be just as many of those in the white-collar, private-sector workforce as there are people in their 20s and 30s, and yet everywhere I've ever worked the distribution was always uneven, with many more younger than older people.

Where have you worked? This is definitely true for high-tech companies here in Silicon Valley. But, whenever I did work as a consultant for insurance companies or older financial insitutions I was always surprised at how much older people were.
posted by vacapinta at 12:59 PM on August 16, 2004

The 60+ people are the last group to be better off as retired folks, i believe (my parent's group). They have pensions (for now), 401ks, social security, and money put away.

The 50+ group have been laid-off or restructured out of a job much more than once already, and either found other work (sometimes worse), became independent consultants, started a business, or are collecting unemployment. (These are the oldest boomers--Clinton's group.)
posted by amberglow at 1:01 PM on August 16, 2004

There must be just as many of those in the white-collar, private-sector workforce as there are people in their 20s and 30s, and yet everywhere I've ever worked the distribution was always uneven, with many more younger than older people.

That has not been my experience, actually. And I've worked for both large and small companies, on the east coast and the west coast of the U.S. At the moment I work for a state legislature, and I'm considered rather a young thing even though I'm 40. Perhaps the field you're in has something to do with the demographics you've seen?
posted by JanetLand at 1:28 PM on August 16, 2004

See also Benford's Law. There are many factors influencing the age distribution within an organization: retirement age (exponential), population size (oscilating), liklihood of being fired/laid off (linear?), likelihood of changing jobs (power). When taken together, Benson's law states that those age numbers are more likely to begin with digits like 2 and 3 than 5 and 6.
posted by ChasFile at 1:54 PM on August 16, 2004

The long distance bus drivers 'round these parts are almost entirely guys forty-five to sixty. I think it's a plum job and once they get it they don't leave, but maybe also insurance rates keep the young people out.
posted by philfromhavelock at 2:46 PM on August 16, 2004

The 50+ group have been laid-off or restructured out of a job much more than once already, and either found other work (sometimes worse), became independent consultants, started a business, or are collecting unemployment. (These are the oldest boomers--Clinton's group.)

This is absolutely true for manufacturing and traditional jobs that are below top management. The trends that started in this segment are starting to move to others, such as disappearing healthcare, loss of retirement benefits and job security. Once a member of this group is downsized it is next to impossible to find equal employment and in a very high percentage any employment. Over the course of the next 10 to 15 years I expect to see all benefits disappear for this group and methodical methods put in place to insure that future generations don't benefit either. The multinational corporations are almost at the point where they can say screw it we don't need to pay this.
So that age group is still there, they just aren't as visible because they know they are being purged and need to hide.
posted by mss at 4:36 PM on August 16, 2004

If they've been laid off recently, they may have moved on to a low-paying but health-insured job, stocking grocery shelves or whatever.
posted by gimonca at 4:38 PM on August 16, 2004

I'm in banking and it's definitely skewed toward the younger set. I think people cash out and become CFOs or retire at 55.
posted by Frank Grimes at 7:16 PM on August 16, 2004

It definitely depends on the industry and the specific company. I spent 10 years or so in various interactive consulting agencies, and they all skewed young. Then we got acquired by a really, really big computer company with three initials in their name, and the folks in their 50s were _everywhere_.

The irony was that the executive ranks were actually a bit younger--companies like that tend to have a plateau where after you reach a certain level, they only take 10% or so into the executive group. So if you (used to) have a "lifetime employment" model, you end up with a ton of 50-year-old middle-managers, and this place was just _crawling_ with them.

The sad reality was that the executives were actively culling the ranks of middle-managers before they could actually cash out with full retirement. Lots of folks getting laid off at 55 to 58, after 30 years or so at the place. Imagine getting hired into a place that had a "lifetime employment" for the first 20 years you were there, and then not only do they rescind that policy, but you get cut loose with a 50% pension. THANK YOU!!! (God, I hated that place.)
posted by LairBob at 7:29 PM on August 16, 2004

Where are they? They're all hiding in my office. Middle-upper range federal-type work with unusual job requirements that reward long histories of clean livin' (and long histories of clean livin' is what gets you old enough to qualify for the question, too).
posted by NortonDC at 8:59 PM on August 16, 2004

In academia, they're all the professors, though some move into administration about this age. This is one area that isn't (or doesn't seem to me) skewed towards the young person.
posted by advil at 1:18 AM on August 17, 2004

The sad reality was that the executives were actively culling the ranks of middle-managers before they could actually cash out with full retirement. Lots of folks getting laid off at 55 to 58, after 30 years or so at the place.

/me points out that anyone with 30 years at the really, really big computer company with three initials in their name is being cashed out *with* full retirement, not without it. 30 has long been a magical, mythical number to those middle-aged retirees, because it's the point at which their retirement benefits aren't going to get any better, even if they stay. It's no longer true for younger employees, since the great pension plan swap, which is sort of sad, I think, since 30 was such a nice solid number to count up to.

And another reason I thought of why you don't find a lot of older workers at the white-collar jobs is that as they get a lot more experience, they're more likely to strike out as consultants, which means they're working in the field, but not necessarily visible to the general office population.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:24 AM on August 17, 2004

j, believe me...a lot of these folks were definitely _not_ being cashed out with full retirement. I had the "pleasure" of being an exec there, and it was not pretty.
posted by LairBob at 10:01 AM on August 17, 2004