Historical Echoes: Retirement Timing Discussions with Nary a Mention of Finances -Liberty Street Economics
Liberty Street Economics

« Just Released: Press Briefing on Household Debt and Credit | Main | How the Nation Resolved Its First Debt Ceiling Crisis »

March 01, 2013

Historical Echoes: Retirement Timing Discussions with Nary a Mention of Finances

Amy Farber

One would be hard-pressed to find a discussion about the timing of retirement these days that doesn’t mention finances. That makes it more than a little surprising to find two examples from the mid-twentieth century that broach the question of retirement age, yet are entirely silent about financial considerations.

     The 1958 TV episode of The Real McCoysTime to Retire” (three parts) asks the question, When should Grandpa (Walter Brennan) retire? But it never brings up the questions of income or allocation of funds. In this context of 1950s rural America, the questions that help determine “when” are: When would Grandpa no longer be of use to the family? When would he be physically unable to work? And when would he truly not want to work? Grandpa gets more beat up by square-dancing than by working. He then proceeds to start “dying” while recuperating in bed, only to be “brought back to life” when the family demonstrates that he’s still needed. The episode contrasts Grandpa’s attitude toward work, which is positive, with that of the family’s local postman, which is negative.

     In a November 1947 article from The RotarianWhen Should a Man Retire?” (p. 8 for IE7 users), eight men try to answer the “when” question: a barrister, oil man, neurologist, manufacturing company director, medical examiner, director of education, director of a daily newspaper, and retired bank manager. Note that this is a publication for Rotary Club members, who according to the Rotary Club website, are committed to “Service Above Self.” These Rotarians say many wise things, but income is never mentioned.

     That none of the men mentioned financial considerations of any kind could be a phenomenon of social class and the context of the article itself. The contributors to the article seem almost to be competing for high-mindedness, and it might not have been genteel to discuss dollars and cents. In addition, there’s an assumption among the contributors that one is doing work that one likes and it might have been out of place to address the unfortunate workers who dislike their jobs. Even so, it’s doubtful one could find an article today similar to this. If in the case of these professionals, the failure to mention money was more about propriety than economics, in Grandpa’s case, it’s the real McCoy. He really didn’t need to think about money (in the sense of personal funds), as he would live, work, and die in the bosom of his family.

     The Georgetown University Law Center has posted “A Timeline of the Evolution of Retirement in the United States.” Its aim is to provide “background on how the concept of retirement, and its legal treatment, has evolved” and “emphasizes those laws that have come to shape how we view retirement.” The timeline starts in 1875 with the first private pension plan, noting that in the late-nineteenth century “roughly 75 percent of all males over age 65 are working. If a male over age 65 is not working, it is likely because he is disabled.” The footnote to the entry “1935—Social Security is enacted establishing age 65 as the normal age” explains:

Age 65 was chosen as the age at which Social Security benefits would begin for two reasons. First, the few private pension plans that existed at that time used age 65. Second, half of the 30 state pension systems used age 65 as the retirement age and the other half used 70.

     Bringing us into the present, the discussions about retirement age aren’t just about “When can you afford to retire?” but also about “When can the country afford to have you retire?” Several studies have explored these questions. For example, the Congressional Budget Office published a 2004 study, “Baby Boomers’ Retirement Prospects: An Overview.” About ten years earlier, it published a similar study, “Baby Boomers in Retirement: An Early Perspective.” (Both are downloadable PDFs.) In addition, the executive summary of the 2009 Retirement Confidence Survey (by the Employee Benefit Research Institute) offers the pertinent section, “Changing Expectations about Retirement—Retirement Age” (pp. 13-15). Finally, Federal Reserve economists love to write about retirement. Type “retirement” into the “Title,” “Subject,” or “Quick Search” box within “Fed in Print” to find a number of papers that address different aspects of retirement timing.

The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author.

Amy Farber is a research librarian in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Posted by Blog Author at 07:00:00 AM in Historical Echoes

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About the Blog
Liberty Street Economics features insight and analysis from New York Fed economists working at the intersection of research and policy. Launched in 2011, the blog takes its name from the Bank’s headquarters at 33 Liberty Street in Manhattan’s Financial District.

The editors are Michael Fleming, Andrew Haughwout, Thomas Klitgaard, and Asani Sarkar, all economists in the Bank’s Research Group.

Liberty Street Economics does not publish new posts during the blackout periods surrounding Federal Open Market Committee meetings.

The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the New York Fed or the Federal Reserve System.

Economic Research Tracker

Liberty Street Economics is now available on the iPhone® and iPad® and can be customized by economic research topic or economist.

Most Viewed

Last 12 Months
Useful Links
Comment Guidelines
We encourage your comments and queries on our posts and will publish them (below the post) subject to the following guidelines:
Please be brief: Comments are limited to 1500 characters.
Please be quick: Comments submitted after COB on Friday will not be published until Monday morning.
Please be aware: Comments submitted shortly before or during the FOMC blackout may not be published until after the blackout.
Please be on-topic and patient: Comments are moderated and will not appear until they have been reviewed to ensure that they are substantive and clearly related to the topic of the post. We reserve the right not to post any comment, and will not post comments that are abusive, harassing, obscene, or commercial in nature. No notice will be given regarding whether a submission will or will not be posted.‎
Disclosure Policy
The LSE editors ask authors submitting a post to the blog to confirm that they have no conflicts of interest as defined by the American Economic Association in its Disclosure Policy. If an author has sources of financial support or other interests that could be perceived as influencing the research presented in the post, we disclose that fact in a statement prepared by the author and appended to the author information at the end of the post. If the author has no such interests to disclose, no statement is provided. Note, however, that we do indicate in all cases if a data vendor or other party has a right to review a post.