I suspect rampant age discrimination in the US keeps a lot of the 50+ crowd from working. Companies prefer younger employees who don't know that they are being taken advantage of, and that don't have a high health insurance cost.

In my case, I may be retiring early as San Diego's engineering job market is pretty terrible at the moment. Qualcomm and HP doing layoffs does not help. Fortunately for me, I have rental income and investments to live off of.

The job market would be more equitable if we had single payer health insurance, and there was a limit on exempt employee working time (Like the EU). Enacting this two things would increase workplace diversity, increase the number of jobs available, and significantly reduce age discrimination.

We live in a strange time. Many of our ancestors worked very hard to provide a better life for 'us', their future generations.

And, here we are. We've reached a point where there's not much 'real work' to do for most people, perhaps because of lack of education, lack of information, natural ability, health, location, or access to capital.

In olden times, maybe those people would have perished. But, we have accumulated enough wealth and productivity to keep a lot of them housed, fed, relatively well, and perhaps even entertained.

Instead of celebrating this, we shame them. Maybe it's reasonable to do so. The ever smaller portion of the world has to work harder to give these others continued benefits. But, I doubt that they're all 'not useful' to us as a society. Maybe they're editing Wikipedia, or writing reviews, or posting on online forums, playing online games, clicking on ads, or playing with their kids even.

I don't know. I'm not an economist. I don't know what's 'right'. But, in a way, I'm happy that we are at a point like this. Instead of 'getting them to work', maybe we can give them new types of work that help keep the world moving forward.

Right. We have reached a point of post scarcity. A tiny portion of humanity (at least in first world nations) provides food, shelter and things like medical care.

Personally I suggest we just get rid of the concept of "non-exempt" workers (without paid overtime). Boom, instant work-life balance and less unemployment.

Eh, the increase in people on disability may suggest something else: We are better at keeping people alive in the face of things that previously would have killed them, but that doesn't mean we are necessarily able to keep them able-bodied or restore full functioning.

Also, people can be doing things for reasons in categories not offered in the study. I am homeless and "unemployed" and not looking for a normal job. I do freelance work, get alimony and I am still working on developing my web projects, with dreams of that leading to a more comfortable future. I likely would not bother to tell that to anyone in a study, both because there probably is no category for that and because I get told a great deal that it is unrealistic, wishful thinking, etc. I have no reason to invite that kind of dismissive criticism from someone doing a study, assuming there is even a plave to talk about it. And even if I did, it would get lumped into the catch all category of "other." Yay.

> Eh, the increase in people on disability may suggest something else: We are better at keeping people alive in the face of things that previously would have killed them, but that doesn't mean we are necessarily able to keep them able-bodied or restore full functioning.

That's a possibility, but it doesn't seem the most likely to me. The article only treats disability as significant for older people (55-64), but just by eyeballing the three charts, and considering the different scales, it seems to me that it's just as significant across the board. I'd venture to guess that a lot of this is due to changes in eligibility decisions. I think there has been an increase in diagnoses of psychiatric disabilities in working-age people, for instance.

I don't think you would receive dismissive criticism for your choices, btw. There is something to criticize about the idea of someone choosing not to look for a normal job while getting alimony, but it can be a rational choice on the person's part. I think it's the laws that should be criticized, not the individuals.

Oh, well, I am significantly impaired but do not qualify for disability. A normal job is a big problem for me. I left a corporate job because of my impairment. My job was an obstacle to getting healthier. I do feel fortunate to have alimony and therefore the privilege of choice to some degree, though it certainly isn't enough for a middle class lifestyle.

I base my comment in part on the fact that people are living longer and the longer you live, the more likely you are to have cancer, as just one example off the top of my head. I have several relatives who habe had cancer more than once, one of whom may have to take early retirement on disability because of the long history of repeated cancer diagnoses. This individual is extremely competent and lived with a 15% chance of survival in part by doing things like flying to another state for the best care and being patient zero in a cutting edge study. Nonethless, multiple surgeries and years of chemo and radiation have taken their toll.

So many jobs have been shipped overseas it's not surprising. I know a lot of one-income households who are barely getting by - the other spouse wants to work but they're holding off for pay that is more than daycare. Many people doing from-home businesses too, many under the table.

There are retired 16 to 24 year olds?

Yes, although I suspect some fraction (perhaps a large fraction) of that are trust fund kids who won't ever have to work to begin with. Nick D'Aloisio, who was 17 when Yahoo! paid him $30M for Summly is basically retired. So it does happen :-)

Yeah, it appears from the graph like maybe 1-2% - I assume these are people who won big (lottery, stock options, startup, very very wealthy families).

I don't see why it's a question?

Perusing hacker news