Would people still retire today if the Depression had never happened?

[etv78]

I've heard it argued that "retirement" is a social construct, coming out fo the Depression. Thje thinking: too many people in the workforce to employ, and not enough jobs. What say you?

[elbows]

Are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure that 'retirement' is the outcome of aging, declining abilities, slowed reflexes which could impact safety, etc. No one really needs an 85yr old truck unloader, or a nearly blind machinist, or a hard of hearing fireman.

We live in a changing world, now more than ever. You want the guy designing your tech wonders to be just out of school or to have attended a one room school house back in the day? Do you want that robotic surgical tool in the hands of your Gran?

[drewtwo99]

Originally Posted by elbows

Are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure that 'retirement' is the outcome of aging, declining abilities, slowed reflexes which could impact safety, etc. No one really needs an 85yr old truck unloader, or a nearly blind machinist, or a hard of hearing fireman.

We live in a changing world, now more than ever. You want the guy designing your tech wonders to be just out of school or to have attended a one room school house back in the day? Do you want that robotic surgical tool in the hands of your Gran?

Wow, that reminds me of this fascinating news report about the 100 year old neurosurgeon.

[doreen]

Nope, don't think so. I'm relatively sure that affluent people retired even before the depression and those doing physical labor often reach a point where they can no longer work and that was true even before the depression. But the "retirement" of today, where a person could stop working while still physically able to work, and support himself or herself through some combination of pensions,social security benefits and retirement savings probably didn't exist for most people.

Social security had a big effect on retirement, as it provided income. Prior to social security, if you couldn't work you had to live off your savings or depend on your children or charity. Social security provided an additional option, and no doubt had the effect of lowering the number of people who wanted work, but I don't think it was the purpose. I doubt if think social security was any less expensive than providing relief to unemployed people would have been , but social security provided some dignity to those who were too old or disabled to work.

[etv78]

doreen-Your second paragraph is what I was getting at. Thanks.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

No, for starters Otto Von Bismarck first came up with Social Security in the late 19th Century in Germany long before the Great Depression.

[kunilou]

Before Social Security there was the "Poor House," usually run by the county or state, that took you in when you were too old to work. Poor houses were thought to cost more than individual relief programs, like what would become Social Security.

That, of course, was the last resort. Your children were expected to take care of you. In 1872, William Carleton wrote a poem about when that didn't happen.

[njtt]

Come to that, the notion that people should have a job (up until they retire) is a social construct that did not really exist, for most, before the industrial revolution. Very arguably, it is also a social convention that has outlived its usefulness.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by njtt

Come to that, the notion that people should have a job (up until they retire) is a social construct that did not really exist, for most, before the industrial revolution. Very arguably, it is also a social convention that has outlived its usefulness.

What could we replace it with?

[Wesley Clark]

I was watching a PBS documentary about the depression, and supposedly there was a debate on how to decrease the labor market to increase employment. One side wanted retirement to push people out of the labor market. Another wanted a shorter workweek so that you'd need more people to have full employment. Supposedly the FDR regime went with the retirement idea.

However France tried the second idea, they lowered their work week to 35 hours. However I don't think it worked (I think employers just increased productivity instead of hiring more people).

But retirement itself is something most people need. Maybe not someone who works an office job and retires at 55, but people can't perform manual labor into their 70s very well. And creative jobs require constant infusions of new individuals with new education. England started setting up pension systems before the depression.

I think retirement funded via pensions is like the social concept of universal education for people under 20 instead of work. Or universal health care. Or mandatory vacation. Once a nation gets enough wealth it becomes desirable.

[XT]

I think something like private insurance would have come out instead of social security. It's ludicrous to believe thar without the great depression we'd still have poor houses and old folks working until they drop or relying on charity or starving in a modern society as wealthy as we are. It might or might not have been as good as social security, it certainly would have been different, but we'd have had something even without the government to save us...for that matter, there is nothing to say that even without the GD the people wouldn't have wanted the government to be involved in some sort of retirement scheme (though I think it would have been more like out lashed up health care system, with employers having to pay part and employees having to pay part with maybe the government kicking some in as well).

-XT

[etv78]

After posting the OP, I realized I forgot about Bismarck.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by etv78

After posting the OP, I realized I forgot about Bismarck.

The idea of public old-age pensions has an even longer history than that.

[kunilou]

Originally Posted by XT

I think something like private insurance would have come out instead of social security. It's ludicrous to believe thar without the great depression we'd still have poor houses and old folks working until they drop or relying on charity or starving in a modern society as wealthy as we are.

I don't agree. My cite for Poor Houses goes back to 1824. That's a pretty long history of expecting government support for the elderly.

[XT]

Um...your own cite says that by the mid-century (the 19th century that is) they were already on the decline. So, not seeing how your cite supports the assertion that without the GD (which was nearly a century later) we'd have still relied on poorhouses and such. Do you have any cites showing that poorhouses were making a comeback before or during the GD and that it was only quick action by FDR et al that prevented this??

-XT

[kunilou]

Originally Posted by XT

Um...your own cite says that by the mid-century (the 19th century that is) they were already on the decline. So, not seeing how your cite supports the assertion that without the GD (which was nearly a century later) we'd have still relied on poorhouses and such. Do you have any cites showing that poorhouses were making a comeback before or during the GD and that it was only quick action by FDR et al that prevented this??

-XT

Did I misunderstand the point you were making, or did I not make my own point clearly enough? You had said "I think something like private insurance would have come out instead of social security." My point was that the practice government assistance for the elderly was well established, and that it would have continued in some form, rather than being replaced by private insurance.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by kunilou

...That, of course, was the last resort. Your children were expected to take care of you. In 1872, William Carleton wrote a poem about when that didn't happen.

In many cases your children were required by law to support you (filial piety laws go back to at least the Elizabethan era). Some states still have these laws on the books and after decades of being in desuetude courts are starting to see suits again. Not so much from the actual parents as from nursing homes or from government agencies (when the parent ended up a ward of the state).

[gracer]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

In many cases your children were required by law to support you (filial piety laws go back to at least the Elizabethan era). Some states still have these laws on the books and after decades of being in desuetude courts are starting to see suits again. Not so much from the actual parents as from nursing homes or from government agencies (when the parent ended up a ward of the state).

And after reading that poem: fair enough!

[Bryan Ekers]

If the Depression doesn't happen, does World War 2 still happen? We'd have a lot more old people now, since millions of 'em didn't get killed 1939-45.