Is the concept of a universal "retirement age" feasible?

We've discussed this before, but I'm still curious. Why is something like Media Studies (or Liberal Arts) necessarily a wasted opportunity? There are a number of options to take a Media Studies degree and engage in a real career. We may not save lives, and we may not build techno-gadgetry, but that doesn't mean the career or work is any less real.

 

I would imagine Nexxo is referring to the kids who take Media Studies because "It's a dos - I watch TV - and I don't know what else to do", rather than those who actually have a real interest in media.

EDIT: You could substitute IT for Media Studies and think of all the people doing IT "because it pays well" etc

 

Well, I'd like to visit Japan (not as a retirement option, although I could think of worse places)... I've been in the Dutch Caribbean and it is too boring (not to mention too many relatives there). Holland is too harsh, Britain is too crazy (not in a good way). Forget the US. Australia is too remote from anywhere else interesting in the world, and the Far East is a great place to visit but it does not vibe with me as a retirement option.

The Mediterranean however, is another story. Apart from good food, good drink and nice weather, my wife and I go native in 5 minutes every time we visit. We blend in to that culture. Tourists think we're natives. Natives think we're natives. It feels like coming home, every time.

I do not delude myself however. A lot can happen in the next 20+ years. I may die of cancer or heart disease (damn that genetic hypercholesterolemia!) or be the random victim of a bad driver, and never live to see the day. But to quote Richard Calder: "The dream, unreal like love, persists."

 

It's a bit like that, yes. I am always weary of a University degree that does not firmly connect to a professional career. Not seeing too many people with a Clinical Psychology, Medical or Engineering degree out of work...

Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh. I do value the arts (and actually, it saves more lives than you'd think) but I also think that good artists are driven. At age 13, Steven Spielberg had already been tinkering with super 8 film for several years and won a prize for a 40-minute war film he titled Escape to Nowhere which was based on a battle in east Africa. At age 16, Spielberg wrote and directed his first independent film, a 140-minute science fiction adventure called Firelight (which would later inspire Close Encounters). The film, which had a budget of US$500, was shown in his local cinema. His actual career began when he returned to Universal Studios as an unpaid, seven-day-a-week intern and guest of the editing department. The rest, as they say, is history.

When you look at artists and writers who achieved something, you see that they grafted for it. Tracy Emin was obsessionally focused on her work. J.K. Rowling worked as a researcher, bilingual secretary and studied to be a teacher while she juggled raising a daughter as a single mum on benefits and writing her first Harry Potter book.

When I saw the Media Studies students at my Uni, I saw them dossing about. There was nothing driven about them, and there seems to be nothing driven about them now.

 

I was talking to a guy from paris yesterday at stanford.. he said the retirement age is forced at 60.. that's why a lot of french scientists come to the states to continue their work

just because they turn 60 doesn't mean they get auto alzheimers =]

 

I agree to a point. During my time at university I saw my share of people who were there for the party, not the education. More often than not, they were enrolled in generic "Business" degree categories. Having earned a degree in Photocommunications, with a minor in a Studio Art, I can say that most of the art students I knew were very driven. No, they hadn't all achieved their first cinematic release before high school. But they all worked very hard to turn out quality work on a consistent basis that is often judged at a more critical level due to the fact that they were taking the art classes as part of a degree requirement, not as an elective.

It seems that you are suggesting that the really successful artists achieved their fame by dint of hard work, often when struggling (looking at the JK Rowling example). On the other hand, JRR Tolkien didn't write his epic until well into his career as a professor and philologist, and I would argue that the resulting work was intimately tied to his career. The rare successes enjoyed by Spielberg and Rowling aren't limited to the arts, though. As you say, they were driven. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg all tinkered with technology at young ages, and all found their fortunes outside of college because they were driven as well.

As you've said before, not every English major goes on to write Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. Likewise, not all Engineering students go on to invent the iPhone or Facebook.

To use a more personal example, one of my friends at University was a double major: Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. He spent most of his time playing video games, failed out, and eventually got a Psychology degree from another college.

I fear that in my effort to defend the arts I may have dragged us off topic. I'm not sure how it relates to the thread, other than to agree that not all artists go on to make epic movies, just as not all engineering students go on to do great things. As vital as our doctors are, I do believe that life would really suck if the uneducated, low-skilled maid service people all disappeared. As JJ pointed out there are resources available to help the cleaning staff budget their money more wisely. But how realistic is it for someone living at or near the poverty line to retire comfortably on savings alone, if they don't have much to save to begin with?

Perhaps one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is to what degree of comfort do we wish to retire? Some might just want a simple life in a small house in the Mediterranean. Others might wish to finally build that nice home theater, join the local country club, and travel a bit. Both are vaild options, and each comes at a specific price. Planning that at an early age and making the necessary investments from the beginning are key.

 

Spot on. I've just gotten my feet into a career (which happens to be US military civil service as well) and have already got a sound retirement plan in motion. Rather than just assuming such things will fall into place as they go (as is the mentality of some of my peers) I put some effort in, researched my options and various benefits, and calculated roughly what I will have to do throughout my career to achieve my retirement goals. Sure, I've got 40+ years before the typical 65 retirement, but that's no excuse to not be proactive about it.

 

yeah that's one of my girls favorite lines.. we need those janitors and lunch ladies

kind of the same argument for the supposed evil illegal farm workers.. farmers can't work a guy with a social security card and pay him pennies.. you wonder how the heck we get food in the market- just some people don't see it cause they are clueless as to how things work in the real world

it's easy to live in an ideal setting when it's all in your head

 

@supermonkey, you make some valid observations (reply #26) and thanks for defending art! artistic achievements often come later in an artist’s life (kazuo ohno, one of the founders of butoh didn’t give his first dance concert till age 43) and many “successful” artists can hardly be considered, at least initially, driven (matisse was a bored lawyer recuperating from an illness when he decided to give painting a go). not to mention the notion that artistic “greatness” or achievement is a far more subjective measurement, than it is in, say cancer research. i know several brilliant artists none of you have ever heard of. this does not decrease their value to me.

so back on topic, this was an astute observation as well:

of course it’s not realistic at all. i have job security today because of the baby boomers, in my state alone, who will “retire” below the federal poverty line in the next 20 years.

so what are the additional costs we’ll incur when these folks move from the ranks of the working poor to the retired poor? it’s a well established fact that those living in poverty as not as healthy and don’t live as long as their more well-off counterparts, but there will be a tremendous swell in the services they require to at least survive as long as they possibly can.

@Jumeira_Johnny, it seems an insurmountable challenge at times that we could proactively adjust our notions of value, begin to align our resources more equitably, and to imbue retirement ready people with the enthusiasm to continue contributing or make new contributions based on a new model of what is valuable (not to mention the available technology). it would seem they would be in an important, even enviable, position to help bring change about, but at the same time the most resistant to it.

 

As an aside: I do not devalue art (if I did what would I be doing on a modding forum, for a start?). But Matisse had a profession to fall back on, and Kazuo Ohno started working life as a qualified P.E. teacher. They all started with qualifications that could earn them a daily living. There's a lesson in there somewhere: you have to be exceptionally good to make a living as an artist right off the bat --and even then most of the exceptionally good ones did not manage that. So what does that say about the prospects of thousands of Media Studies students (note: not apprentice crafts people; not student artists, actors, dancers or musicians at the conservatory)?

 

If I'm understanding correctly, your problem is more with career students, with artistic fields being a prime example? IE: People who constantly change majors or study in a field with no practical application or intent of working?

 

I would much rather have 10 years paid for education travel etc between 18-28 and then work till I cant and die (well I will be commiting suicide when I'm old etc etc) rather than have 30 years after the age of 65.

Retirement age needs to go up to 70 within 10 years and then 75 within 20. It was designed for a time when most people died in work. For the baby boom generation and those born slightly before have had the best of things and it will be all those who follow that pay for it.

For those in manual work and jobs specified as detrimental to health I have no issue with a lower age although I dont know enough to able to define it.

 

I think your professional bias is limiting your ability to see that these types of liberal arts degrees do transition into legitimate careers. It's not the licensed "professional" trade that you worked hard to achieve, but that doesn't make the career any less valid. Sound engineers, editors, producers, advertising account managers, and broadcast journalists all fall under the Media Studies umbrella, and every last one of them is a real career. We're still suggesting that every Media Studies graduate is expected to be the next Matisse. We may as well argue that every engineering graduate must be the next Steve Jobs, or else his degree is a waste. Matisse, Ohno, Jobs, and Bill Gates are all exceptions to the rule.

 

I think people should try to choose a profession which they will possibly enjoy.
When it comes to retirement, it doesn't matter what you do for a living, or how huge your income is, what matters is that you simply don't spend all that you earn.

Sure the more you earn, the more you can afford to save... but thanks to us being impatient humans, we can't help but want to spend it all The more we earn, the simply larger the temptation is For the lucky population of the world, such as the average bit techer, retiring as a multimillionaire is as easy, rewarding, and enjoyable, as not smoking, not eating junk food, and working out once a week - not to say those are the prerequisites, but they can help and more importantly, it's the the right sort of attitude, imo anyway.

Even rock stars or lotto winners can easily become bankrupt, just because they spend as much as they possibly can, on hotels, fancy cars, jets, etc. Way too many people simply spend all thier life living from paycheck to paycheck, spending as much as they can on pc parts, cars, holidays, etc, never applying some sort of plan for the future which they could have easily afforded if they weren't so impatient. These same people then complain about how pathetic the pension is when they reach retirement age

Optimum and poor investment examples need to be taught in schools, they should become a significant component of maths and history classes from a young age imo. We send kids to school so they can learn skills and make money... but most are never taught how money can be used to work for us, instead of just working our whole lives for it!!!

Most kids grow up seeing and hearing about how everyone spends every dollar they have, and usually the only time a family member saves, is so they can blow it all on a new car or holiday. Maybe once in a family member's life will they ever save to put a deposit on a house, then pay the minimum on the mortgage for most of thier life so they can always spend as much of their paycheck that they ever can.

 

Basically.

That is probably true, although the sound engineers I know actually studied sound electronics. They cannot only operate a mixing board; they can actually build one, thus giving them a thorough knowledge of what happens when you move that slider. Editors, producers and journalists? Film school or journalism school (the latter of which my brother attended). My issue is exactly with the 'umbrella': Jack of all trades, but master of none.

I do not expect people to be the next Steve Jobs, Norman Foster, or Mattise, but I do think it is telling that all these people either studied a specific trade or worked their ass off in some other way to get where they are.

 

@nexxo, i see. thank you for clarifying your opinion.

ah, my misspent youth and wasted liberal arts education.

i'm just a slacker/jacker of all trades, master of none and nose-thumber to the established order!

 

I agree that these people worked very hard to achieve their successes. My point is that these people are exceptions to the rule. They were all driven by a passion, and likely would have achieved their successes regardless of their college degree. My point is that a Media Studies degree does not have to result in a job working the drive-through at a fast food place. All it takes is the desire to turn the area of study into a career, and if someone is willing to put up with 4 additional years of school to earn a Media Studies degree, he or she is likely to have enough drive to carve out a career doing something, even if it's not curing cancer. I don't disagree that some people do Media Studies because it offers the path of least resistance. In my opinion, it's not much different than the people who do just enough work to pass with an engineering degree because they've been sold on the idea that it will open the door to a lucrative career. There is no real drive there, either.

 

that's pretty much my thinking, @supermonkey. it's an oversimplification to suggest that media studies = dead end job.

is it better to pursue a post graduate degree to keep the family satisfied or do the responsible thing, even if you could care less about that juris doctor and will never see the inside of a court room? of course it could be considered job security for the next up and coming crop of psychologists.

 

This. It matters little what you choose to study - it's your attitude that makes the difference. I have seen it with people doing IT/Engineering etc degrees because they think that will get them a well paid, secure job. I have seen people do Media Studies etc degrees because they want the "University Experience" but don't know what to do and they think it's going to be easy. I think both are as bad as each other, and both will always fall behind someone who is driven and passionate about what they are doing. It is extremely rare for someone to be truly exceptional in any field which they are not passionate about, as they simply won't be able to bring themselves to invest as much time and energy.

A good rule of thumb is choose a job which you would be happy to do for free.

imho

 

You'd be surprised. There are certainly people who will look at four years of study without blinking because to them it's just more time to burn. Either their parents will cover all of their education costs or they get hooked on the idea of perpetually pushing back the inevitable with student loans. People who take so many years of classes precisely because they don't want to work.

That just happens to often be manifested in liberal art fields because of the relative lack of effort required for them. The "floor", or level of least effort required to pass, is often lower than the "floor" of other classes. For people wishing to just slide along this floor they become the prime field. It's not always arts, but it's quite common.

You're totally right, imo, that it's not much different than the people who study "engineering" or "business". Obviously not everyone in those fields is that way, but it's pretty common for your average slightly technical minded person to look to the future and say "I'll be an engineer" with no concept of what that even means. Apply the same thing with business for people who are more socially minded. I'd almost go so far as to include IT or Computer Science for your stereotypical person on a forum like this with no well defined picture of the future.

That rule is flawed. A world full of porn stars is impractical.