Retirement

[EdgeleyRob]

Ah.
Didn't think my post could be considered political but no matter.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

ER, you are quite correct. Apologies - reinstated.

[Lat-Literal]

The point about the commodification of illness, especially in old age, might have been made more subtly but it is fundamental to the matter of a quality of life in retirement. There may be political undertones to it but it is principally sociological, ie more about the nature of modern western society. Teamsaint and Petrushka have each written about personal experience of illness and varying degrees of longevity in their families. That is the natural way of perceiving life, and indeed a yardstick to perceiving one's own life, whether accurate or not in many cases. It is certainly where the overriding emphasis would be in any National Health System tailored support to individuals in the future based on DNA.

In contrast, someone who reads through a manual on a regular basis and asks which illness might apply to himself would be regarded as a hypochondriac. Into these earlier contexts there are now adverts covering every illness imaginable, some from charities and others from insurers or private service providers. They are often directed into teatime slots on television. Specific channels where the programme content is such that it largely attracts an older audience. On The Buses. George and Mildred. Man About The House.

I personally see that commodification as a borderline torturing of middle aged and older folk. It is essentially throwing the manual at them while they are trying to watch something light and saying "hey worry about this", albeit with "we have the answers at a price". That broad brush marketing which is a direct import from US broadcasting can be seriously damaging to morale. In most instances, it is irrelevant to most viewers anyway but all viewers are made to feel it is relevant to themselves. I think it's awful. No - actually sinister.

I did draw an analogy with the commodification of sex because there are similarities. Often sexual behaviours are promoted in the modern entertainment industry in order to make money when what is not mentioned by design is a range of possible implications on health. In both cases the impacts can be weakening - one by hyping up illness when that hype isn't needed and the other by pretending the potential for illness away. That is no surprise when money makers seek to strengthen themselves in relation to the money payers. The economic relationship says everything. Deep down it is a power dialogue that runs close to survival of the fittest. The fittest are young people who are good at making money.

(Most of the posts removed related to bullying - the only non bullying approach would be to place them in a thread entitled "Bullying" with any overtly political content removed)

[EdgeleyRob]

ER, you are quite correct. Apologies - reinstated.

No need to apologise EA,it didn't really matter in the big scheme of things,but thanks anyway

[Dave2002]

A lot of teachers seem to be taking their reduced pensions at 55 ( 5% reduction for each year they retire early), and for a lot of people, for instance if the mortgage has been paid off, that makes sense, even if they still have to do some other work.

That's actually quite a difficult thing to work out, though I have some sympathy with teachers. 5% pension reduction per year might seem large or small, depending on one's point of view.

In some ways it'd be better to leave even earlier than 55, and try to find something else enjoyable to do to fill in the gap between that age and "normal" retirement age. The big problem is getting any new job which might be suitable, bearable - even enjoyable after 50 (some might say after 40), so if it can be done earlier to get one out of a stressful job it may be the best option.

Actuarial adjustments may be intended to be neutral - though I'm not sure that they are. In any one person's case it's a betting game - whether one can live longer - hence taking more out of the "system", or die earlier - in which case the "system" wins! Special cases are those where someone retires on ill health grounds, which will take into account personal circumstances. Sometimes people retire on ill health grounds, and they die within a very short while. Others may outlive their expected survival date. There is little point in making really ill people continue to work - their work won't be good, it's miserable for them, and each day of work is one day less that they can enjoy their retirement, which may be likely to be short.

All of us are going to go in the end - but there is still a game to be played. Fit people who enjoy their jobs may wish to continue working, and if they are fit and outlive the "normal" end point, then they (their estate!) may be better off. Some people appear to be well, continue working, then die shortly after retiring. They would have been better retiring early - even at a reduced pension rate.

Fit people (or who think they are) who don't enjoy their jobs may have to decide to quit, and either obtain another employment for income, or live on what they get in. It's not such a bad deal to live on a lower income and not work, providing it is long term sustainable, which for some people may be the case. Others may look at their own data, and decide/realise that their projected income will be insufficient for them to have a "reasonable" lifestyle for the rest of their lives. Some people may have difficult choices to make. We don't all want to be forced to sell our homes (if we have one), or go to work as shelf stackers in B & Q when we are 80 - though some people do seem to do that and enjoy it. We did have a postman who had retired from his earlier job, and he said he really enjoyed being a postman - though he wasn't seriously old at the time. Options probably run out the longer one leaves making decisions. Leaving such decision making till late on is, effectively, making a decision.

[MrGongGong]

The point about the commodification of illness, especially in old age, might have been made more subtly but it is fundamental to the matter of a quality of life in retirement. There may be political undertones to it but it is principally sociological, ie more about the nature of modern western society. Teamsaint and Petrushka have each written about personal experience of illness and varying degrees of longevity in their families. That is the natural way of perceiving life, and indeed a yardstick to perceiving one's own life, whether accurate or not in many cases. It is certainly where the overriding emphasis would be in any National Health System tailored support to individuals in the future based on DNA.

In contrast, someone who reads through a manual on a regular basis and asks which illness might apply to himself would be regarded as a hypochondriac. Into these earlier contexts there are now adverts covering every illness imaginable, some from charities and others from insurers or private service providers. They are often directed into teatime slots on television. Specific channels where the programme content is such that it largely attracts an older audience. On The Buses. George and Mildred. Man About The House.

I personally see that commodification as a borderline torturing of middle aged and older folk. It is essentially throwing the manual at them while they are trying to watch something light and saying "hey worry about this", albeit with "we have the answers at a price". That broad brush marketing which is a direct import from US broadcasting can be seriously damaging to morale. In most instances, it is irrelevant to most viewers anyway but all viewers are made to feel it is relevant to themselves. I think it's awful. No - actually sinister.

I did draw an analogy with the commodification of sex because there are similarities. Often sexual behaviours are promoted in the modern entertainment industry in order to make money when what is not mentioned by design is a range of possible implications on health. In both cases the impacts can be weakening - one by hyping up illness when that hype isn't needed and the other by pretending the potential for illness away. That is no surprise when money makers seek to strengthen themselves in relation to the money payers. The economic relationship says everything. Deep down it is a power dialogue that runs close to survival of the fittest. The fittest are young people who are good at making money.

(Most of the posts removed related to bullying - the only non bullying approach would be to place them in a thread entitled "Bullying" with any overtly political content removed)

Just because people trying to sell things advertise on TV doesn't mean that illness is "commodified" in other contexts.
Nothing new though

[teamsaint]

Well I think Lat makes a good point about commodification of illness, and other things. Getting us all to worry about things , in order to affect behaviours, is undoubtedly achieved in part by certain narratives.
Just to add a bit of nuance about the point I made about longevity, the point I was trying to make was that certain experiences inform decisions. So the deaths of both of my in laws in their 60's isn't , I think, making me look at situations from a fear perspective, but from one informed by the experience of my father in law ,mwho retired a year early and lived on savings, and given what happened to him, a very sensible decision it turned out to be.

[french frank]

Well I think Lat makes a good point about commodification of illness, and other things. Getting us all to worry about things , in order to affect behaviours, is undoubtedly achieved in part by certain narratives.

It could also be thought of as 'promoting awareness', rather than 'getting us to worry'. It depends, I suppose, who's doing the informing, and how. In a world where we are bombarded with 'information' we all have to learn the skill of distinguishing the honest from the vested interests. Does the fact that not everyone does learn that skill mean that that information should be witheld from all?

[P. G. Tipps]

I have two friends both (now) retired teachers. When the wife retired what she was dreading was her husband retiring too …

Isn't that blatant 'gender politics' ... ?

[teamsaint]

It could also be thought of as 'promoting awareness', rather than 'getting us to worry'. It depends, I suppose, who's doing the informing, and how. In a world where we are bombarded with 'information' we all have to learn the skill of distinguishing the honest from the vested interests. Does the fact that not everyone does learn that skill mean that that information should be witheld from all?

I wasnt suggesting that information needs to be witheld. Only that information can be used in a variety of ways, some beneficial or benign, some not so.

[Richard Tarleton]

I have two friends both (now) retired teachers. When the wife retired what she was dreading was her husband retiring too …

Or, as was said by the wife of a former boss of mine at his retirement do - "I married him for better or for worse, but not for lunch".

[french frank]

Isn't that blatant 'gender politics' ... ?

Yes. But she solved her problem by taking on literacy teaching at the local prison and volunteering for the Samaritans. He took on amateur archæology and working as a Woodland Trust volunteer.

I wasnt suggesting that information needs to be witheld. Only that information can be used in a variety of ways, some beneficial or benign, some not so.

And I wasn't suggesting that you were, merely that we need 'the wisdom to know the difference' between beneficial and not so.

[teamsaint]

And I wasn't suggesting that you were, merely that we need 'the wisdom to know the difference' between beneficial and not so.[/QUOTE]

I think we agree, then! Which is nice.

[Dave2002]

Just to add a bit of nuance about the point I made about longevity, the point I was trying to make was that certain experiences inform decisions. So the deaths of both of my in laws in their 60's isn't , I think, making me look at situations from a fear perspective, but from one informed by the experience of my father in law ,who retired a year early and lived on savings, and given what happened to him, a very sensible decision it turned out to be.

Longevity sometimes works the other way though. I heard of a couple who were advancing in years - or so they thought - who saw a convenient flat in London which had a short lease - maybe 20/25 years. This was pointed out to them when they decided to buy it, but they said "No problem, we don't need the money (inheritance to pass on) and we'll be dead by the time the lease runs out."

Needless to say they both survived, though fortunately other people helped them out for the last years of their lives.

[Lat-Literal]

It could also be thought of as 'promoting awareness', rather than 'getting us to worry'. It depends, I suppose, who's doing the informing, and how. In a world where we are bombarded with 'information' we all have to learn the skill of distinguishing the honest from the vested interests. Does the fact that not everyone does learn that skill mean that that information should be witheld from all?

On Monday at around 4.30pm on ITV3 during "You Only Live Twice" - a comedy series made in 1977-1981 and set in the fictional "Paradise Lodge Retirement Home" - I would expect to see perhaps eight commercials in the break of which six or seven will be medical. These may well begin with a harrowing scene from a cancer operating ward, then it may be a private health insurance, something from a charity about a stroke or heart disease, one on diminishing eyesight, a further one on private health insurance, another on a stair lift at home and then finally a slightly shorter one linking to the first. That having been done, it's immediately back to the laughs although it would by then take a hyena not to feel gloom.

Several of the adverts will involve the most expensive telephone numbers to ring to donate a sum of "just £30" or to receive a home visit to provide advice on something that local services would provide for free. That is overkill - and it is wholly typical of that station at that time. Note that there could equally be a wide variety of adverts about a need for protection from terrorism and umpteen other horrors in the middle of a racy film at 10.30pm at night but there isn't and there never will be. A part of it is that older vulnerable people will not be watching those and the people who are should be less easily fleeced. Another part is that the old are increasingly seen as needing to be spoon fed. There is another aspect too. It takes a hell of a lot to explain to some elderly people - I am thinking of neighbours here, not so much family - that they should only engage on the telephone about financial matters when they themselves ring someone rather than being rung. The TV ads try to remove that security by conveying that unsolicited advice is to be trusted.