Traditionally, retiring entails leaving the workforce permanently. However, experts found that the very definition of retirement is also changing between generations.

About 41% of Gen Z and 44% of millennials — those who are currently between 27 and 42 years old — are significantly more likely to want to do some form of paid work during retirement.

This increasing preference for a lifelong income, could perhaps make the act of “retiring” obsolete.

Although younger workers don’t intend to stop working, there is still an effort to beef up their retirement savings.

It’s ok! Don’t ever retire! Just work until you die, preferably not at work, where we’d have to deal with the removal of your corpse.

  • bluGill@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    By making that choice you pay the price. I knowany people without a phone, they live in a different society. Most are old.

    • urist
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Most are old

      Bingo!

      Try balancing a job and kids, reaching companies and schools without a smart phone. It will cost you time if you can’t just reach into your pocket. Example, schools in my area put school closures on Facebook and through email. Guess you could listen to the radio if you didn’t have access. Or watch the news on TV (Oh, actually, TV is a luxury, nevermind, much less useful. I don’t have TV, don’t have time to watch or the money to waste on cable).

      Smart phones are not an expensive luxury anymore, they’re a tool. They’re a tool that the younger, employed and child-raising part of society is assumed to have. I’m not saying you can’t do it, it’s just, well… Hope your kids can adjust to college life if they haven’t been exposed to tools like easy access to the internet. Their peers will probably have smart phones, at least as teenagers/young adults. Doesn’t bode well for them. You can get a cheap smart phone, even used iPhones aren’t always that expensive, though I think androids are far more economical.

      • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The person you’re replying to is a moron, basic maths tells me they’re wrong. My phone costs £400/year, let’s round that up to £500 for ease of calculation (less once the handset is paid off, but I’ll give them the best possible argument). Living in a 3 bed semi, nothing fancy, decent area. Currently my house would cost £200-250k, I’ll take the lower end, again benefits their argument. At £500/year it would take 400 years for me to save for my home. Not a big fancy home, a relatively small starter home. My smart phone is not the reason I can’t afford a bigger house.

        • urist
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yea I know, lmao. I work with people who think that some people don’t deserve smart phones. It’s cathartic to argue about it on the internet.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wouldn’t a radio also be a luxury? Should we be spending money on anything other than ramen and a rug to sleep on?

        • urist
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Excellent point. Radios are clearly pushing it, I’m sure some of them cost like $20. People can just learn how to do without!

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      By making the choice to not have a job since you don’t have a phone, you’re not going to be able to buy those toys. Or afford rent. Homeless people have phones because they need them to work the minimum wage jobs they’re forced to work just to be able to sleep in their cars.