Quiet Quitting? Is it real, and if so, why?

Poster that shows up in wide circulation, and posted here via the Fair Use exception.  I don't know who the author is, but this was used as long ago as 1987 on the cover of Fifth Estate magazine, which is apparently a left wing British journal.  They have an online presence you may find.  Anyhow, this seems to sum up what some regard as the view of the youngest generations entering work, but at the same time, this image is so old that it predates my legal career. . .what's that say?

Recently, I posted this item:

Quiet Quitting and Lying Flat. Looking at the trend with a long generational lens.

Today, dear reader, I ask this question.

Is there really something going on here?

May sound odd, but I’m just not sure.

Some of my friends in the business and legal worlds very much insist, sometimes with real anger, that there is something going on here.  What they generally seem to feel is that during COVID-19 the Federal Government acclimated millions of Americans, including millions of young Americans, to doing nothing.  Indeed, some insist that younger people aren't working as they're on the Federal dole, although those programs have run out.

I'd note, if that's true, the entire thing would be one big failed "Universal Basic Income" experiment.

I think something is going on, but as I've noted before, I think people are generally misreading it.  Here's what I've recently stated.

Much of what we see today in general family trends is merely a return to the past.  Adult children who are not married living at home is a return to the past.  Even married children living in a parent's home is a return to the past.  Not really feeling like moving all over the country, and focusing on work to support your life, rather than it being your life, well. . . that is in some ways too.

But I think my view here is a minority one.

Maybe nothing is really going on at all.  Or maybe what we're seeing is purely economic. With a worker shortage, people don't have to sell their labor as dear, and can afford to be choosy in all sorts of ways.

That definitely wasn't the case when I was young.

And I've been hearing this about younger generations since I was a child.  According to the Baby Boomer generation, no generation after them wanted to work.  But according to their parents, that generation was lazy and didn't want to work, when it was young.

Maybe the young are never keen on entering work if they don't have to, and hold some of their cards back.  Or maybe a feature of modern industrial work, as opposed to more traditional distributist type work, creates this perception.

Or maybe younger generations really have had it.

Opinions?

"We keep you alive to serve this ship", Dying lashed to the oar. Part 2 of societal institutions and work.

There's a fair amount of discussion here on retirement.

No, I’m not retired.  And I'm not close to retiring either.

And, frankly, if I listened to outside sources such as financial planners and advisors, as well as the Social Security Administration, and even the Wyoming State Bar, I shouldn't really think about retirement until I'm dead.

Eh?

Well consider this.

This election, the Wyoming State Bar is backed a proposal to raise the retirement age for judges to 75 years old. The life expectancy for American men right now is 77.8 years.  In other words, much like the wizard scene in The Princess Bride, you can retire when you are mostly dead, and hope to enjoy your mostly dead status until you are really, really dead.

And why?

Well, we need to keep the brilliant brains at work until their light goes out for good, while keeping the young brilliant brains toiling in steerage, apparently.

And, let's not forget, it's a huge cost savings to the State

Indeed, if the State gets really lucky, because our upper ages are increasingly a wild card, judges will start dying on the bench, and we'll never have to pay out a dime of retirement money for them! 

Wouldn't that be great!

We know that the State of Wyoming wants you lashed to the plow until you drop dead in the furrows, but what about everyone else?

Well, if you listen to almost any casual retirement advice, it's based on the age you can first take Social Security and you are discouraged to do that.

Depending upon your demographic, that can be age 62.  "Full" Social Security starts at age 65 or 67, depending upon when you were born.  

Here's the government tables on that.

How Your Social Security Benefit Is Reduced

If you start getting benefits at age *	And you are the: Wage Earner, the Retirement Benefit you will receive is reduced to	And you are the: Spouse, the Retirement Benefit you will receive is reduced to
62	70.0%	32.5%
62 + 1 month	70.4	32.7
62 + 2 months	70.8	32.9
62 + 3 months	71.3	33.1
62 + 4 months	71.7	33.3
62 + 5 months	72.1	33.5
62 + 6 months	72.5	33.8
62 + 7 months	72.9	34.0
62 + 8 months	73.3	34.2
62 + 9 months	73.8	34.4
62 + 10 months	74.2	34.6
62 + 11 months	74.6	34.8
63	75.0	35.0
63 + 1 month	75.4	35.2
63 + 2 months	75.8	35.4
63 + 3 months	76.3	35.6
63 + 4 months	76.7	35.8
63 + 5 months	77.1	36.0
63 + 6 months	77.5	36.3
63 + 7 months	77.9	36.5
63 + 8 months	78.3	36.7
63 + 9 months	78.8	36.9
63 + 10 months	79.2	37.1
63 + 11 months	79.6	37.3
64	80.0	37.5
64 + 1 month	80.6	37.8
64 + 2 months	81.1	38.2
64 + 3 months	81.7	38.5
64 + 4 months	82.2	38.9
64 + 5 months	82.8	39.2
64 + 6 months	83.3	39.6
64 + 7 months	83.9	39.9
64 + 8 months	84.4	40.3
64 + 9 months	85.0	40.6
64 + 10 months	85.6	41.0
64 + 11 months	86.1	41.3
65	86.7	41.7
65 + 1 month	87.2	42.0
65 + 2 months	87.8	42.4
65 + 3 months	88.3	42.7
65 + 4 months	88.9	43.1
65 + 5 months	89.4	43.4
65 + 6 months	90.0	43.8
65 + 7 months	90.6	44.1
65 + 8 months	91.1	44.4
65 + 9 months	91.7	44.8
65 + 10 months	92.2	45.1
65 + 11 months	92.8	45.5
66	93.3	45.8
66 + 1 month	93.9	46.2
66 + 2 months	94.4	46.5
66 + 3 months	95.0	46.9
66 + 4 months	95.6	47.2
66 + 5 months	96.1	47.6
66 + 6 months	96.7	47.9
66 + 7 months	97.2	48.3
66 + 8 months	97.8	48.6
66 + 9 months	98.3	49.0
66 + 10 months	98.9	49.3
66 + 11 months	99.4	49.7
67	100.0	50.0

You'll almost never see any industry suggestions that you retire early.  Rather, in fact, it's the opposite.  You can find plenty of industry advice that not only should you work until you are 67, but you should work beyond that, just to be safe.

Whose interest does all of this serve?

Well, if you don't take a pension that's of the state type, that serves the state or local government.  If you don't take Social Security, that serves the United States government. They don't pay out the balance to your survivors, or at least not purely so.

What about independent financial advisors?

This probably varies enormously from person to person, and here I'm talking about the people you employ to manage your money, including your retirement money.  I really like my guy, who does great, but at the same time, I have yet to ever get a really straight answer on a simple planning questions.  When could I, if I wanted to, retire?  I asked the other day, and have before.

About the most I ever get out of that is "you're getting there".  

That's not really an answer.  Just the other day, therefore, I tried another approach.  If I were to retire today, how much could I draw and not deplete the principal?

"We need to schedule you in".

That's not an answer either, really.  

Now, as noted, I like my guy, but I think that financial planners fit into the same category as other economic folks.  They're end product driven.  It's not like a guy going out and thinking "I'll build me a car", and thereafter collecting the parts.  It's more like General Motors thinking, "I wonder how many of these cars we can make?"

As that's a bad analogy, let me put in this way.  To planners, to at least some degree, if you die with a big pot of untouched loot, you win. Hooray!  To the person whose dead, well they plowed five more acres.  yippee.

I'd note that industry advice, at least in my industry, also works this way.  If you look at any articles on lawyers retiring, what you tend to find is articles about lawyers who "retired" by changing the work that they do. That's not retirement.  That's like the plow mule being released from dragging a plow, so he can drag a cart.  You're still dragging.  For some reason, and perhaps this has to do with industry validation, it's a lot easier for article writers to write something like "Bob went from being a high stakes litigator to switching to be a high stakes litigator" than it is to saying "Bob went from being a high takes litigator to fly-fishing".

And that makes some sense to me.  It's important to any industry to keep up the myth that the reason you undertook this wonder activity in the first place wasn't the money, or wasn't because you needed a job and this was the only one you could do, but because you love it.  It defines you, you miserable sot, now sit back down and row.

Which indeed brings us to the few industries which really have noted short retirement periods, things like military service and the like. At a certain point, those lines of work actively say "get the crap out and get out of the way". Why?

Well, they depend on your fitness and feel you are a drag on things at that point.  

All of which gets back to the point made in part one of this series.  Why do you work?

Well, you have to. But if you work for a living, why should you keep on keeping on after you can actually just live.

Well, because society would prefer you do that.

Row.

Blog Mirror: Office Hours: Arggh! How are you coping with stress?

 

Office Hours: Arggh! How are you coping with stress?

Foothill Agrarian: Over the Horizon

Foothill Agrarian: Over the Horizon: Fundamentally, Flying Mule Sheep Company is in the business of turning sunlight, carbon dioxide, and rainwater into meat and fiber. Our shee...