2. 外语
  3. The Case Against Retirement Ah, retirement! Before the 1950s, it was something only the wealthy could afford to do. Everyone

The Case Against Retirement Ah, retirement! Before the 1950s, it was something only the wealthy could afford to do. Everyone

admin2012-08-05  37
问题                         The Case Against Retirement
    Ah, retirement! Before the 1950s, it was something only the wealthy could afford to do. Everyone else needed an income, and most folks struggled to get by in the industrial economy as their faculties deteriorated. Back in the days before, older people faced the kind of pressures portrayed by filmmaker D. W. Griffith in his melodramatic 1911 silent film What Shall We Do With Our Old? It’s a sad tale of the setbacks endured by an elderly couple, the wife ailing (生病的), the husband tossed off the assembly line to make way for a younger worker.
    Griffith was one of many social activists calling for a social insurance system to provide an income for the elderly. The social reformist dream became reality with the 1935 Social Security Act, the spread of the corporate defined benefit pension plan and Medicare Act in 1965. For most workers the last stage of life became a time of leisure, recreation, and enjoyment.
A Long Time Coining
    Surveys show that a majority of baby boomers say they want to work during their golden years. They’re going to get their wish. The key question is no longer "How early can I retire?" It’s "Why retire?"
    Of course, like all social and economic shifts, the trend isn’t new. It has been building for the past three decades with the move away from traditional pensions with their involuntary contributions. We’re also living longer. That’s good news, but it does mean that to maintain their standard of living the elderly have to either earn a paycheck longer or save more—a lot more.
    For workers nearing their retirement years, the median balance was a mere $78 000 in 2007. And the stock market reached its all-time peak that year! But the Great Recession has devastated (严重破坏) portfolios since then, a stark (严峻的) reminder to millions of near-retirees that they haven’t saved enough to fund a good retirement. Indeed, taking into account both the decline in financial assets and housing, the National Retirement Risk Index signals that 51 percent of households are at risk at age 65 of not having enough retirement income to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living.
When You’re Sixty-four
    Those are hardly heartening percentages, and the situation seems even worse when the US unemployment rate is at 10.2 percent, according to the Labor Dept. ’s October survey.
    But a look at longer-term trends is encouraging. An aging workforce is living longer and is less disabled than previous generations. After all, average life expectancy in 1935 when Social Security became law was 61 years. It’s now 78. An adjustment might have to be made to the famous Beatles song "When I’m Sixty-four".
    Older workers probably won’t be "digging the weeds" to mine the Beatles vein one last time. An economy dominated by services, information industries and knowledge businesses is far easier to labor in than one where the commanding heights are full of factories, mines and farms. The prospect of longer employment suggests more people will choose to alternate the rhythm of their lives, sometimes working intensely and at others exploring other opportunities.
    Nevertheless, it’s a social and economic revolution. Take those surveys that show a majority of boomers expect to earn a paycheck in retirement. Only about a third in the past actually worked for paying following retirement.
    The pressure to accommodate older workers will be there, much as the demand for old age insurance was growing around the time D. W. Griffith made his movie. The reason is that the financial impact of working even a few years longer on the average older worker is dramatic.
    A paycheck has a greater effect on living standards than increasing retirement contributions from 15 percent of paycheck to 25 percent, for example. Your savings continue to compound, and your Social Security benefit grows. The same dynamic holds with working part-time. "You don’t have to pay for expenses out of savings," says Christine Fahlund, a senior financial planner at T. Rowe Price. "You meet them with your paycheck."
Work Longer, Stay Healthier
    Take this illustration from the number-crunchers (会计) at T. Rowe Price. A worker earns $ 100 000 a year. He has a portfolio worth $ 500 000. His asset allocation is 40 percent stocks, 40 percent bonds and 20 percent cash. Instead of retiring, he continues to work and socks away 15 percent of his income for three more years. At age 65 he would have boosted his total retirement benefit package by 28 percent. If he went to age 70 his retirement finances would almost double in value, rising 90 percent. Of course, he doesn’t have to work full-time to get a return from waiting. An income of $ 20 000 from part-time work is the equivalent of withdrawing 4 percent a year from a $ 500 000 portfolio.
    It’s also surprising that laboring for a paycheck may actually make aging workers much healthier than ever before. More than making ends meet, work is physically and mentally energizing for many people. Work is a social environment, with birthday celebrations and coffee Matches (聚会), friends and acquaintances, people to swap gossip and stories with, neighbors to commiserate (同情) with over divorce and to congratulate on pregnancy. It’s likely that you’ll want to move on to a different employer or paid activity when you’re older. But that doesn’t mean you won’t want to work. "For most people work is a community," says Meir Statman, finance professor at Santa Clara University.
    For workers burning the midnight oil in a tough economy, this may all seems like the social equivalent of happy talk. They’re bone tired from working. Health problems are wearing them down. And, as the social commentator H.L. Mencken noted back in 1922, the job they are taking matters.
    If he got no reward whatever, the artist would go on working just the same; his actual,reward, in fact, is often so little that he almost starves. But suppose a garment (服装) worker got nothing for his labor: Would he go on working just the same? Can one imagine his submitting voluntarily to hardship and sore want that he might express his soul in 200 more pairs of ladies’ pants?
What can be inferred from Christine Fahlund’s words?
选项 A、A paycheck occupies 15 percent in all the living expenses.
B、Elderly workers earn much money from part-time jobs.
C、Elderly workers have to keep their living standards with retirement pension.
D、Paycheck plays a more important role in keeping living standards than retirement pension.
答案D
解析 推理判断题。解答本题首先要弄明白Christine Fahlund这句话的意思，“你不需要使用积蓄来支付费用，使用获得的薪水来支付即可”。本段第一句举例指出，薪水对生活水平产生的影响更大，由原来的15％上升到25%。这句话实际上与ChristineFahlund的话表达的是同一个意思，即薪水在保持生活水平中的作用越来越重要，所以本题的答案为D)。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/jHrFFFFM
0

大学英语六级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)