2016 Winter January 28 Thursday

38 degrees this morning, Walk 29:44 minutes

Thinking about the concept of “normal” retirement age (assuming the retirement age when it was set at 65 years of age “adjusted” for the standard life expectancy) of 98 years old, I will need to readjust when I  retire!

I had been thinking vaguely of “retiring” in 6 or 7 years, but now I think maybe it should be 12 or 14 years! It would still be “early”  retirement assuming “normal” retirement is 98 years old!  

Of course, your health will play a major role in that decision.  If the “normal” retirement age now would be 98 years old, I think health care maybe hasn’t kept up with the increasing life expectancy.  

Of course, a consideration is that the increasing life expectancy is probably attributed to better health care and certainly the elimination of many life threatening diseases etc., as well as better eating, and better safety conditions in the workplace and home.  

I’ll need to do some more research and thinking on this, the concept that the “normal” retirement age, based on the original 65 years of age, is 98 years old is just amazing.  

It is had to imagine the “normal” life expectancy of 45 or 50 in the early 1900’s.  I can’t help but think a lot of that is attributed to the elimination/prevention of childhood diseases that were life threatening, more deaths due to lack of safety standards etc.  

It would be interesting to see what the “average” life expectancy is if the early deaths were not considered.  It may well be that, for the persons who lived, the life expectancy was longer, if that makes any sense.

Speaking of Corporate ethics (or lack thereof), a big example is Walmart moving into small towns and running the locals out of business and now Walmart is leaving, apparently without any consideration for the disaster they will leave.

Walmart destroyed the social and economic infrastructure of many of the small cities, not they are abandoning them in the name of short term profits.

Not that they weren’t making a profit, they weren’t making “enough profit”.  Short-term thinking to say the least.  

For many of the small towns, Walmart was not only the main (and now only) place to buy food, but it also generated sales tax revenue.

With the short-term thinking of this state, most cities, especially small cities, depend on sales tax revenues.  

When Walmart leaves, the city will need to reduce services to an already underserved population.

So Walmart leaving means the city will lose a social center, probably lose local access to groceries etc., and also it will destroy the city budget.  

Talk about a lack of ethics!   I think Walmart is responsible for the situation, they should own up to it and take action to mitigate the damages that were created by Walmart, instead of leaving town and washing their hands of the situation they have created.  

On the other hand, with Walmart out of the picture, local grocery stores, hardware stores, clothing stores etc. may return.  I doubt it, but it could happen.  

Of course, if Walmart had any ethics, they would set up a program to help he little cities they have profited from for years set up programs to help hem re-establish local businesses.  

I won’t wait by the phone for that to happen, and I certainly won’t hold my breath!  

That’s it for now, Thursday, January 28, 2016