Work in electronics until death? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 04:00:10 am
content: Here in Australia the politicians are pushing to raise the pension age to 70, saying "the country cannot afford to pay the pensions". (Strange how they can afford their own big pay rises, and bloated pensions after leaving politics.) They see it better for the elderly to pay taxes rather than being paid as some compensation for all their taxpaying over many decades.Bricklayers, plumbers, carpenters etc say their bodies start giving out physically around 60 - they cannot be expected to work like a young bloke up until 70. This creates a big problem for them, especially those who have not stored up a large sum of money to live on.Can electronic engineers, technicians and software programmers still work effectively beyond the age of 60 to as late as 70? Or have most burned out by then?Are they still as smart at 70 as they were at, say, 40? What concerns me is old people find it more difficult to learn new concepts than young people (eg: new languages). I am in my 50's. What scares the crap out of me is if I start slowing down mentally as the years progress.Another concern is the very common practice of ageism, where older people are illegally discriminated against in getting a job, or even in the workplace where they are employed. I personally have not experienced this, but I know of others who have.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 04:32:21 am
content: The famous "analog superstars" Jim Williams and Bob Pease were doing very well at that age. It helps that most electronics work isn't very physically demanding, yet paradoxically, the lack of physical work contributes to worse health in old age.

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 06:27:56 am
content: The pension age of 65 was set in Britain at a time when average life expectancy was 67.That life expectancy has now increased to 87 and we're only just starting to bump up the retirement age.Society needs to get better at either working out how to work for longer or for saving for our old age. Whilst I don't expect the typical bricklayer to carry on laying bricks forever, I suspect that most have other useful skills.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 07:11:50 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on April 13, 2014, 04:00:10 amThe shit thing, they can do that well well before retirement age.I can't recall the exact time they have to stay in office to get their lifetime pension, but that 20yo who won a federal seat at the last election can likely retire at 30 with a lifetime pension. It's disgusting.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 07:17:35 am
content: Quote from: KJDS on April 13, 2014, 06:27:56 amHere in Oz we have compulsory superannuation, currently set to 10% of your income (usually paid on top of salary by your employer) per year. I think that is rising to 12% or so.Only problem with the system is that it's run by private companies who mostly invest your money in shares unless you specifically opt-out of that. So it's possible to lose a huge chunk of it at any time, and they take their couple of percent cut every year regardless whether they make you money or lose your money. There is no option for a fixed interest rate government guaranteed system which is what is really needed.

author: Gribo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 07:53:09 am
content: And who will pay that interest? the younger generation, the same ones who are having fewer and fewer children? We have exactly the same situation here in Israel with the same corrupt politicians and public workers having a lifetime guaranteed pension off the state's budget. This is simply theft by the state.

author: David_AVD
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 08:09:24 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 13, 2014, 07:17:35 amSlight correction; It started out at 9% and went up to 9.25% July 1st 2013. It is due to rise in the future as you say. From memory, super is payable to any employee earning more than $400 a month.I was advised many years ago not to assume that there will be any pension available for me when I retire. I guess there will always be a very basic safety net, but it won't be enough to have any real life. (except for those that rort the system)

author: nihilism
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 08:25:56 am
content: I'm hoping i'll be at least semi retired by the time i'm 55 (self funded), i'm 31 now. If that doesn't work out i guess i should start planning my political career soon.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 08:40:18 am
content: Salaries and entitlements are the crux of the matter. As always - follow the money.I'd suggest that a maximum income span is mandated - regardless of politics, public service or private enterprise.I remember in the 60's and 70's that it was said if we paid more to our politicians, we'd have better management of public funds... how did that work out?That includes salary, benefits, commissions, shares and other forms of remuneration.Any excessive 'over the top' benefit is only payable upon permanent retirement at minimum age 60.The span - something like 20x between the lowest and highest paid in an organisation. No sneaking around that by splitting a company into the worker's division ($20kpa - $60kpa), and the 'management' division! (That would still allow top management to earn as much as $60K x 20 (=$1.2M), but nothing like the multi-millions earned by the slackers today.Now that means even the mail-room clerk in a stockbroking firm will determine the maximum that can be earned by those in mahogany row.

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 09:01:42 am
content: Quote from: KJDS on April 13, 2014, 06:27:56 amThere is no retirement age in the UK anymore. Some companies (who can justify it) can mandate a retirement age though (airlines, transport, etc..) - but we scrapped a mandatory retirement age.There is a minimum age to draw a UK state pension though (68 at present for most), private pensions are separate issue altogether.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 09:17:49 am
content: Quote from: David_AVD on April 13, 2014, 08:09:24 amThe pension has never provided any decent standard of living, nothing has changed there.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 09:32:00 am
content: Here it is a state pension. Can you live on $100 per month? No car, no medical ( state medical facilities are barely functioning, and basically they are "Waiting to Exhale" writ large) cover for you, and definitely no house unless you are living in an "informal settlement" and no electricity, water or water borne sewage indoors.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 09:46:45 am
content: at least in Australia i wonder what would happen if the ministerial pension was cut back to a fixed 1.5 - 2x the minimum wage, (they would never agree to 1x) they keep on crying poor about money, but how many fat paychecks are there towards the top of the ladder?

author: Tris20
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 11:11:29 am
content: Yet youth unemployment is at a record high...Something's gotta give.Also, after graduation, I intend to avoid all pension schemes and just put money aside myself when I'm ready. Over the years I'll hopefully earn enough to own a house (wishful thinking I know) and then mortgage that if I can no longer work. It won't be long before they start teaching our kids about pensions in history classrooms.

author: Legion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 01:58:21 pm
content: Quote from: KJDS on April 13, 2014, 06:27:56 amLife expectancy can be a misleading metric. Most of that 20 year difference is borne out of lower infant mortality rates. If you look at life expectancy after 40 you'll see human life spans haven't really improved.When I was growing up we were told how the baby boomers would be retiring when we got into the workforce and that would create a lot of jobs for us. But what a lie that was. Between tanking the economy and using a multi level marketing style pension system it's no wonder people have to keep working instead of retiring.It's hard for me to understand how people across many countries came to the conclusion that a state run pension program could work. You're investing your money over the course of 10+ administrations. 10+ administrations full of politicians who's only goal is to be re-elected and will gladly pull the rug out from under you if it suits them. And they have the power to make law. I wouldn't invest with a bank that had the power to draft a new contract in the middle of an investment. "Due to adverse economic conditions, your mortgage has been extended to a 100 year amortization. But good news, your payments remain the same!"

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 02:20:21 pm
content: Quote from: Legion on April 13, 2014, 01:58:21 pmA quick look at the ONS website states that most deaths in 1980-82 were at 77, whereas in 2010-12 that had risen to 85. That's seven extra years in three decades.Source:-http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_356439.pdf

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 03:10:14 pm
content: Quote from: Tris20 on April 13, 2014, 11:11:29 amStarting to think about retirement at young age is very wise, compound interest works for you. Not relying on Big Government is even wiser.There are some schemes though that are worth consideration. For example here in the US we have 401K/IRA where you invest pre tax money and the employer partially matches your contribution. It has higher management fees than normal but is considered a good choice in general.For people that are looking for a solid long term investment strategy I highly recommend this bookhttp://amzn.com/0399535993.Luckily I read it before the 2008 crisis. (it's US centric, don't know how applicable to other countries).

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2014, 05:32:27 pm
content: I dont expect any government to pay me my retirement (although the country I currently live is probably stupid enough to pay me). But I have a very aggressive savings plan, and honestly, right now, I enjoy building stuff, later I would rather sit on the upper level of the ladder, making those bad decisions. There is only so much time, I can accomplish something. I see older engineers having trouble keeping up with the computers, phones and new measurement equipment, yet doing any real, original work.So no, there is no way, I do electronics until death.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2014, 12:51:05 pm
content: Quote from: Rerouter on April 13, 2014, 09:46:45 amI wish we were this gutsy...http://www.cbsnews.com/news/violent-protests-in-france-over-retirement-age/And that was only raising the retirement age from 60 to 62.The only thing our politicians agree here unanimously on is their own pay rises. They tell lies they don't agree with their whopping pay rise way above that of rest of us, but they all vote YES and say "we just accept the recommendation of their 'independent' tribunal". This is usually timed around the holiday season so their pay rise barely gets a mention in the media and people can't organise a protest. It has been going on since 2007. They shout "wage restraint!" but not for themselves, as they punish single mothers with their cruel welfare cuts.The justification a recent ex-PM gave for why politicians get a (very) generous retirement fund is upon leaving politics is they might need the money because a life in politics is not guaranteed. A LIFE IN ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING IS NOT GUARANTEED EITHER, nor for that matter any profession.Why aren't there engineers and technicians in politics? I am not sure skilled electronics professionals would want to work with technically incompetent people who boast they don't know how the use a laptop. Electronics people generally don't move the needle on themeter near as high as a politician.I think after 40 years of work, a person has a right to retire on a government paid pension irrespective of his other income as a reward for services rendered to the public purse of all those years.I don't give a rats arse if we are all living longer. I probably won't. But what is good for the rest of us should be good enough for the politicians. Those who make the rules should lead by example.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2014, 01:26:21 pm
content: Quote from: SL4P on April 13, 2014, 08:40:18 amhttp://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-YouA really good, but shocking documentary is called "Inequality For All" by Robert Reich.

author: nuhamind2
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2014, 01:29:05 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on April 14, 2014, 12:51:05 pmWhy are you removing your comment about engineer have too much integrity and honesty? It actually corrent isn'tThe only president who do any good to my country is an engineer and currently the next president candidate who considered to win presidential election is an engineer (It is the year of election here).I should learn how to became politician as soon as possibleDave should make a Politic 101 for engineer video

author: TMM
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2014, 01:58:12 pm
content: Quote from: Tris20 on April 13, 2014, 11:11:29 amDoesn't mean they aren't looking for jobs.Unemployment is at a record high in every age group.

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2014, 02:09:02 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on April 14, 2014, 12:51:05 pmI don't think that this is a government issue. If someone wishes to save and put money aside so they can stop working at a convenient age then they are welcome to do so.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2014, 04:01:01 pm
content: IMHO there are two problems with pension systems: the people currently working pay for the people who are retired even when they say this isn't the case. Secondly the premiums are too low. A few decades ago the stock value was sky rocketing allowing the pension funds to make high returns on their investments. Those days are over and are very unlikely to return. The best thing to do is safe money yourself.

author: FJV
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2014, 04:53:19 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 14, 2014, 04:01:01 pmActually in the Netherlands we are waaaayyyyy richer than anytime during the 1980's, but somehow we cannot pay for retirement anything near of what it used to be. (way richer even when corrected for inflation)Basically a few people are rigging the system in their favor and Mr silly, the taxpayer, is paying for their huge fortunes. All this crap we're currently going through has been predicted in detail during the 1990's.The majority of the population can look forward to waiting at least 30 years for a pay raise while getting their pay after infation adjustment cut.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2014, 07:26:19 pm
content: Quote from: Rerouter on April 13, 2014, 09:46:45 amI don't know about where you live but here in the UK, politicians aren't that overpaid, certainly in comparison to top company executives.They would never be able to get anyone decent for those figures, especially for a position with no job security.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 14, 2014, 09:56:31 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 13, 2014, 07:17:35 amThat's essentially what we have in the USA - in the form of the so-called Social Security program. A small tax was added to each workers paycheck which would be paid back out to them when they reach retirement age, based on how much they paid in and how long they worked. However, the money in the program was quickly raided by politicians and used to pay for various other things, and replaced by an IOU. Now, the money paid out in the form of social security each year is a perennial hot-topic during any election cycle.The latest ideas are to remove the cap on income taxed and implement a means test. The cap on the income taxed was implemented because there is a cap on the payout... so no matter how much you earn, you are only ever eligible for a (relatively small) max payout, which is funded by the taxes you paid on the portion of your income which is taxed for social security. Eliminating that cap means that someone earning, for example, $10 million a year would be paying perhaps a couple hundred thousand per year in SS tax, while only ever being eligible for the $1,200/mo payout at the end. The means test is supposed to be that you must have a net worth below a certain amount to be eligible to receive SS at all.Both of which transform SS from a worker-funded mandatory retirement program into simply another welfare program. I would be furious if I was paying thousands and thousands into the program, only to be told when I retire "sorry, you earned too much in your life - you saved and provided for your own retirement, so we're taking your government promised retirement and giving it to folks who didn't save any of their income and need your savings more than you need it".In other words, like all government programs, it will start out with promises and justifications and will end up being just another way to buy votes, but paid for by those who work.

author: lowimpedance
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2014, 11:52:23 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on April 14, 2014, 09:56:31 pmNow that is a familiar ring no matter where you are and from what time !.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2014, 01:03:33 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on April 14, 2014, 07:26:19 pmIn this low population country (Australia), our politicians are some of the highest paid in the world - and we have three levels of government where two could suffice.Electronics technicians and engineers generally work not for money, power or fame, but for the passion for what they are good in - creating technology that benefits humanity. They often work very long hours because they simply want to meet project targets on time, on budget and to meet of exceed requirements.Most politicians in the west are lawyers and the like, who have zero experience in manufacturing, zero understanding of technology, zero understanding of control theory and no vision statement.In contrast to electronics professionals, politicians canon well into their 70's because you don't need a high IQ to be aartist.

author: Tris20
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2014, 01:36:23 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on April 15, 2014, 01:03:33 pmCouldn't agree more. But then again, if they give themselves wages which place them into the more socially elite class then it's easier for them to detach themselves from policies that completely fuck the ordinary people/cannon-fodder over.Quote from: Corporate666 on April 14, 2014, 09:56:31 pmWhilst I understand your viewpoint, people who are paying that much into it can afford put some aside themselves and don't need to depend on the government. Remember, the amount paid out on welfare and government pensions is still pretty feeble and anyone who is classed as needing to pay more into it will already be earning enough to put good money aside and will STILL be able to have a better quality of life than those who couldn't. Much like they will have had for most of their lives anyway. No right to complain IMO. I'm quite happy to pay higher taxes for a healthier society

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2014, 02:33:24 pm
content: Quote from: Tris20 on April 15, 2014, 01:36:23 pmIf they take your money and give it to other people you have all the right in the world to complain.Taking from citizen A to give to citizen B isn't 'healthier', it's oppression.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2014, 07:00:39 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on April 15, 2014, 07:59:27 amIs that it? £66396 is not a rediculas amount. Most high level management positions pay a similar amount and offer better job security. And expenses, if not abused are just to compensate for additional costs of doing the job, like if you have to travel for your employer, you should be able to claim expenses to cover the train faire, mileage etc.It's true abuse of the expense system does occur and when it does, it should be dealt with more strictly but pay isn't excessive, compared to other leadership roles.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 15, 2014, 09:13:48 pm
content: Quote from: Tris20 on April 15, 2014, 01:36:23 pmThat's just pure socialism.Our government pension program was never meant to be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It was supposed to be that the individual pays in over their lifetime and their proceeds are paid back out to them throughout their retirement. And the social security system is already progressive - those that pay in more get proportionally less back compared to those who pay in less.We already have plenty of welfare programs which are used and abused to high heaven. The reason the government is talking about eliminating the cap on SS and implementing a means test is because they raided the fund and took all the money to pay for other things. And villifying "the rich" even more is an easy way to get the average dopey voter to agree with screwing the earners over yet again.I have no problem with the ability for people to opt out of SS if they so choose, in which case they are responsible for their own retirement, but continually making the welfare of the unproductive the responsibility of the productive has to end somewhere. Or we all end up like Greece, except without productive Germans to bail us out.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 15, 2014, 09:23:11 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on April 15, 2014, 02:46:13 pmThe idea that the wealthier benefit more from the taxes paid in the form of more "protection" is absolutely untrue. Our Supreme Court has even ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect the individual.Also, the idea that there is a binary choice between "force the people who can afford it to pay for them" and "let them die in the street" is also untrue, and a false choice given by politicians to coerce folks who don't think it through themselves. It is the basis for the ever increasing welfare state we (and certainly you) live in.The fact is that before we had all this progressive taxation and welfare programs, there were not dead bodies littering the streets, nor did we live in anarchy. People fended for themselves much more so than they do today. I don't think anyone (with any integrity) has a problem helping out those who truly need help, but in the USA (and UK) those that truly need help are a miniscule fraction of all those who are happy to accept help, whether needed or not.It is human nature to take the path of least resistance. It's inherent in our species to not work for X if you can get X for free. A big part of the problem is that it's so easy to live quite well on 100% social assistance that we're made it uninteresting for people to bother working.As for retirement - the social security system is already progressive. Those who never earn enough to pay for their retirement are already subsidized by those who earn more. The fact is that more and more are getting more than they are paying in. The reason for that is because people are living longer, and because politicians are loathe to raise taxes on anyone except 'the rich'. So when social security has been paying out for 20 years instead of the anticipated 5-10 years, and when the politicians have raided the coffers, it means there is a huge shortfall. The correct decision is to either raise the age of retirement, or increase the tax rate for social security. That maintains the current fairness and lives up to the promise of what SS was supposed to be. Keeping the tax rates low, telling higher earners "too bad, we promised you will get SS, but we're rescinding that because your money is needed to pay for lower earners we don't want to raise rates for" is unfair and does not live up to the promise of what SS was supposed to do.The choice seems pretty clear to me. The only reason it's even a debate is because the politicians all want to be the hero of the working man and tell him "the rich" are the ones screwing him over and keeping him from prosperity... and if they'll give said politician their vote, he'll right this wrong.

author: mcinque
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 15, 2014, 09:30:45 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on April 13, 2014, 04:00:10 amQuote from: EEVblog on April 13, 2014, 07:11:50 amHere it's the same story, both for the pension age and for the lifetime pension for a 20yo who won a seat on an election. "Disgusting" is reductive. Every country do the same shit because the same shit persons live on the same planet.

author: Tris20
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2014, 11:38:50 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on April 15, 2014, 09:23:11 pmYour opinions genuinely worry me.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2014, 11:47:25 pm
content: Not to sound glib, but that is pretty much what's preached on Fox News in the US. Everyone on Welfare is an unemployed 30yo woman with nine kids who owns a big house and drives a Mercedes, who only has more kids to get more welfare money so she doesn't have to work. The "Welfare Queen". It's a myth of course; >95% of Welfare recipients are people who, you know, actually need welfare. A small percentage use the money to sustain unhealthy habits like drugs or gambling, but the system has safeguards to try to reduce that behavior; safeguards which Republicans will fight against incessantly because it's "spending money on Welfare", despite the fact that it would reduce the "waste" that they complain about. Then there's >0.1% abusers who have found loopholes or have friends in the Welfare office, who cheat the system to get money. Usually they are found out and kicked off of Welfare, or even criminally charged. It's rare in any case. But according to Faux "News" that's all that Welfare is for.Of course it's fine to spend more money on the military. After all, it's ok for the government to give you free money as "veterans benefits" for the rest of your life, as long as you were willing to help shoot some brown people in over-there-istan. The Navy, Airforce, and Marines are the only part of the US military that matters, the Army is about 80% social welfare and 20% getting drunk off base.

author: romantronixlab
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2014, 11:47:49 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 13, 2014, 07:11:50 amNot to worry Dave is not only in Australia that that it is happening but also here in the states and all over the world that same thing and the working people busting their backs `till death. O btw no luxurious retirement for the worker either. Just enough for survival nothing else.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2014, 09:42:36 am
content: At least most electronics technicians and engineers would remember if they ever received a "gift" of a $3,000 bottle of 1959 Penfolds Grange Hermitage.Maybe electronics people are simply too honest, too intelligent and too valuable to society to warrant becoming a politician.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-16/nsw-premier-barry-ofarrell-to-resign-over-icac-grange-wine/5393478

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2014, 11:07:02 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on April 16, 2014, 10:04:35 amWhen the state pension was introduced in the UK, the average worker on retirement would be collecting it for two years before shuffling of this mortal coil. The cost to the average person still working wasn't to high.It's now twenty years rather than two, so it's ten times higher. Given that UK PLC is running at almost £110,000,000,000 loss each year that can't continue. Somehow spending by government needs to be trimmed to get the books to balance. In the words of Gordon Brown, the man who abolished boom and bust, it's prudence. Now taxing the rich doesn't work, mostly because the top 1% are already paying 25% of income tax receipts so some things have to be trimmed.Moaning about politicians doesn't help. Moaning about rich people doesn't help either. There is plenty of opportunity in the UK, just go and seize it, and put enough aside so you can live comfortably when you chose to retire providing the tax man doesn't take it all.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2014, 12:46:23 pm
content: QuoteJust as importantly many workers died before reacing retirement age - contributing but never withdrawingQuoteGordon Brown - that would be the chap who plundered large company investment pension pots because they were "in surplus" thus creating massive problems down the line for those same companies (and the tax-payer) who now don't have enough in the pot to pay pensions (c.f. Royal Mail).He might have been "prudent" in not spending more than his income but he didn't really mind where hestolegot the income from in the first place.QuoteTrue enough - there's pretty much no formality to setting youself up in business. Basically you just need to tell the taxman "I'm self employed". Contrast the position in France where the local mayors have enormous power over who can set up and trade.But, who'd have guessed it, politics is actually hard - especially when it comes to pleasing the electorate. Actually at the level of ordinary MPs the UK system is probably not all that bad. The expenses scandal was a bit of a ruckus but a lot of the time it was MPs claiming for things they had been told were OK. It was only when what they wereallowedto claim came under public scrutiny that we all said a collective WTF?We don't have nearly as bad an issue with lobyists as in the US, for example (though we're trying hard).

author: han
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2014, 01:16:38 pm
content: lot of people i know dead fast after they retired..People must have reason to live, if they spend their time without doing nothing, then degradation of mental and health will come fast..

author: Tris20
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2014, 12:48:22 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on April 16, 2014, 10:04:35 amThank you so much for posting this! It's exactly what I wanted to say but just couldn't muster up the energy to do so