DFK! wrote:
Hopwin wrote:
Well I am just saying if you want to exclude from the workforce everyone who is older than 65 because technically they can retire then you just eliminated every employee of Wal-Mart.
No dispute. Just sarcasm.
And many people "retire" at 62, or 55, or hell, 38, 43, or 48 for non-college government workers.
Hence why I said "depending on retirement age", and gave a range of percentages.
I'd assume there's some balance if you pick, say, 65, where you have those still working after they could retire and those who retired prior to 65 balancing one another out, but I'm not sure.
All of this also depends (as per my previous post) on your definition of "retired".
It all depends on where you place the cutoff, but since the population DLS cites has no upper limit, if you want to mine for any more details, you'd need to apply some general assumptions about average retirement age, and overlay the data with population demographics.