I recently read a somewhat depressing article in The Economist about the “end” of retirement.

The article begins with a bit of history: When pensions began in Germany over a hundred years ago, they were for people who lived to 70 — twice as long as the average person. When Social Security was introduced in 1935, 65 was three years more than the American life expectancy. Essentially, retirement was created for those who lived an abnormally long life. (The Social Security Administration acknowledges that average life expectancy at birth back then was 58 for men and 62 for women, though it also points out that 54% of men and 61% of women who survived childhood made it to age 65.)

The author then goes on to say that nowadays, Americans are living much, much longer, trying to retire earlier, and saving less. There’s no way Social Security can cover this, and the 401(k) isn’t working either, as both individuals and employers stop contributing.

Relatively few people today can remember the days before retirement, and I’m sure none of us want to imagine a future without it, either. But The Economist’s argument overlooks one big problem: Even if you do want to work for the rest of your life, you can’t guarantee that your job will be around that long.
A McKinsey study from last month showed that 71 percent of US workers have jobs unfavorable to income growth – jobs for which demand is decreasing or supply of workers in increasing.

The study gave an example of how a traditional job likely requires new skills:

“[A] purchasing manager in a US manufacturing multinational might be tasked with buying the best value inputs from anywhere in the world to supply factories in Asia. To do that job well, she would need advanced skills in a host of information technologies, the ability to coordinate the activities of colleagues and business partners in a global network, and very likely have a formal education in foreign languages.”

If you're an adult who has been working for years, building your human capital may seem daunting; learning new skills is difficult, time-consuming and often expensive. The study concludes by saying that America has seen redevelopment challenges like this before, and we have risen to the occasion. In the late 19th century we quickly morphed from a farm-based economy into the leaders of the industrial age. During World War II American women valiantly became skilled factory workers to fill the void left by men. It may be time for another nationwide re-education.

The recession may be the catalyst in the transformation. When the economy recovers, jobs may return — but don’t assume they’ll be the same jobs that were lost. Beware the catch-all term “growth.” According to McKinsey, “Unless the mass of America’s human capital can be developed fast, the nation risks another period in which growth resumes but income dispersion persists, with Americans in the bottom and middle-earning income clusters never really benefiting from the recovery.”

So, readers, when (if at all) are you planning to retire? If you are like our average subscriber, you have almost 20 years to go before you can collect Social Security benefits. In the meantime, what do you plan to do to ensure that your job will be around that long?

You may be able to imagine yourself working for another 20 years doing exactly the same job you’re doing now — but don’t count on it.

Question: My boss recently laid off a lot of people. As a result, she's given me much more responsibility – but no raise and no better title. Is this fair? She says she won't promote me until she sees how I do.

Answer: Call it a wild guess, but we're betting your boss didn't lay those people off just to be mean. We agree that in a perfect world, an increase in responsibility should be accompanied by a bump in pay. But today's economy is anything but perfect. When organizations are forced to reduce their payrolls, many prefer to minimize layoffs rather than cut even more jobs to increase the compensation of workers who remain. In making that tradeoff, employers aren't behaving unethically, even if some employees (like you) may deserve a raise.

As for the promotion, though, we're on your side. Assuming the payroll's frozen, your boss should try to reward you in other ways. A better job title is a good place to start.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: I recently opened my own graphic design business. A prospective client is coming to my new office for a meeting, and I plan to hire two temps for the day, to give the appearance that my firm is busy. A friend says this is wrong. But since no one will get hurt, how can it be?

Answer: Do we have a great job candidate for you! He’s got one year of experience, but his resume says three because he knows that looks better.

We sympathize with your eagerness to land those critically important first few clients. Unfortunately, though, inflating the body count in your office in order to create a good impression is indeed wrong – wrong because you’re misrepresenting not only the willingness of other companies to hire you, but the size of the staff available to do the work you’re seeking. And this is precisely the sort of information prospective clients are looking for when they make a point of coming by.

You wouldn’t be the first entrepreneur – or job applicant – to rationalize a deception by insisting that no one’s getting hurt. But the people you do business with – or work for, in the case of an employee – should be able to expect more integrity from you than the “no harm, no foul” standard of a basketball referee. We realize that, when you’re confident you’re qualified to do the work, the barriers you face to being hired might seem unfair. But just because an obstacle may appear insurmountable doesn’t entitle you to cheat your way around it.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: I'm a research assistant at a large consulting firm. Recently I noticed a significant error in a report prepared by a co-worker who's always acting superior to me. It's not my job to proof this report, so I've said nothing. The report's about to go out, and I hope Julie gets in trouble. My friends are appalled, but I don't think I owe it to this woman to bail her out. Am I right?

Answer: When it comes to having to save (or not save) a colleague from a trip to the woodshed, you ordinarily have a bit of leeway. The problem in this situation is that your silence punishes one of two innocent bystanders: the company you work for or its client. If the client discovers the error, it may revise its opinion of your employer and take its business elsewhere. And if the client doesn't notice, it could be harmed by fallout from the mistake.

While it may not be your job to proof the report, you still have an obligation as an employee to speak up when you see something's wrong. If you worked in an operating room and Julie were about to amputate the wrong leg, would you remain silent? Just because the consequences in your situation are less obvious doesn't make them any less real.

One way or another you must notify the project manager of the error before the report goes out. So tell the manager and become a candidate for Employee of the Month, tell the whole office and embarrass your nemesis, or alert Julie to the problem and hope her attitude toward you changes – whatever you like, as long as it gets the error corrected.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: I work for a firm that is notoriously cheap when it comes to paying its employees. I'm now interviewing for a job at another company. When I'm asked about my current salary, should I tell the truth or give the amount that I know I'm really worth in the job market?

Our Answer: Lie through your teeth.

Just kidding. While we sympathize with the position you're in, being underpaid by one firm doesn't justify lying to another, especially when the sole purpose of the misrepresentation is to manipulate the company into paying you more. To lie like that would be as unethical as your prospective employer misleading you about, say, the period of time before you'll be eligible for a raise.

Ethics aside, lying is a bad idea because you run the risk of getting caught. And since falsifying information on a job application is often grounds for dismissal, that's a risk to avoid at all costs. Imagine losing your job for lying, then being asked in subsequent interviews why you left your last position.

So tell the truth – or try to deflect the question. But either way, make a case for why you should be paid the salary you want. Point out what people with your skills make elsewhere. Mention that you're changing jobs because you feel you're underpaid. And most important, explain what makes you worth the money. After all, what matters to your prospective boss is not what you feel you're entitled to but how hard you're willing to work and what you're prepared to deliver. So tell him!

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of the upcoming book "Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?" (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.