This Sunday's New York Times featured an intriguing look at a new book, Working Longer: The Solution to the Retirement Income Challenge by Alicia H. Munnell and Steven A. Sass.

The Times claims the book uses "sometimes cloistered academic terms," but does a swell job of addressing something we all fear: how under prepared most people are for their golden years. What troubled me is fact that the authors estimate that people who retire at age 65 today can expect Social Security to provide the equivalent of only 39 percent of their incomes after deductions for basic Medicare contributions. Here's more:

Ms. Munnell and Mr. Sass recommend that people postpone their retirements from age 63, the current average, to 66. Interestingly enough, 66 was the average back in 1962. They also say that it is time to look at raising the earliest eligibility age for Social Security benefits. (It is currently 62.)The authors write that four more years of work alters the ratio of retirement to working years from 1 to 2, meaning 20 years of retirement and 40 years of work, to almost 1 to 3, or 16 years of retirement and 44 years of work. The authors contend that working longer and retiring later can generate powerful benefits for aging baby boomers and the workers in their wake.

If you're wondering what those benefits are, read more.

Working longer and retiring later would delay the need for people to tap into I.R.A.’s and 401(k) plans, thereby swelling their total assets and increasing the future income they can produce, according to the book. It would also help maximize the benefits of Social Security, which are about one-third higher for recipients who are 66 than for those who are 62.

We all know sticking to our retirement savings isn't an easy thing to do, but the fact that the long haul may need to be even longer is somewhat disheartening. Do you think you are going to have to retire later than your goal date, or can you meet your marker?