Last month, I jumped headfirst into what I consider to be a very debatable topic—the Talent-Shortage Myth.

My point was that I don’t believe the gloom-and-doom talk of a huge talent shortage once the baby boomers start retiring. “That’s not to say that there won’t be worker shortages in some specific areas (think nurses or other health care workers, for example),” I wrote in this blog, “but the notion that the baby-boom generation will retire in lockstep once they hit age 65 is ridiculous.

We’ve said it in numerous stories in Workforce Management, like in this story by Ed Frauenheim.”

Many of you wrote back to tell me I was wrong, or that you believed I was right, or that the problem was complex and had other elements that I wasn’t addressing. The comments were pointed and heartfelt.

And, they added some interesting and thoughtful elements to the discussion.

Well, here’s a little more fuel for the fire. Earlier this week, I read a story in the Minneapolis Star Tribune about the latest census numbers that seem to show that “Retirement age doesn’t mean 65.”

“Minnesota State Demographer Tom Gillaspy said two distinct forces are causing seniors to work longer,” the story noted. “One is necessity. ‘Many have not saved a tremendous amount for retirement,’ he said. The other is the lack of replacement workers, especially for executive positions and jobs that require years of training. ‘Some businesses will try to keep skilled workers in the workforce longer,’ Gillaspy said.”

This just reinforces my point: Yes, we are facing some large demographic changes in the workforce, and businesses need to plan for them, but all the gloom-and-doom talk of a giant worker shortage may just end up being more myth than reality.