|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
| SEARCH | SUBSCRIBE | ||
Support Global Action on Aging!
Thanks! |
 |
The Freedom to Retire When You Want To Christian Science Monitor
May 21, 2003
Dreams of a satisfying retirement
take many forms. Some workers, anticipating the years after 65, imagine a
golden world without alarm clocks, offering time for golf, tennis, or a
stroll around the block. Others harbor wanderlust fantasies: Have
passport, will travel. Still others dream of languid days devoted to
reading, volunteering, tracing a family tree, or playing with
grandchildren. These traditional activities all have their appeal. But wait. Did anyone mention working longer? Increasingly, that's
an option governments on both sides of the Atlantic are promoting as a way
to scale back the mounting cost of retirement benefits. Already in the
United States, the age for full Social Security benefits is gradually
creeping up to 67. And across Europe, the issue is heating up as workers
try to protect their right to early retirement. Last week nearly 1 million people in France took to the streets to
protest the government's proposed pension reforms. Public-sector workers
would have to contribute to the state pension system for 40 years, instead
of the current 37-1/2 years. "Non, non," protested the
strikers. When to retire? That question promises to loom large in the coming
decade as conflicting messages float through the air. Paradoxes abound.
While governments are saying, Work longer, companies are saying, Leave
earlier. At a time when many Americans need to work until 65, employees in
their 50s remain prime targets in corporate downsizings. The phrase
"taking early retirement" has become a euphemism for being laid
off, making it sound voluntary and welcome when often it is not. Displaced
50-somethings, many of them in the prime of their careers, must typically
search longer for another job and settle for lower pay when they finally
find one. But age discrimination is subtle and hard to prove. By 2010, American employers will face a shortage of 10 million
workers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts. One solution, futurists
say, will be for companies to attract and retain older workers. Already heartening examples exist. A group called Experience Works
gives annual awards to Americans who draw a paycheck long after most
people have collected their proverbial gold watch and gone home. Last
year's oldest employee is a 102-year-old visiting professor of
environmental science. Other recipients include an 89-year-old hotel
personnel manager, a 92-year-old custodian, a 75-year-old veterinarian,
and an 85-year-old nurse. Such extreme examples challenge entrenched stereotypes of aging.
Yet some gerontologists caution that images of "Superfolks" in
their 70s and 80s could lead policymakers to argue that older people can
get along with reduced Social Security and Medicare benefits, because they
can work. Most of those who work past 70 want only part-time schedules. Retirement ages can be arbitrary. Commercial airline pilots must
retire at 60. In Vermont, a former state police officer is suing the state
for age discrimination because it forced him to retire at 55, the
mandatory retirement age for that post. In Massachusetts, state police
must bow out at 50. At its best, a job is a treasure, a source of satisfaction and
fulfillment. At its worst, work is little more than a means to an
essential end, a paycheck. As life spans lengthen and retirement costs escalate, CEOs and
politicians face several challenges. First, they'll need to counter subtle
ageist attitudes and make room for those who want to work beyond a normal
retirement age. And second, they'll need to create policies acknowledging
that not all older workers are able to stay on the job years longer to
collect the benefits they thought they had earned. Whatever the outcome of the French protests against pension reform,
they serve as a dual reminder: Work counts, but there's also more to life
than work. A walk on the beach, anyone? Copyright
© 2002 Global Action on Aging |
