Retirement Age, The Presidency & The Social Age
By Susanne Goldstein on Jan 9, 2008 in Anti-Social Age, Social Justice
Can someone help me out here? I’ve been following the Presidential primaries and a thought occurred to me. How come the average national age of retirement is 65 years old and yet we allow people over 65 to run for President? I don’t really get this. John McCain is 71. Ronald Reagan took office at 70. I know people who need to step down from public company boards at 72 because they’ve reached the age cap. So how’s it possible that our corporations have age limits, but our government doesn’t. And what’s actually the right thing here?
According to Weird Presidential Trivia, the average age of US Presidents when they take office is 54. According to the YMCA Retirement Fund, men retire on average at 62. Strangely, this doesn’t really coincide with the newly adjusted social security benefit eligibility rules (women, by the way, retire at 61) which states that full retirement is between 65 and 67 years based on when you were born. The retirement age for people born after 1960 is now 67.
According to these calculations, John McCain, born in 1936, hit retirement at 65 and currently is eligible to draw social security. And yet, he’s running for President. McCain would be forced to retire from the Post Office, but he can run the country. Help me out.
Now I’m no age-ist. I say let the best man or woman for the job win! But doesn’t this retirement age thing seem hypocriphal? Especially for those who are forced into retirement even though they are completely capable of working and contributing in the workforce. I don’t get it. John McCain may be the healthiest 71 year old on the planet. This isn’t about John McCain. It’s about these crazy rules we live by. I don’t find forced retirement to be very social age. But what do I know. If anyone has any explanations, please feel free to share.
Here is my comment about retirement rules by which we live today.
In the social age we think compassionately and strive to create a legal and social framework for those who are less fortunate during different cycles of life (children, families, adults with disabilities, elderly). We protect those who choose to retire, as well as those who due to different geriatric diseases are unable to make this decision for themselves (Alzheimer, dementia, etc just some of them). In some cases older people will relinquish driving licences. Despite best intentions they are a danger to themselves and others on the road.
A society that emphasizes work and efficiency as norms to live by creates monsters. In Japan where work is such an important part of one’s identity no one would take full vacations– it would go against society’s expectations. In Tokyo I have seen workers crawling back home past midnight, dizzy with work and alcohol, just to begin again the next morning early. The implications on family and health are dire.
A compassionate society creates an exit ritual, (retirement) and possibilities (medical, social security) to embrace the needs of those who choose not to work. The rules we create are made to protect the millions who cannot and would not work. Very few consider work ‘essence’ and not labour. I imagine that someone who is over 70 and has enjoyed his/her ‘work’, has developed by retirement time varied interests and does not depend on one particular corporation to feed his/her need for purpose and sense of self. We hope that one has developed interests that now can be pursued, travels, and family, or hobbies, philanthropy, or movies, or pondering the mysteries of life.
The movie the ‘Bucket’ a comedy perhaps, is also seriusly discussing “all that is left undone” before one’s death.
In the social age we do honor our elders and they are wise enough to understand that life is made of cycles. The last cycle is that of “the sage” — the one who gives back to the world what one has learned during a life time of work. I make the distinction between work/ giving back because ‘work’ requires in most cases a focus on efficiency, revenue and good team work, while ‘giving back’ may take many forms, and does not necessarily create revenue for others. In the end, it seems to me, that during the last cycle, that of the “sage,” all the emphasis on doing and working, is also running away is fear to accept death as the next step, the reintegration into nature and the universe.
Comment by Ligia -- Jan 16, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
I am amused by the metaphysical commentary. As a person who just reached his majority (65), I am astounded at how I feel now as opposed to how I thought I would feel at this point some 40 years ago.
I am working full time in my own business and have as much energy as most many years younger than I am. Having been accused of having a quick mind, it is fun to listen to twenty-somethings complain about their inability to recall things (I also have experienced this, as well) and, as opposed to old age, they complain that their “disk” is full.
Given my experience with people much younger who seem to be much older, I would say that “retirement” is an individual thing. If we start to practice one-to-one assessment with the same effort we use in one-to-one marketing, then age becomes irrelevant.
For those who view their work as drudgery, I empathize with them, but would suggest that they do something closer to what they would like to do. I changed “careers” four times in my life and I am probably not done yet.
Comment by Fred Pritikin -- Jan 21, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
No question that there’s a disconnect among the age valuations of our different social institutions. But our social institutions have never been notable for their agility in response to change.
As an elder, I’d add that there are conflicting forces, which have not affected all of us equally. For many, the accelerating pace of technologic change and the increase in population has diminished our value as “sages.” On the other hand, the prolongation of healthy life has extended our capacity for productive work.
Comment by tbell -- Jan 21, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
No government rule requires retirement,at any age.When social Security started in 1936 or so,Congress artbitrarily picked 65 for benefits[62 added later].It ought to be changed to a later retirement age to start benefits ,but politically very difficult.Lots of lobbying by constituents who think they’re better off now.
So,it remains perfectly rational for having no maximum age to run for President.The voters can decide if they think someone too old to be President.The Constitution prohibits any one serving as Pres. before age 40,but no max.i think very wise policy!
Comment by David Squire -- Jan 22, 2008 @ 11:29 am
According to the Cato Institute “Mandatory retirement age rules still prevail in some private and public-sector occupations: State and local police (55-60) and firefighters (55-60); federal firefighters (57); federal law enforcement and corrections officers (57); and air traffic controllers (56, if hired after 1972); and commercial airline pilots (60). These are “earlier-than-normal” retirement ages compared to the vast majority of other occupations.”
Comment by Susanne Goldstein -- Jan 22, 2008 @ 11:49 am