Here's a March on Washington They Wouldn't Expect

By | March 14, 2009
12 Comments

For a number of reasons that we’ve gone over and over, we don’t talk about politics at The Speculist. But no politics and no religion is Rule 2. Rule 1 is that we can talk about whatever we want.

So with that in mid, let me make the odd foray into politics and suggest that its time for a march on Washington. We’ll call it the MMAMWM: the Million Middle-Aged Men and Women March. Inspired by Glenn Reynolds’ recent Forbes essay on longevity, we’ll assemble the aforementioned million-or-so 40-and-uppers* to march on Washington and demand that the retirement age be raised.

I’m 46 — I’d like to see them raise the retirement age to 80 or higher. All things being equal, having people stay in the work force those additional 15-20 years would be a tremendous boon to productivity and would significantly ease the strain (or delay the meltdown, depending on whose rosy scenario you want to follow) of Social Security and Medicaid.

But there’s a catch. The plan to delay retirement has to come with a commitment to fund longevity research. Funding would be distributed through a series of push prizes aimed at achieving very aggressive goals related to extending healthy, viable lifespan. As Glenn points out, you can’t just have people living longer. For this delayed retirement scheme to work, we need to remain vital and healthy. In fact, each incremental addition to the retirement age would be tied to a specific aging breakthrough. Possible examples

Develop reliable preventative treatments for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, retirement age goes up to 67.

Breakthroughs in preventing heart disease and diabetes**, retirement age goes up to 70.

Breakthroughs in preventing and treating cancer**, retirement age goes up to 72.

Breakthroughs in extending and enhancing cognitive ability, retirement age goes up to 75.

Breakthroughs in restoring and maintaining muscle and bone tissue, retirement age goes up to 80.

Heck, if we did all that we could probably raise the retirement age to 100. But let’s not get carried away. With the initial march, we’ll only insist that it be raised to 80.

marchonwashington.jpg

* Is that a valid definition of middle-aged? The term seems so arbitrary.

** We would have to be very specific, as these are occurring all the time anyhow.

  • Bob Sprowl

    I’d love to work full time as an Information Technology Manager again but after looking for 5 years and getting no interviews (and being told off the record that I’m too old) I’ve found a part time teaching job and took Social Security early.

    My health is good but not great. I am somewhat glad that I don’t work full time as I have intestinal problems, an old shoulder injury that now limits the weight that I can lift, and realize that my mind is not as sharp as it once was.

    Many of my peers that are working full time envy my short day and have almost no life as they are exhausted after a full of work and go to bed early.

  • http://thirdpipe.com JohnMc

    Yo. Speak for yourself there whippersnapper. I’m 58 and am ready to march. Just be sure the beer truck has cold ones at the bottom of the reflecting pool!

    Beer is a longevity tool according to Reynolds.

  • flicka47

    Well, not that it is a terrible idea,but these longevity/”old age” health improvements would still only help a percentage of any age group. A lot of folks are still going to need to retire.a lot of others are going to keep right on working because either they really enjoy working,or want to for some reason.

    But most of these folks have already contributed more than their fair share to society,and it is time for the younger folks to do their fair share. Many of the younger set didn’t even start working until after college. Most of the older folks you are talking about started working and contributing to such as SS in their teens,many with full time jobs in addition to whatever schooling they were up to.

    Besides,I guess you haven’t been paying attention. I’m 56,and according to SS I can’t retire and get full retirement until I am 66 3/4, that probably means your retirement age is about 68 currently…

    And currently if you continue to work,your SS is cut porportionally until you reach 72.

  • jeannebab@comcast.net

    Public pension reform must go first.

    They won’t be able to draw their pension any earlier than the “civilian” retirement age. And no pension benefits higher than Social Security would have paid them. They never paid anything near what we pay in FICA taxes. So all the money in their pension funds can go to—as they love to talk about—”saving Social Security”.

    If they complain, tell them we’re following the “Obama Plan”: making things fair, sharing the wealth, and–my favorite–we’re doing it “for the children” so they will have some hope of collecting SS one day.

  • ExDemocrat

    Don’t count on those close to the current retirement age to join you. (If you’re 40-something and want the retirement age changed for YOU, fine, but leave me alone – I’m 58 and ready to sign up for SS as soon as I can!) And, unless you have a wide spectrum of tan, red, brown, black, yellow as well as white faces in the crowd, don’t expect the media to cover it, or for the folks in DC to pay any attention.

  • pops1911

    Gee – after retiring 10 years ago, I don’t want a third career or to work again. It’s too much fun to play & watch my savings dwindle while BHo fiddles away Rome (I mean the US).

    I’m busier now than when I worked – & that was for 60-80 hours a week; sometimes with 36 hour days! But that was to support my family, now I need to buy ammo!

  • Christopher L. Smith

    I have thought about this issue recently, in light of the Obama administration’s plans to initiate discussions that would eventually lead to some kind of ‘Grand Bargain’ to reform Social Security and Medicare. I have my own proposal: How about indexing the Social Security retirement age to life expectancy?

    For about the past fifty years, life expectancy has been increasing at a rate of about two or three months per year. From this long term trend, we can extrapolate what future life expectancy will be, making fairly modest assumptions that do not include radical medical advances and that are in line with the current conventional narrative of slow, incremental health improvements thoughout the population over time.

    This approach is already the policy to some extent, considering that the age for eligibility to collect full Social Security benefits has been gradually raised from 65 for someone born in 1937 or before to 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later. All that needs to be done is to raise the age for full benefits by, say, two months for everyone born each year from 1960 onward. The age would be 67 and two months for someone born in 1961, etc.

    No one close to retirement would be affected and have to change their plans and this calculation can be adjusted if the hoped for future radical medical advances come to fruition and lead to more substantial gains. Of course, people with a 50 or 60 year career would also have more time to accumulate funds through the power of compound interest and would be less dependent on Social Security.

    Now is also the perfect time, with the focus on skyrocketing healthcare costs and Medicare’s impending insolvency, to make the essential case that cures for the diseases that plague an aging society would have a major impact on health care costs by drastically lowering them. Savings would be in the hundreds of billions per year and millions of people would be dramatically healthier, free from the present day scourges of heart disease, cancer, Alzheimers and possibly the aging process itself. This would transform our economy and society, eliminating things that are a major drain on our economy and quality of life, and the prospect of which stike fear into the hearts of us all.

  • Anonymous

    Well this all sounds promising. But if it’s going to be outdoors- it better be in fall. A dry fall day. when the kids aren’t in school. Or early in the morning. And we’ll need bathrooms. And coffee. And decent shoes.

  • ben

    Damn these comments are depressing.

    I’m twenty six and I say count me in. Whatever we have to do to raise awareness of longevity research – that’s just what we have to do!

    I want to see serious advocacy going on! And I’m not sure why it’s not. The life of every single member of the human race hangs in the balance. We’re all dying of a terminal frickin illness here. Let’s do something about it.

  • Anonymous

    Get out of the way. I don’t think a predominantly aged population that refuses to give up the reigns is a good thing. It goes a long way towards explaining why young people in their twenties are returning home to live in a perpetual state of adolescence.

  • Harvey

    Looks like we are down to about a four guy march now. But, the conversation was sparky.

  • https://blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    Anonymous –

    As I said, I’m 46. Do I need to get out of the way now or may I have that additional 19 years of productive work life I was so generously offered earlier? Odd how my being productive is keeping other people in their parent’s basements. But never fear, I’ll be expendable soon enough by your math. BTW, age discrimination hits older workers harder than anyone, but we better stick to your explanation of how the world works lest those delicate, misunderstood souls living in the aforementioned basements start to get the idea that they have to take some measure of responsibility for their own lives. Couldn’t have that.

    Harvey –

    Well, with just four guys we’re going to need some really good signs.

    And maybe puppets.