"Chronological Agenda"

[Bikewer]

An article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's "Health" section this morning profiles an "agenda" proposed by the Stanford Center on Longevity.

Essentially, it turns our ideas on work, aging, and wages/benefits upside down.

Individuals from 20 to 40 would be eligible for Social Security. Instead of going to older adults, SS support would go to young people in their reproductive years.
Young adults would supplement their SS with part-time work, doing some community service, and taking continuing education courses. They would gain skills and experience in preparation for full-time work. They would get health insurance through Medicare.

Individuals from 40 to 70 would be in their prime earning years. They could throw themselves into jobs or other projects full time without the stress and guilt of raising families at the same time.
They could work full-time and even overtime, building up savings as well as paying back into SS for the benefits already received.

Individuals from 75 up would be able to go into National Service.
Instead of staffing such programs with young, inexperienced people, the government would target such programs as Americorps and the Peace Corps with older, experienced citizens.
They would work on flexible schedules in libraries, schools, parks, health centers, and the like throughout the US and even overseas.
They would receive a monthly stipend and government health insurance.


All this predicated on our increasing "healthy" lifespan, of course. On first blush, it seems kind-of-workable. I have no idea how you would implement such a revision, of course. Lots of older folks past their traditional retirement age are doing just the above sort of thing, though it's also true that many are remaining employed out of necessity.
I daresay the "peak earning" years are already in that 40-70 ballpark; with many corporate management types leaning towards the upper mark.

We know that a fairly substantial number of younger people are deferring childbirth till after education and job establishment; that is if they have the means for higher education. Pop out a couple of young 'uns early and then get on with your life?
Link to the story:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/lifestyle/stories.nsf/healthfitness/story/ABFF9EB59BA7F8868625721C000A14A4?OpenDocument&highlight=2%2C%22life%22+AND+%22cycle%22

Comments?

[Upchurch]

I am absolutely against this for the sole reason that I'd be over half way done with my education/reproduction phase of live. :mad:

[Mephisto]

I've always thought this was the way retirement should be treated. Who wants to work two jobs while they're young and attractive and could be spending their best years slaving away at a dead-end job? I've always pointed out all the flashy cars on the street today (the really expensive ones, not the aftermarket sh!tcans) are being driven by people too old to appreciate them. Who wants to wait for a Corvette or a Viper long enough that driving over 40 mph terrifies you and you constantly forget that you're left turn signal has been on for the past 50 miles?

At the opposite end of the scale, I've seen men retire early only to die within five years. I think remaining a contributing member of society might curtail that tendency. Still, this is a benefit I don't think I'll ever reap, but there is some hope for the future.

[drkitten]

Individuals from 75 up would be able to go into National Service.
Instead of staffing such programs with young, inexperienced people, the government would target such programs as Americorps and the Peace Corps with older, experienced citizens.
They would work on flexible schedules in libraries, schools, parks, health centers, and the like throughout the US and even overseas.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The whole reason "retirement" exists in the first place is because one's ability to work decreases with age. Yes, there are certainly fit and healthy "golden years" retirees who might appreciate the ability to continue to contribute to society -- but what do you do with the people who can't? My grandmother can barely walk from her bed to the reclining chair where she watches game shows all day.

And you want to send her into the Peace Corps? Yes, I'm sure that the villagers in Elbonistan could really use her help in digging a new and deeper well.

[Mephisto]

This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The whole reason "retirement" exists in the first place is because one's ability to work decreases with age. Yes, there are certainly fit and healthy "golden years" retirees who might appreciate the ability to continue to contribute to society -- but what do you do with the people who can't? My grandmother can barely walk from her bed to the reclining chair where she watches game shows all day.

And you want to send her into the Peace Corps? Yes, I'm sure that the villagers in Elbonistan could really use her help in digging a new and deeper well.

Well she could always work as a "greeter" at Walmart, or maybe a bank security guard. If she likes game shows so much, maybe that's a venue for her; it's time for Pat Sajack and what's his face from The Price is Right to get a new job anyway. ;)

[Wheezebucket]

When I'm 75 I'm gonna be so unpleasant and bigoted, I don't know how I'm gonna get hired anywhere.

Actually, I'll probably be dead long before then. Guess I better get started now.