AN OLD SOLUTION
Delaying retirement, for those who want to and are able, can be a benefit to both the individual and to society
Population growth is an important issue. The UN estimates the world’s population will grow to 9.7 billion by 2050 from
7.7 billion now.
Canada, like many other developed countries, has a relatively low birthrate, but thanks to immigration, our population still grows. However, ours is an aging population, with fewer babies born and many boomers, with better health care, living longer.
Yet our governments and people cling to an antiquated mirage of a retirement age of 65, dating back to the 1880s when Count von Bismarck was Prussia’s prime minister. When he created a universal pension scheme, he picked 65 as the age of eligibility for benefits (since the average life expectancy then was 61, this lowered its payout obligation risk). But now our life expectancies are almost two decades longer.
An aging population creates a drag on potential for economic growth. One way to improve that is to encourage more older people to remain longer in the workforce. Even after 40 years in it, many workers can still make a contribution to Canada’s economic well-being, both by producing things or by being mentors to younger workers in passing on what is called “corporate memory” (as was historically done when sons followed in their father’s footsteps).
I am still “sort of” in the workforce (among other things by writing this column). And I have come honestly by that: My father retired from the Dutch navy on Dec. 1, 1945, at age 56. The following March 18 he was invited to dinner by a local “prominenti” and came home all excited, having been offered a job in line with his work experience. So he worked there for 17 more years, until age 73.
Now some anecdotal evidence: Recently a good friend phoned. Age 70, he’s an engineer with a background in highly specialized fields. Out-of-breath-excited, he told me an acquaintance high up in a large company called him to come and work for it on a months-long major project to which he could “add value.” When my friend warned him he had a previous commitment for the next two weeks, the acquaintance had been “cool” with that. While he will get well paid for doing so, he likely would have taken the job for a tuppence.
A few years ago, Edmonton Transit hired a new bus driver, 63 years of age, with no bus-driving experience. Some weeks later I asked an old-looking bus driver “Are you that guy?” His answer was “No.” But then there is Old Charlie. Fifteen years ago, he retired at age 65. A few months later he called the company, saying, “Please find me something to do, I am bored silly!” So now, at age 80, he drives five days a week, two of those days for two hours during the rush hour.
And all are happy. His wife, since he is less underfoot and happier. He, since he can feel useful and socialize with some old buds. The company is pleased to have a reliable, low-maintenance driver in rush hour when it can use them most. And enlighteningly, the union must have gone along with it.
About 10 years ago, I went through a grocery store checkout line staffed by a well-coiffed lady about my age. As was, and remains, my habit, I said, “Thank you, young lady,” to which she responded, “I bet I am older than you!” She was right, and told me she was working by choice since it gave her satisfaction and a chance to socialize with strangers.
Finally, my experience with Workers’ Compensation. In April 2016, I was on my bike doing the city census when a dog chasing a rabbit ran into my bike, knocked me over and put me in hospital for three weeks with 13 broken bones on my left side from my big toe via my pelvis to the back of my skull. There were another three weeks in full-time rehab and finally five months of fiveday-a-week, half-day outpatient rehab.
At 82, I was the eldest Workers’ Comp “client.” Included in my physical therapy were “occupational therapy” sessions. During these, one amusing question cropped up regularly, namely: “What would I like to do when I got back in the workforce?” And my standard answer was to be on a list somewhere as available on short notice for the rest of the day, or a few days, to replace workers who had to miss work temporarily.
That would be good for an oldie like me — no ongoing commitment, but getting shaken out of my routine with a variety of work challenges.
Many employers like older workers because they want — or need — to work and do not come to work just out of habit, for a lack of something better to do or solely for the money. Older people still in the workforce tend to be physically fitter, feel better about themselves and have less time to fuss about their ailments.
The resulting lower cost of maintaining their personal health will become increasingly important to governments that, in the POST-COVID -19 era, will become ever more hard-pressed for money.
My favourite way to entice them to stay in, or return to, work past age 65 would be to pass a law giving those still in the workforce at age 66 a 10 per cent concession on their income taxes, twice that at age 67 and so on until it peaks at 50 per cent at age 70.
Many (older) workers can still make a contribution to Canada’s economic well-being, both by producing things or by being mentors to younger workers.