Is There a Case for a Universal Retirement Age of 70?

There is growing debate about whether a universal retirement age of 70 should be implemented. While some argue for such a measure, focusing on tax relief and administrative efficiency, others advocate for the continued work of individuals beyond 70. This article explores the arguments on both sides, examining the impact of such a policy on workforce productivity, age discrimination, and governmental responsibilities.

The Case Against a Universal 70-Year Retirement Age

One argument against a universal retirement age at 70 is that it could be discriminatory towards older workers. Many people over 70 still find fulfillment and productivity in their work. As a former researcher and assistant to productive academics in their 70s and 80s, I have seen firsthand that age does not equate to inactivity or loss of expertise. Implementing a standard retirement age ignores the diverse reasons and benefits that older individuals derive from their work.

Impact on Productivity and Career Satisfaction

Steve, a seasoned researcher, has been working for over three decades. He continues to make significant contributions in STEM fields. Similarly, Anne, an experienced consultant, thrives in her work and demonstrates that one can enjoy and be productive well into their 70s and 80s. Imposing a mandatory retirement age would not only affect older workers but could also stifle the brainpower that continues to drive innovation and industry.

International Precedence and Brain Drain

The United States is an example of a country that has abolished mandatory retirement. The U.S. made it illegal to force people out of the workforce at any age, a decision that many other countries have followed. This shift addressed the issue of age discrimination and allowed for greater career longevity. Countries like the U.S. and Europe have experienced a brain drain in scientific fields, where older but still valuable experts are leaving for better policies.

Economic and Ethical Considerations

Policies that enforce a universal retirement age miss an opportunity to keep experienced professionals contributing to society. The financial independence and job security provided by work for individuals in their 70s and beyond can be significant. For instance, at 62.5, many individuals still have considerable years of productive work ahead of them, whether in consulting, academia, or other roles.

Challenges and Alternatives

Loading additional administrative burdens through tax relief for annuities could complicate the process further without addressing the real need for continued workforce engagement. Legislators and policymakers must consider options that do not mandate retirement but support those who choose to continue working. For example, lowering the Medicare eligibility age or offering flexible retirement plans could be more effective.

Exceptions and Special Cases

There are specific exceptions, such as military personnel, police officers, and commercial pilots, who may still need mandatory retirement for safety reasons. However, for other fields, forcing people out of work solely based on age is both impractical and unjust.

The Role of Legislation

Any change to the retirement age would require legislation. Congress would need to pass an act to implement such a change, ensuring that all other legal frameworks align with this new mandate.

Conclusion

Implementing a universal retirement age of 70 is not a compelling solution. It fails to recognize the value and potential of older workers and could perpetuate age discrimination. Instead, policymakers should focus on creating a flexible and inclusive work environment that supports individuals of all ages, enabling them to contribute meaningfully to society as long as they choose to do so.