A New Age
As someone who's the other side of 60, I'm always glad to see stuff that doesn't refer to us elders as "still sharp as ever," or looking twenty years younger, or as disposable dinosaurs. Look, gravity hit several decades ago. I've thickened more than my skin in those decades, but I haven't gotten all stupid. I'd like to hear some news that my contributions are worthwhile, even at my advanced age. Here's some of that good news stuff I don't get to see all that often. It's from a recent editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Last week, President Bush signed a bill championed by U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., that raised the age limit for commercial pilots from 60 to 65, effective immediately. The law had been opposed by Northwest Airlines and its pilots, but supported by the national airline pilots group as well as some other airlines. The bill passed in part because of provisions requiring that older pilots renew a first-class medical certificate and do a flight check every six months. They also have to continue participation in Federal Aviation Administration pilot training and qualification programs.
The bill raises larger questions about the validity of mandatory retirement ages. Current state law requires police and fire employees to retire at 65, while private employers can impose retirement at age 70.
Arbitrary mandatory retirement ages lump people into crude groupings instead of assessing them as individuals. With our improved diagnostics, advanced medical technologies and increased life spans, it seems wasteful to force anyone to leave the workforce before their time.
Amen to that! I hope to keep practicing law after I turn 65 for several years at least. I happen to enjoy it, and I don't see my mental faculties heading south all that much in the next 3+ years (assuming the familial strain of Alzheimer's doesn't take its toll). Quite a few attorneys in the field I practice are over 65, including several well over the age of 70. Younger attorneys learn the hard way when they try to take advantage of us: we have a whole helluva lot more experience and most of us don't feel compelled to be nice. We don't have to.
There's nothing mystical or magical about age 65 as a retirement age. It was selected originally because that's when full benefit Social Security kicked in. That's not the case anymore, starting with my age group. I have to work a while longer for that full benefit. Also, it was assumed, as the editorial points out, that at that age retirement plans would kick in. Well, employer-funder retirement plans are rare outside of government service. The most folks have these days is a 401k, which, given the current economy in the country, is not something we can really count on.
Mandatory retirement ages just don't make sense anymore. Sure, there are some jobs that it's likely older folks can't perform, but that judgment should be made on a case by case basis. And when, as in the bill recently signed into law, there are safeguards in place, there's no harm and there just might be plenty of benefit.
Last week, President Bush signed a bill championed by U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., that raised the age limit for commercial pilots from 60 to 65, effective immediately. The law had been opposed by Northwest Airlines and its pilots, but supported by the national airline pilots group as well as some other airlines. The bill passed in part because of provisions requiring that older pilots renew a first-class medical certificate and do a flight check every six months. They also have to continue participation in Federal Aviation Administration pilot training and qualification programs.
The bill raises larger questions about the validity of mandatory retirement ages. Current state law requires police and fire employees to retire at 65, while private employers can impose retirement at age 70.
Arbitrary mandatory retirement ages lump people into crude groupings instead of assessing them as individuals. With our improved diagnostics, advanced medical technologies and increased life spans, it seems wasteful to force anyone to leave the workforce before their time.
Amen to that! I hope to keep practicing law after I turn 65 for several years at least. I happen to enjoy it, and I don't see my mental faculties heading south all that much in the next 3+ years (assuming the familial strain of Alzheimer's doesn't take its toll). Quite a few attorneys in the field I practice are over 65, including several well over the age of 70. Younger attorneys learn the hard way when they try to take advantage of us: we have a whole helluva lot more experience and most of us don't feel compelled to be nice. We don't have to.
There's nothing mystical or magical about age 65 as a retirement age. It was selected originally because that's when full benefit Social Security kicked in. That's not the case anymore, starting with my age group. I have to work a while longer for that full benefit. Also, it was assumed, as the editorial points out, that at that age retirement plans would kick in. Well, employer-funder retirement plans are rare outside of government service. The most folks have these days is a 401k, which, given the current economy in the country, is not something we can really count on.
Mandatory retirement ages just don't make sense anymore. Sure, there are some jobs that it's likely older folks can't perform, but that judgment should be made on a case by case basis. And when, as in the bill recently signed into law, there are safeguards in place, there's no harm and there just might be plenty of benefit.
Labels: Elders
posted by Diane at 12:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home