I just received this book by Arthur Brooks in the mail. I think he knows a lot about politics–he has a friend who’s a congressman (see p. 139).
On page 160, Brooks writes:
The retirement age is absurdly low. Unless you are in a heavy physical industry or have a health issue, why should you retire at 65? You’ll still be in your prime.
I think Brooks spends too much time hanging out with congressmen. It may well be that a 65-year-old congressman is in his prime but I don’t think that works so well for other jobs. Maybe acting, you’ve got your Clint Eastwoods and your Betty Whites. College professors certainly aren’t in their prime at 65, and that’s a desk job! And then you have jobs that aren’t “in a heavy physical industry.” For example, what if you’re emptying bedpans at a hospital, it’s gotta be harder to do all that bending as you get older. I doubt that soldiers or police officers or firefighters are in their prime at 65 either. Maybe we need some sort of chart that says who gets to retire at 65 and who has to wait until 70?
I think what Brooks is saying is that he doesn’t want to divert economic resources to paying for people to retire at 65. OK, fine, make ’em work for a living if you’d rather do that than increase taxes on upper-income Americans (the option that Brooks rejects earlier on page 160). That’s a policy choice.
But to say that “you’ll still be in your prime” at 65, that’s just silly. It’s hardly age-ist to admit that our physical and cognitive capacities decline with the years. Not all Brooks’s readers have jobs such as “congressman” where you’re in your prime at 65.
P.S. Could we do something about the categories on this blog? Social security is an important topic but I couldn’t really see any good category for it. I chose “Political Economy” but that’s not really right.