older man seeking work

Many Americans Over 65 Want to Work. How Do We Keep Them in the Workforce?

“Planning on retiring at 65? Most Americans retire far earlier — and not by choice.”

That was the headline on CBS Moneywatch’s recent coverage of a disappointing trend. It’s disappointing in several ways:

  • Many older Americans want to work into their late 60s, 70s, or beyond because it provides a sense of connection and purpose.
  • Other Americans simply need to work past 65 for financial reasons.
  • Employers in nearly every industry need more, not fewer, workers.

If we were able to satisfy all three of those groups, it would be a win-win-win. So how do we get there?

I advocate a two-pronged approach.

1) Employers in white-collar industries and other professions where it’s feasible to work into your 70s and beyond need to adjust their policies and overcome ageist assumptions.

Many of these employers fail to account for their older workers who also serve as caregivers, for instance. This is especially true for women in their 50s and 60s who often are forced to step back or out of a job in order to care for an aging parent or spouse.

Others aren’t willing to train older workers to help them keep up with younger colleagues’ skills — while retaining the experience, loyalty and other valuable traits older workers tend to possess.

And still other employers won’t change their leave policies to accommodate older employees. Many want to stay on, but with a bit more time off as they age, perhaps for a long-anticipated trip. They fear they’ll lose their job even if they take unpaid leave to travel.

The bottom line: Many employers don’t realize how older workers’ needs change, nor do they value the significant benefits they bring to the job. That’s ageism.

2) For workers in jobs that are difficult to perform after age 60, we need to create pathways to new careers.

I’m talking about older adults who have worked physically taxing jobs for most of their lives. Or those in risk-laden roles like police, fire and the military. Often, these older workers are on the lower side of the income scale. They need to retire, but they can’t afford to.

These workers’ plights remind me of a senior living community employer who told me about hiring a former truck driver. The ex-driver moved from a lonely, draining job to one that allowed him to be involved in people’s lives on a daily basis. The residents knew him and counted on him, and he felt he made a difference simply by showing up with a smile and a desire to engage.

That’s the kind of example we need to follow: Helping older adults move from physically, emotionally and mentally demanding jobs into new lines of work.

When employers do that — and when they adjust policies in white-collar industries — they can offer older adults the chance to work as long as they want or need. And they’ll reap the benefits of a more experienced, loyal and productive workforce, too.

Larry Fink, Chairman and CEO of BlackRock

BlackRock’s Fink Gets the Retirement Crisis Two-Thirds Right

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink made news recently when he warned that a global retirement crisis is looming. I don’t disagree, but I would say that Fink missed a key point.

There are three key factors in the retirement equation:

  1. Life span
  2. Wealth span
  3. Health span

Fink, in his annual letter to investors, correctly identifies the discrepancy between 1 and 2. People around the world are living longer on average, but many of them do not have the means to afford those extra years. That’s a huge problem.

But he does not address 3. It’s one thing to have extra years, but the quality of life in those years is just as important. Our goals should include enabling longer health spans — also known as healthy longevity.

Why is it important? To state the obvious, extra years are not a gift if you spend them battling chronic disease and illness. But increasing our health span also extends our wealth span — if you’re healthier longer, you incur fewer costs.

In his letter, Fink describes the mismatch between what Americans are saving and what they will need as “a problem so big and urgent that government and corporate leaders [need to] stop business as usual [and] step out of their silos and sit around the same table to find a solution.”

He’s absolutely right. We’re sort of sleepwalking into this emergency. Action is needed.

My worry is that if our leaders act, their solutions could be perceived as pitting the old versus the young. Some might say “You’re taking resources away from the younger generations to support the older generation, and that’s not fair.”

It’s a dangerous argument, because no one has more at stake in this debate than the younger generations. Older adults are living longer now, but younger generations are expected to live even longer. So the problem of aligning life span, wealth span and health span will be even more acute in 30 or 40 years than it is now if we don’t act.

Without solutions, the group that will be affected the most by the retirement crisis — and have to live with it the longest — is young people.

© Nexus Insights. All rights reserved.