Home
Up
| |
| The
‘Mature Worker’ Glut |
|
| The
pressures for early retirement are clear. But in an aging society,
they’re disastrous. We need to have a profound transformation of work |
|
| by Paul J. Samuelson
Newsweek
December 16, 2002 |
| |
|
Dec.
16 issue — I
am what’s now called a “mature worker,” a new phrase with a bright
future. It’s one of those innocent-sounding euphemisms that clutter
the language but seem unavoidable in an age when no one—except TV and
radio talking heads—wants to offend anyone. When “mature” is
attached to “worker,” it means “older,” generally somewhere
north of 45. We older workers (I am 56) are becoming a glut on the
market and, as a result, are an emerging social problem.
TO BE PRECISE: in 2000, there were 61 million Americans 45 to 64; by
2010, there will be 79 million, estimates the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. The increase is 30 percent, even though the entire over-16
population is projected to grow just 11 percent. Roughly one in three
working-age Americans will soon be “mature.” We baby boomers are
advancing toward old age.
The trouble is that society
doesn’t quite know what to do with us. For years, the trend has been
toward ever earlier retirement. People wanted (it was said) rest and
recreation. Companies needed to make room for the young and ambitious
(that was us). Retirement emerged as everyone’s entitlement—life’s
earned vacation. In 1960, 78 percent of men from 60 to 64 were in the
labor force, as were 31 percent of those 65 and over. By 2000, those
figures were 55 and 18 percent, respectively.
Early retirement’s lure
remains. It’s dangerous to generalize about any group as massive as
everyone 45 to 65. But some things can be safely said: most of us have
fewer illusions than at, say, 25; we have usually substituted attainable
ambitions for unrealistic fantasies. For many, early retirement is still
the thing. Plenty of us have huge enthusiasm for work. But others have
had enough. They want out.
Some are also being pushed
out. Older workers span the spectrum of human potential—from deadwood
to spark plugs. But many are expensive workers. They’ve received years
of cost-of-living and merit wage increases. Their health expenses are
rising. When companies want to cut costs—as they do now—the
temptation to substitute younger (and cheaper) workers for older (and
more expensive) workers is powerful. “Early retirement” programs
multiply. Experience is expendable.
These pressures for early
retirement are understandable. But in an aging society, they’re
disastrous. Life expectancy is rising. People are healthier. We cannot
afford to let more and more able workers go to the sidelines. The social
problem of the mature worker is to reconcile society’s need (which is
to keep more people working longer) with individual and corporate
preferences (which favor early retirement).
We need a transformation of
work as profound as occurred when women flooded the labor market. More
older Americans need to move gradually from work to fulltime retirement.
They need to mix jobs and leisure in ways that seem natural and aren’t
embittering. We need more part-time jobs; we need more jobs with
flexible working hours, and we need more jobs that engage people’s
interests even though promotion prospects have faded.
Little is being done, a new
report from the Conference Board, a research group, shows. Companies
have a “dearth of strategies to keep mature workers,” the report
says. The Conference Board did a survey of workers 50 and over. Nearly
half (47 percent) said that “more flexible hours” might delay their
retirement. A similar number (43 percent) said they would like to work
part time, about two thirds (68 percent) with their current company.
Some of these problems may
ultimately cure themselves. A stronger economy—and a need for
experienced workers—may impel companies to create new types of jobs.
The harder task is to ensure that today’s jobs and tomorrow’s
sustain people’s emotional commitment. Older workers often feel
overlooked and under appreciated. “All the meaningful assignments,”
said one respondent to the survey, ”[go] to employees who are the same
age as, or younger than, the boss—who is most often in his or her
40s.” In the survey, 25 percent of respondents wanted to retire
because they no longer felt “respected.”
But corporate clumsiness
isn’t the only problem. We mature workers can also harbor unrealistic
expectations. In the survey, about half of workers suggested that a big
raise would cause them to postpone retirement. Sure, why not double our
salaries! And generational conflicts exist. If too many older baby
boomers stay too long in top jobs, they will be resented by those who
can’t get ahead.
Since the mid-1990s, the
share of Americans in their 50s and 60s still working has risen
slightly. But we need a bigger shift. Too much early retirement could be
bad for us personally and bad for the country. Early retirees may
miscalculate. They may spend their savings too quickly—a danger
emphasized by the stock market’s decline. A scarcity of workers and a
surplus of retirees also invites a wider social injustice. The imbalance
may trigger a huge income transfer from the young to the old—through
higher taxes to support federal programs (Social Security, Medicare) and
repressed wages to support rising pension costs. This is not a fate
aging baby boomers should inflict upon their children.
|
|
