Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Sun Sets On the Golden Years

By William Greider, The Nation. Posted June 27, 2005.


Many millions of baby boomers realize as they approach retirement age that they can't afford to retire at all, much less retire early.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by William Greider

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In 1900 Americans on average lived for only 49 years and most working people died still on the job. For those who lived long enough, the average "retirement" age was 85. By 1935, when Social Security was enacted, life expectancy had risen to 61 years. Now it is 77 years--nearly a generation more--and still rising. Children born today have a fifty-fifty chance of living to 100. This inheritance from the last century--the great gift of longer life--surely represents one of the country's most meaningful accomplishments.

Yet the achievement has been transformed into a monumental problem by contemporary politics and narrow-minded accounting. "The nation faces a severe economic threat from the aging of its population combined with escalating health costs," a Washington Post editorial warned. Others put it more harshly. "Greedy geezers" are robbing from the young, bankrupting the government. Painful solutions must be taken to avoid financial ruin. Or so we are told.

A much happier conviction is expressed by Robert Fogel, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at the University of Chicago and a septuagenarian himself. America, he reminds us, is a very wealthy nation. The expanding longevity is not a financial burden but an enormous and underdeveloped asset. If US per capita income continues to grow at a rate of 1.5 percent a year, the country will have plenty of money to finance comfortable retirements and high-quality healthcare for all citizens, including those at the bottom of the wage ladder. When politicians talk about raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 in order to "save" the system, they are headed backward and against the tide of human aspirations.

The average retirement age, Fogel observes, has been falling in recent decades by personal choice and is now around 63. Given proper financing arrangements, he expects the retirement age will eventually fall to as low as 55--allowing everyone to enjoy more leisure years and to explore the many dimensions of "spiritual development" or "self-realization," as John Dewey called it.

"What then is the virtue of increasing spending on retirement and health rather than goods?" Fogel asked in his latest book, The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism (2000). "It is the virtue of providing consumers in rich countries with what they want most." What people want is time--more time to enjoy life and learning, to focus on the virtuous aspects of one's nature, to pursue social projects free of economic necessity, to engage their curiosity and self-knowledge or their political values. The great inequity in modern life, as Fogel provocatively puts it, is the "maldistribution of spiritual resources," that is, the economic insecurity that prevents people from exploring life's larger questions. Everyone could attain a fair share of liberating security, he asserts, if government undertook strategic interventions in their behalf.

Fogel's perspective is generally ignored by other economists, but sociologists and psychologists recognize his point in the changing behavior of retirees. The elderly are redefining leisure, finding "fun" in myriad activities that lend deeper meaning to their lives. An informal shadow university has grown up around the nation in which older people are both the students and the teachers. They do "volunteer vacationing" and "foster grandparenting." They rehab old houses for the needy, serve as self-appointed environmental watchdogs or act as ombudsmen for neglected groups like indigent children or nursing-home patients. They dig into political issues with an informed tenacity that often withers politicians. In civic engagement, they are becoming counselors, critics, caregivers and mentors equipped with special advantages--the time and freedom to act, the knowledge and understanding gained only from the experience of living.

When the "largest generation" reaches retirement a few years from now, the baby boomers will doubtless alter the contours of society again, perhaps more profoundly than in their youth. Theodore Roszak, the historian who chronicled "The Making of a Counter Culture" thirty-six years ago, thinks boomers taking up caregiving and mentoring roles will inspire another wave of humanistic social values (perhaps expressed more maturely this time around).

"More than merely surviving we will find ourselves gifted with the wits, the political savvy and the sheer weight of numbers to become a major force for change," Roszak wrote in America the Wise (1998). "With us, history shifts its rhythm. It draws back from the frenzied pursuit of marketing novelties and technological turnover and assumes the measured pace of humane and sustainable values. We may live to see wisdom become a distinct possibility and compassion the reigning social ethic."

The "retired," he predicts, will seek to become reintegrated with the working society and claim a larger role in its affairs. Some elderly may reclaim the ancient role of respected "elders" who keep alive society's deeper truths and remind succeeding generations of their obligations to the nation's longer term. None of these possibilities are likely to unfold, however, if the promise of economic security for retirement is eviscerated in the meantime.

Fogel's optimism sounds eccentric amid the gloom and doom of the Social Security debate and the more threatening deterioration under way in private pensions and personal savings. Fogel skips over the snarled facts of current politics. He thinks big-picture and long-term. He won the Nobel Prize by producing unorthodox economic history that traced the deeper shifts in demographics and living conditions across generations, even centuries. His thinking is especially provocative because the conclusions collide with both left and right assumptions. Fogel is a secular Democrat, yet he extols the conservative evangelical awakening as a valuable social force. He sounds alternately conservative and liberal on economic issues, yet he thinks government should engineer a vast redistribution of financial wealth, from top to bottom, to insure equitable pensions for all.


Digg!

William Greider is the author of, most recently, "The Soul of Capitalism" (Simon & Schuster).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Greider on Social Security
Posted by: Isabel on Jun 27, 2005 1:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Greider's mouth to God's ears!

I don't understand how it is that no one lately has spoken so clearly and so sensibly both at the same time, and still speaking so that I can understand what he says!

I do appreciate what Greider has accomplished in this cogent piece!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What if?
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 27, 2005 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if you had work that you didn't want to retire from? What would your life look like? What would your community -- all the communities that you're part of, or want to be part of -- look like?

William Greider paraphrases economist Paul Fogel: "What people want is time--more time to enjoy life and learning, to focus on the virtuous aspects of one's nature, to pursue social projects free of economic necessity, to engage their curiosity and self-knowledge or their political values."

Why should all this be deferred till retirement? The underlying assumption looks a bit like indentured servitude: bind yourself to the job, or the series of jobs; work frantically (or maybe lackadaisically, if you can get away with it) for thirty or forty years, then you're free to do what you want. Deferred gratification, Protestant ethic, yadda yadda yadda.

Sure, many people can't imagine it any other way, but when I look around, I see plenty of hidden and not-so-hidden costs. Drugs, alcohol, and food consumed either to silence the misgivings or to rev up the chronically exhausted. Kids left to their own (or the TV's) devices while their parents work enough hours to feed and clothe them. Communities that wither because who has the time and energy to organize the events that pool our individual resources and create something social? Other communities that get turned into "tourist traps" -- so these frantically working people can "get away from it all." Not to mention (as any freelancer can testify) that it's a considerable challenge to go from highly structured workdays to totally unstructured "leisure" hours, and plenty of people can't make the transition.

What if we could incorporate creativity, curiosity, and socially and politically useful work into our lives from the moment we entered the workforce? What if we didn't have to relegate it to after-hours, or weekends, or "after I retire"? (Anyone else see a connection between retirement and "the rapture"??)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What if? Posted by: CrystalD
Retirement?
Posted by: 42Years on Jun 27, 2005 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am an "almost Baby Boomer" born in 1945. My Dad worked until he was 72. I always planned to work until I'm at least 65. Some of my peers have been "retired" for 5 or 8 years now. I often hear the moans and groans of those who can't retire at 55 but must wait until they are 65 or older. What is that all about? Retire when you can and enjoy what you have. Don't compare your life to a lot of statistics and "norms."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 403b/401k system is broken for most.
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jun 27, 2005 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless you work for a Fortune 500 enterprise, or a very select list of companies/organizations the 401k/403b system is a joke. Instead of having real choices, most workers are locked into one vendor that is selected at the whim of the employer.

Most of the funds have about a thin-nickel's difference between them and are loaded with fees and charges that eat up a large part of the returns. Otherwise, there is no competitive market for the individual employee to use as leverage in establishing the terms and charges of the relationship between them and the broker. It's another scheme that looks good on paper but was corrupted by special interests long before the worker was ever offered a chance to sign up.

The old saying goes:
Some get steak
Some get spam
Some just get to hear the sizzle

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Long article, I'll boil it down for you....
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Jun 27, 2005 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Verrrry interesting article. I agree with much of what the author said but can see several main conclusions (mixed in there with all that utopian rhetoric) with which I totally agree.

Raising the Social Security retirement age is a very bad idea, a march-on-Washington-with-pitchforks, torches, tar and feathers kind of bad idea.

Starving the Social Security system by introducing private accounts is a very bad idea. We already have private accounts, they are called 401 (k)'s, traditional IRA's and Roth IRA's.

The government borrowed (or stole) the so-called Social Security surplus. The government must pay it back into the system.

The out-year shortfalls can be solved by repealing the $90,000 cap on earnings for contributions. If those earning more than $90,000 continue paying into the system, the rate (6.2% for employee and 6.2% for employer) could be reduced for all of us and the system would be solvent.

Social Security is a safety net and nothing more, but it is a shared system and ALL those who contribute should receive its benefits, regardless of income.

We cannot rely on the government or on the corporate worlds to provide for our retirement. We will have to do that for ourselves.

I have already written my Congressmen and Senators expressing the above ideas and hope you will, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RETIRE? I THINK NOT.
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 27, 2005 3:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The unstated premise of this conversation ignores the facts of the new reality. During the progressive ages, especially the liberal growth spurts of the late nineteenth, early twentieth and mid twentieth centuries, the impetus was on improving the welfare of the average citizen as he / she was transformed from lower class unskilled chattel into the modern image of a healthy, middle class tradesman or professional with a good wage, limited hours, a safe, fair workplace, a pension and an intact social safety net.

Of course, this came at the expense of the robber barons, the cruel, sociopathic elitists with an insatiable lust for power and wealth. These people have regained control of the government and are actively and deliberately transforming America back to that model. It is no accident that real wages are falling, costly social programs are withering, pensions are being stolen, workplace safety and union benefits disappearing and professional jobs are being exported.

If you would like a glimpse of the near future, just read Oliver Twist or David Copperfield. The Dickensian nightmare is the your government's vision for you. Victorian capitalism at its ugliest has been resuscitated. It's the gift of the gullible to the rest of us, those that trusted their pastors and voted Republican.

Both the simple and gullible and the rest of us whose fates are tied to them will have to lie in that bed. Young Americans, like the Irish, the Italians and the Vietnamese, will soon be looking to leave their homeland for opportunity for themselves and their children in socialist nations.

Forget about retirement and other progressive, middle class inventions. The American middle class is dying. The peonage doesn't retire.

Yeah, I know. Unthinkable. No way. This is America. That's defeatist. OK. Good luck. As was said to Winona Rider in one of the later Alien sequels, you're way too trusting!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I want your cake and eat it too
Posted by: dan10opa on Jun 27, 2005 3:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's be honest. The wealthy elite, specifically the wealthy Republican elite, can't stand the fact that they haven't yet been able to steal more Sociial Securtiy money from the American working class than they already have. If unions were still a force to be reckoned with in America this discussion would not happen. As it is, the Repubs are frothing at the mouth, and licking their chops because they can taste the billions of dollars in stolen money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Befell the people?
Posted by: rob_low on Jun 27, 2005 4:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After belatedly discovering Mr. Greider's epic tome, "The Secrets of the Temple" and subsequently devouring his "Who Will tell the People?", I pounce on any article I see that 's written by him. Once again he doesn't disappoint. Where the politicians obfuscate, he reveals. Whether one agrees or not with his suggestions, at least he's talking in REAL terms about the problems we're confronted with, and, like children, ignoring.
My only reservation about his proposed solutions is that he seems to ignore the statement by Exxon that natural gas production in the US is now in unstoppable decline, and the arrival of Peak-Oil in the United Sates that, I would argue (coinciding, not coincidentally, with the year, 1971, in which the US abandoned the gold standard), precipitated the cynically engineered change in the economic system. The upper class, who understood the implications all too well, set to work to assure that they retained their postion of wealth and privilege once the Oil Economy reverted back to the same "Winnner take ALL, Right is Might" mentality characterized the early slavery-driven economy of the Colonial Era (which was the REAL Voodoo Economic Plan of the Reagan years). Far from seeing mandatory savings accounts, before the decade is out, it is much more likely that we'll be seeing mandatory indentured servitude. The extension of credit to buy hyper-valued homes to folks whose future ability to pay is next to impossible, together with the new bankruptcy law and the ultra-expansion of the prison system makes it all-too-obvious what AmeriCorp is planning for the future of the American worker. And it sure ain't early retirement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Protect the Money
Posted by: Sandra on Jun 27, 2005 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A savings system managed by the government would have to find a way to protect the money from the administration and from Congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Retirement income has to come from several sources.
Posted by: carleeneb on Jun 29, 2005 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A very thoughtful and understandable article. I am 75 years old and "semi-retired" self-employed sales professional. Not wealthy but financially independent and there is a big difference! I did not retire though until age 69. No problem. Some of my retirement income comes from Employer retirement plan, some from current earnings, some from Social Security. The rest comes from a voluntary personal savings account similar to 401K except it was a fixed interest account. Compound interest works miracles. You have to pay yourself first, then spend what is left.

I disagree on the statistics regarding the failure of 401K plans as far as the average amount in these accounts. Yes, the stock market wrecked these accounts but mainly to the extent that the growth was unrealistic to a point to start with.
A much bigger factor though in the average size of these accounts is the large number of workers who leave their jobs for new employment and cash out their accounts and blow the money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm pretending you would want to show THE main historical stocks' truth
Posted by: ttsmyf on Jul 2, 2005 11:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the compelling Real DJIA, 1924-now" at
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf
"the 3 Fed Chair warnings, Real DJIA" at
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf /3warnsRD.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]