Return to Homepage.
Michael Kadish
9/14/99
Rough Draft of Article Discussion
For the most part, the cover article/editorial "Let Old Folks Work" (The Economist, September 4th , 1999. P.23) offers legitimate arguments against forced, or even "encouraged", retirement. Statistics and generalizations are offered towards the desire that people work as long as they can. It gets its point across, it uses convincing arguments with a gentle tone. However, it manages to leave a massive hole for rebuttals.
The general, normal, arguments are used. It goes into the oncoming dangers to the Social Security system and the general world economy when the baby boomers retire en masse, and insists, as it is the desire of the piece, to stop mandatory retirement, or at the least, to increase the age of retirement. I call it a normal argument because I've heard it many times. However, I have heard it many times, probably, due to the fact that it's an effective argument. The statistics involved appear scary, and, as I've seen it pointed out elsewhere, the boomers were the largest population explosion in modern history, and therefor, we really have no idea what could happen.
The doomsday scenario is effective, though well used, but the statistics were new. The statistics that were used were of the modern situation. It needs to be written out to be explained.
The figures show an astonishing and long drawn out retreat from the job market. As recently as 1960, men could expect to spend 50 of their 68 years of their life in paid work. Today they are only likely to work for only 38 of their 76 years. Fewer then 2/3rds of men in their late 50s and early 60s are in the rich world's labor force. Indeed, by the time they celebrate their 55th birthday, more than half of Europe's men have gone home to translate Horace.
For most, that is something to celebrate. Never before have so many people been able to look forward to so many years of healthy leisure. Two-thirds of people say that they like being retired and have no desire to go back to work...The pleasures of old age are less expensive, and more widely available, than ever before... The big question is whether all of this retirement is voluntary...
That is slightly confusing to look at. I have been warned before about the dangers, when quoting statistics, of using stats where the same number is used twice. Nevertheless, it's hardly Joyce. The real pull is after painting such a nice picture of retirement, the complete switch to how real those numbers are. The power in it, perhaps I am not fully conveying the effectiveness of his switch, but it is very strong, lies entirely in the way the argument is brought forward. The beauty is that the support is offered in a way that appears before the claim and, with the exception of the title, before the warrant. Numbers are brought forth that seem to indicate bliss at the prospect of retirement, then are questioned, with the claims and warrants written after the support is agreed upon by the readers.
That's not to say that the article is immune to attacks. It offers pro-hominum arguments that are rather iffy, demonstrating how William Ewart Gladstone was in Parliament until he was 85. However, that was rather irrelevant, as it is pointed out, that he served during Victoria's reign. They point out that "Alan Greenspan, the world's most successful central banker, is also 73." This is a very good point. Many consider Greenspan the most important man in America, but the "also" before 73 referred to Ronald Reagan.
To my liberal mind, using Reagan as evidence that elderly individuals can remain in the work force says that senility is not a problem in the workplace. It doesn't help matters that according to the article, Reagan's '84 election, the largest landslide of a presidential election since the time of Washington, was straining on him, as he was, "fighting his second presidential election." This may come off as nitpicking, but that is the source of the problem with the article. The notion, not often questioned, that a normal job, especially with computers or manual labor, for a gen-exer/baby boomer, is a "fight" for a senior citizen to be able to understand. Perhaps some old dogs can learn new tricks, but it generally is more difficult for the elderly to adapt to the newer technology.
Nevertheless, the article asks in a rhetorical fashion, after going through a list of elderly heads of states and businesses, "Why, then, are so few of the rich world's older folks in employment? They live longer and enjoy better health than their parents did." It assumes, quite naturally, that a blue collar job is normally better suited to a younger individual, but "Most jobs have become less physically demanding; most people in late middle age are well educated," so presumably, they should possess the knowledge needed for today's business world.
That is a stretch. So much of the jobs out there involve computers. Every major business is on-line, and computers now do the brunt of the work in this information age. Perhaps if the Y2K bug is as destructive as predicted, the uselessness of electronics will level the playing field and allow the elderly to work. However, technology is a major threat towards the elderly and an advantage to those who are just out of school. This is the major problem with the article, and seems to make all of the writer's instructions for the government moot, as the argument can be so easily nullified.