Backpedaling on the Life Cycle

. . . ages 40 to 75 were prime earning years? Men and women could throw themselves into a job without the stress and guilt around raising a family at the same time. They could work full time and overtime 8212; building up their 401ks and other life savings as well as paying back into Social Security for the support they had received.

. . . ages 75 and older were national service years? Instead of staffing programmes such as AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps with young recruits looking for experience, the government would target these programmes to the millions of older Americans who have experience.

Crazy, you say?

But wait: Longevity is changing the rules of human development. The revolutionary implications of the global age boom are just beginning to get public attention. The journal Science explored the impact of aging in a special section earlier this year. Central to rethinking aging is to rethink the patterns of each stage in the life cycle 8212; especially work patterns.

Our current system is irrational. We concentrate on work at a time in our lives when we are having children and our children need us the most. We tend to leave or be eased out of the workplace when we have completed the child-rearing tasks 8212; about age 50 8212; and now have time and energy to devote to work. And in our later decades, we are stereotyped as useless.

At the same time, living longer is causing financial tremors as individuals, employers and government programmes struggle to find ways to finance the golden decades for a swelling population of older men and women. An immediate fix is to keep people employed longer 8212; and surveys show that most boomers want to work, at least part time 8212; after they officially retire.

8220;The 20th century was a century of redistribution of income. The 21st century may be a century of redistribution of work,8221; demographic researchers James W. Vaupel and Elke Loichinger write in Science. 8220;Such a redistribution would spread work more evenly across people and over the ages of life. Individuals could combine work, education, leisure, and child-rearing in varying amounts at different ages.8221;

Shifting the prime earning years to 40 to 75 concentrates work among those most able to be productive. There is no physical reason to retire at 62 or 65. Researchers have found that among healthy people with a college education, there is no change in health between 55 and 75.

To be sure, people often get burned out on the job and are ready to retire in their 50s and 60s 8212; but that8217;s because they8217;ve been in the full-time harness since their 20s. If they waited until 40 to begin full-time work, they could stay in workplaces into their 70s

and beyond.

Yes, there are problems in turning the life cycle upside down: What about the work ambitions of youth? The impact of illness and disability that can prevent people from working at any age?

But these issues can be addressed. What8217;s important is to raise the subject that the life cycle needs an overhaul. As Carstensen says: 8220;We8217;ve got to start the conversation.8221;