What do you think of when you hear this statement: America is a graying population?
I think, uh-oh. An older population means lower birth rates, higher medical costs, young paying for the old and then not getting their fair share, grouchier people.
That’s the “frame” most of us immediately work from. (And if you don’t think our brains are programmed to work on fast categorizations, read Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow. It’s fascinating).
But it’s the wrong frame.
I recently spent a few days in lovely Vancouver with the Network on an Aging Society, which I’ve joined as their communications person. While I’m not abandoning 20-somethings directly, I think I’ve said about all I can on the topic–at least in a fresh way. Instead, I’ll be folding their story into the story of the elderly in society because the two are integrally linked.
So what is this different framework we should be using in thinking about an aging society? Well, it begins from a point of strength. Sure, the elderly face declining health, declining productivity on the job, and sometimes greater dependence, but those things are minor compared with the positives we can tap. And tap them we must.
As one of the Network members put it, we have a scotoma when it comes to aging. A scotoma is a small stroke in the eye that makes us blind to certain things yet we’re not aware were missing it. In this case, we’re blind to the positives that an aging society can create– but only if we fundamentally change how we do things.
To tap into the potential of an aging society, we have some serious work to do in both changing the conversation we have about the topic and changing the way we now compartmentalize the life course. If you think about it, our lives are divided into three spheres, broadly: education, work, retirement. We pack all the education in the front end, to be completed by about 25. Then we spend the next big chunk of life working, and the rhythms of the work day shape our lives in big and small ways. Finally, we quit working and rest and play–in often a role-less role.
What if, instead, we rethought those big blocks? What if we spread learning throughout life? What if we staggered work differently? What if we redesigned retirement? Rather than rigid boundaries, what if the learning-work-retirement parsing was more fluid. So instead of retiring at age 60 or 65, what if we allowed a worker to just change jobs, even within the same company? They could scale back to a part-time position or take a job with less stress and more flexibility, but they’d stay working until, say, 75.
Changing tasks on the job regularly has been linked with a cognitive boost, so changing to a different job, something that interests you or something that is simply different, could help stem cognitive decline slightly, and make employers fret less about lost productivity among older workers.
Young adults often feel like the elderly should move on and make room for them in the workforce, claiming that the elderly are taking their jobs. But that’s a fallacy. The workforce is not a lump of labor vying for a fixed number of jobs. There’s simply no hard evidence that older workers displace younger workers on the job escalator. As Bloomberg Business recently put it:
The idea that older workers displace younger ones assumes that there’s a fixed amount of work to be done. That’s known as the lump-of-labor fallacy—and it’s at play in the anti-immigration camp as well. By and large, economies don’t work that way. Workers earn incomes and spend the money and the recipients of the money hire more people and off we go. Growth.
They’re basing their assessment on the result of a paper by economists Jonathan Gruber and Kevin Milligan.
Or in another re-imagining of how things work, what if we shifted learning from only at the front end and made it truly a life-long opportunity. The nature of our workforce today requires that we have regular tune-ups of what we thought we knew. In many respects, we have to continually reinvent our jobs if we want to stay employed and viable. But maybe there’s a better way to integrate learning and education throughout the life course, and sync it up with work and other demands more seamlessly.
There’s much to think about, and much to do in a very quick time frame. We’ve been coasting along on policies and institutional ways of doing things that are backward-looking, not forward-looking. If you imagine the country in 2035, it’s going to look amazingly different than it does today. The path into adulthood will likely remain slow and circuitous as more young people delay marriage, build and rebuild careers, and explore their options. As a result, there will be a slower accumulation of assets and financial stability. There will be more single people. There may be more intergenerational living. And there will be more elderly people –especially if scientific breakthroughs slow the aging process (and you know they’re trying: think of the profits potential!). A few hitches might alter that scenario: namely, the high rates of obesity. But nonetheless, society will look and function differently than it does today. It’s time to rethink the game plan.

