The subject of the post was that GOP Senators wanted to raise the retirement age to 69 and Dr. Taylor seemed to imply that he was okay with the idea. In a comment to the post, Mark Griffith, of PoliticalMan, suggested that people who do blue collar/hard labor jobs are less able to continue to work as they reach their late 60's. Dr. Taylor replies:
This is true, and the normal objection. However, is there really that radical a
difference, on average, between 67 and 69 in terms of physical ability? (or even
between 65 and 69?)
And while there is no doubt that being a blue collar
worker is harder on the body than being a white collar worker, I am guessing
that most people in the 60s, even in blue collar jobs, have advanced beyond
working as a basic-level dock loader.
It is this statement that gives me pause.
First of all, what statistics back up this argument? There could be quite a bit of difference between one's physical capabilities at 65 and 69. Do Dr. Taylor or the GOP Senators have statistics to back up their point of view that their is little appreciable difference?
Furthermore, Dr. Taylor goes on to suggest (he guesses) that even those who work in blue collar jobs progress beyond the more strenuous tasks as they advance in age. This suggestion brings me to the article I was reading at MSN about the dangerous jobs. I do not claim to have statistics to refute the argument in general; however, I do have first hand knowledge that refutes his blanket "guess" about blue collar workers.
If you look at the list of dangerous jobs provided at MSN, you will see that the 8th most dangerous job is working with powerlines. For almost my whole life, my father has been employed in this field of work (He got the job when I was 2 years old and he retired last year). He was an actual lineman who climbed poles and repaired electrical lines. He did get promoted over time and was the foreman of his crew when he retired. However, his job was still quite physically demanding. At least one week out of every month, right up until he retired, he was "on call" to "catch trouble" any hour of the day or night. If there was a storm that knocked out power, he was expected to go out in the storm and repair the lines. He would sometimes work through the night with no sleep at all, doing a very dangerous job under less than optimal conditions. Therefore, age and advanced position does not always mean less physically demanding labor.
Just something to consider.
5 comments:
The more basic question, however, is why 65?--this is the crux of my point. We accept 65 as a magic number--as if it has some sort of medical or scientific significance. Aside from being close to, if not over, the life expectancy when the SS system was first initiated, it is a wholly arbitrary number. No more significant the 63 or 66.
You can't argue from 65 as though it has any more meaning than simply being the current retirement age.
As such, what is the argument not raising the retirement age (which, btw, is creeping towards 67 under the existing law--which predates this administration, btw).
I take your point about statistical evidence, but again, the major flaw in your position (and all who treat 65 as an objective standard that should be the point of argumentation) is that 65 is just as arbitrary as 67. It may be stuck in our heads as "retirement age" but the reason it is so engrained is because that's the number chosen legislatively.
Just like 21 in the drinking age. Why? Because we have so decided--not because of any objective standard.
several typos--yes.
Me tired.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Did I say I was arguing that 65 was carved in stone or in anyway not arbitrary? I don't remember saying that. I was speaking particularly to your argument in the comment I quoted. You were making assuptions that I felt were unfounded and felt that they should be pointed out. :)
Well, I am not sure what the basis of the arguement is then. You seem to be critiquing my statement regarding age and retirement, so it seems reasonable to ask what the appropriate retirement age should be.
Specifically, you are directly questioning whether a raise in the retirement age would be wise given that there are persons in their 60s still doing dangerous/grueling jobs which then raises the question of the appropriate retirement age.
I will grant that your post is generally oriented to the basic proposition that older people still do physically difficult jobs.
I don't deny this, but do wonder as to the percentages and also as to whether the fact that some people do such jobs at an advanced age means that we cannot increase the retirement age.
To even raise the issue seems to endorse the current age, or perhaps even a younger one.
Certainly, beyond anything you have written, you will note that this debate usally proceeds from the notion that somehow 65 is somehow a special number, rather than an arbitrary one.
I suppose what I am saying is that even though the 65 age is an arbitrary number, it should not just be raised arbitrarily. If it can be shown that there is not an appreciable difference between 65 and 69 in one's ability to employ one's self, then maybe the age could be raised.
Your argument seemed to be that most anyone at any job can continue to work as long as they like and therefore retirement age can continue to pushed higher and higher.
I am suggesting that studies should be done to determine what is an appropriate age based on average job requirements and average abilities at a given age. I'm not suggesting that I have the answers, but that someone should try to find the answers.
Post a Comment