Retirement in an Era of Long Life
By Laura L. Carstensen, Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center on Longevity at Stanford University
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- It seems that national discussions about retirement quickly turn to the long-term viability of Social Security. The problem with focusing too closely on Social Security is that the conversation quickly devolves into one about budgets. The problem with retiring in the early 60s isn't just a problem for Social Security. It's much bigger. We are squandering the opportunity to redesign life.
Life expectancy increased by nearly thirty years in the last century and we've tacked them all on at the end. It's not just Social Security that's in trouble. The current model of work and retirement isn't working for most Americans. In the 1930s, it made sense to get an education, work until 65 and retire. But now that people are more commonly living into their 80s, 90s or beyond, that means Americans are routinely spending two and three decades in retirement.
The goal of saving enough in forty years to support themselves for another twenty or thirty is a tall order, no matter what state Social Security may be in by the time they reach retirement. Only six in ten American workers are saving for retirement, and nearly half of them have squirreled away less than $25,000. Americans are not lazy or stupid. The model of retirement is so out of reach, people give up before they try.
Not only do we have older people who can't afford to retire, American workers are toiling hard, all the while they are being bombard with admonitions to save for their kids' college tuitions, pay down mortgages and pay off their credit card debt. Young parents are the most stressed age group in the workforce; they often feel that they must relegate family needs to second place in order to keep up with the demands of their jobs.