I may not still be in a classroom, but Saturday morning remains a time of reflection for me. Today as was often the case while still in the classroom, I sit in my local Starbucks and try to put some thoughts together.
In a bit over two months I will hit 67. I would, when Leaves on the Current no longer needs so much attention from me, like to return to working in some fashion. I would love to teach in the right setting, and if I could make enough money (does not have to be much given pension and Social Security) I might enjoy supporting myself by my writing.
Free lance writing pays very little, even if you can get a gig.
And at my age, attempting to get any kind of job is exceedingly difficult. My father was in his 40s when he lost a job, and I remember how hard it was for him in the 1960s to find another job. He didn't, and eventually developed a consulting practice that was sufficient to support him.
It is the confluence of two things that lead to my reflection today
1. the difficulty I will encounter in attempting to find meaningful employment
2. the fact that our social policy seems to be moving in the direction of requiring people to work later in life in order to receive the benefits of Social Security and Medicare.
While there have been brief periods of my life where I did physical labor like unloading trucks or served in the Marines, most of my work career has primarily involved using my brain. That makes me like many of those who make national policy - many come from law and/or from long periods of working in government, perhaps moving from staffer to elected. Or perhaps one was a doctor or dentist, a role that requires some physical skill perhaps, but not the backbreaking labor of coal mining or being a lumberjack.
We force some people out of the work they love because of age limitations - it may be true that by a certain age most lack the reflexes to be an FBI agent or an airline pilot, but one wonders whether rather than hard cutoffs it might not make sense to have some requalification process as the standard by which we determine whether one can continue in a particular profession currently limited by age.
In these cases, usually high paying occupations, we are forcing people out - albeit with pensions - well before they are eligible for either Social Security (unless on disability) or Medicare. They are often forced to seek other employment.
We have kept raising the age for full Social Security eligibility on the grounds people are living longer, despite the fact that in some jobs it is not age maximums that force people out, rather it is the sheer physical requirements of the work - I mentioned coal mining as one extreme example, but that can apply to many jobs in agriculture, many positions in foo processing plants (where repetitive tasks and boredom risk far more than incurring carpal tunnel syndrome). There are also jobs which can burn people out at relatively young ages - teaching in an inner city school is one that immediately comes to mind. My few months at the school I left when Leaves was diagnosed with her cancer were the most exhausting work I have ever done, even more exhausting than unloading trucks.
Further, in many cases we see employers looking to force out older workers who are paid more (and who increase the risk in the medical insurance ratings) in favor of younger, lower pai, and "healthier" workers>
At the same time we see people who would like to retire who cannot, because they cannot afford to continue their current medical coverage on their own, they need to wait for Medicare to kick in (at 65) and to minimize the hit they take to Social Security. And in the disappearance of defined benefit pension plans too many saw their 401Ks, IRAs, and 403Bs take a serious hit during the en of the last decade. Perhaps some have seen those values increase recently, if they remained in common stocks. Many, having been burnt, have too much in savings or money market funds that do not even keep pace with inflation, while at the same time interest on the credit cards on which they depend are rarely below 15%, an conscionable rate for someone who pays her bills on time during a period of much lower inflation.
I took Social Security before my 66th birthday, in part to build up some reserves knowing I was going to retire from my teaching job. I am covered under my wife's health insurance as a Federal employee. We could readjust our lifestyle to fit the somewhat lesser income we have as a result of my retirement in the event i do not find employment. Thus the concerns I raise are less about me than they are about my observations on society and the kinds of social policies we have, which often seemingly are in conflict with one another.
I was lucky -for 17 years I did work I loved as a teacher. For too many people the work they do is what is necessary to provide for themselves and their families, it is necessary for mere economic survival.
It seems to me that we need to have an understanding of several key principles
1. People are entitled to decent pay and benefits for whatever work they do
2. People should be allowed to continue doing jobs for which they are capable and not be forced out by arbitrary age limits
3. People who have 30 years or more of productive work should be able to step aside if they want and not face medical catastrophe or financial instability.
That last point is important especially in a time where we are NOT devoting resources to creating more jobs - younger people are decreasingly likely to find meaningful employment because of older people who are forced to continue working in order to have benefits and who cannot be arbitrarily forced out while still capable of doing their job - had I wanted, and were I still functioning at an appropriate level, I could have continued teaching until I was 80.
Too often we approach these issues in separate silos - too many older workers, whom we pay too much? get rid of pay for seniority, do use anything close to a LIFO process when layoffs are necessary. But that creates other problems, for individuals and thus for the society.
Somehow we need to rethink not only our social policies, but also the way we define work. Perhaps corporations could do with less profits and provide more meaningful work that does not burn people out. Perhaps some jobs can be shared, perhaps 1/2 by a mother of young children and the other half by a senior who still wants the meaning of work without the fulltime burden. Perhaps we should rethink the nature of the way we define work and employment, even moving away from what is supposed to be an 8 hour day but for too many is often 10 hours or more with no compensation for the additional hours.
Work can give the worker dignity - if it is not something mind-numbing.
For older people, it can be important to have a job of some sort - even a volunteer position - just to feel as if their lives still have meaning, that they are not yet merely an afterthought, something or someone discarded by the side of our economic road.
For myself, I do not know if I will find employment. But I have even without a job meaningful work I can do, through my writing, through my political activity. Right now I have meaningful work in assisting Leaves on the Current in getting through fighting her blood cancer.
In that I am lucky.
BUt I have time on my hands. That gives me time to think. And of course I read, I observe, I talk with others.
That feeds much of what I write, as it has fed this post.
I am not prepared to offer a comprehensive solution.
As a teacher I am something of a provocateur. I like to get others talking.
I am proud of many of the discussion threads on diaries I post, because of the quality of thoughts and insights offered by others, either in response to what I wrote, or in response to others commenting on the thread. My pride comes from being a part of enabling that to happen.
And so, do not we need to rethink our current notions of age with respect to work?
Even more, to get to that point, do not we need to rethink the nature of work and how we compensate it?
And for that to happen, do we not need to step back and realize that the entire structure of our economic system probably needs to be rethought, for the benefit of We, the People of the United States, regardless of age - or gender, or sexual orientation, or religion, or the economic status in which we were raise, or national origin, or political philosophy, or race?
Just a few thoughts on a Saturday morning.g
Make of them what you will.
Peace.