Frank A. Meyer – column: About age

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

Again a warning. This time in front of the elders. For example: “The majority of voters in Switzerland are becoming increasingly elderly,” which threatens to lead to a “royal society” or even a “short-sighted old age rule.” The verdict is in: older people are a danger. A headline in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung calls on the country to resist: “Young and old, wake up!”

Working longer is the recipe the Young Liberals are proposing in their initiative to raise the retirement age: work until age sixty-six to accommodate the increased life expectancy of pension funds. But there is still no end to the terrible scenario of the reign of the ancients. The phenomenon has a name:

“Overspending.”

The term is used to denigrate older people who put a strain on the social system and, worse, hinder progress towards the promised future. But what is the actual background of this phenomenon?

People live longer.

They even live longer and healthier – physically fit into old age, remaining young in spirit, present in fun everyday life, politically alert, culturally curious. What boomer doesn’t feel this way on their 70th or 75th birthday? Who does not know countless contemporaries who embody and literally radiate this spirit of the times?

Most of them are already retired: pulled out of the world of work along with their professional experience and knowledge accumulated over decades of highly skilled work.

Deleted.

Yes, that’s how it is: employees, skilled workers, specialists are removed – like a computer program.

But do you uninstall a program because your computer is “outdated”? Absurd idea. However, in today’s economy, this is quite common practice when dealing with older employees.

The absurdity of a society that is now moving towards a three-day week in sneakers, sweatshirts and cozy sweaters.

30 percent of employees in Switzerland are over 50 years old. Problem? Advantage. They pass on their professional experience, on which entire sectors of the economy rely, to future generations. But why only until retirement age? Why is there such a waste of experience potential just because an age limit has been reached? What does this have to do with real work life?

What about life in general?

A society that lives longer shouldn’t really agonize over the term “aging” but should happily move forward into a future of longer life—it is, after all, an achievement of that very society.

What was it like in the 19th century, when men lived to 35 and women to 38? Or at the beginning of the 20th century, when men lived only to 44 years old, and women to 48? Have people complained about “aging” as a result of progress towards longer lifespans? People lived longer, with all the social improvements that came with it.

The economic and social potential of a longer working life should actually be a challenge for company HR departments: getting employees to continue working, whether full-time or part-time.

Successful capitalism is a working society, a culture of constant learning, experience and challenge. Work always means: I can do this.

Work is a life with self-esteem.

Young people run faster, older people know the shortest path.

Source: Blick