Time Magazine Covers Changing Definition of Retirement; New Buzz Words "Productive Aging" and "Retirement Jobs"

"...for the past 75 years federal policy has been designed around easing folks who are past 50 out of the workforce rather than enticing them to stay in it."

Time Magazine has a feature article covering the changing face of retirement, specifically the issue of productive aging. Productive aging can be thought of as getting an economic return on the accumulated knowledge and skills of what might be called the 'young old.' As Time notes, given the country's aging population and the economic cost of delivering on the promises given to baby boomers for the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid entitlements, something has to give.

Given the choice of cutting payments and/or increasing taxes to pay for these benefits, one idea gaining headway in Washington is the idea of continuing to tap the economic contributions from individuals after their primary career ends but before they start tapping retirement and health-care entitlements.

The whole idea of productive aging--getting an economic return on the accumulated knowledge and skills of what might be called the young old--has political steam and will probably surface on the presidential trail next year.

In addition to tax and other legal changes to encourage employers to retain or higher older workers, experts are discussing changes to promote volunteerism.

To encourage such unpaid work, there might be a federal health plan for those who give 10 hours a week. But the most exciting news is here now: flexible work for pay in rewarding fields for folks past 50.

Areas ripe for volunteers include health care, education as well as traditional nonprofits.

In addition to changing the definition of retirement, we might begin to see a similar alteration to defining old age. Instead of looking at how many years it's been since you were born, we'll look at how many years you've got left. This is relevant because today's average 65-year-old man has the same 2% chance of dying within a year as did the average 59-year-old man in 1970. According to one expert in the Time article, "If you have a low chance of dying, you're not old. So take advantage of the options opening before you. True retirement may be a thing of the past--or at least a thing of the much less immediate future."

What this means to you? The downside might be that you will be expected to contribute to society something more tangible than your golf handicap. The upside is that there should be many, many more opportunities to do so and much less bias and restrictions for you to find things to do that you truly enjoy. From the perspective of healthy aging, that seems like a good trade-off.