It’s a fact that none can avoid but many try to deny: we are all gradually, inevitably, getting older.
As far as I understand, babies are born and develop into children. From here we go on a magical journey that starts with (sometimes) surly teenagers and moves on to young adults, older adults, the middle-aged and so on. One day you wake up, gaze into the mirror and come to the startling revelation that you are, somewhat unexpectedly, “old”.
This can be a distressing word for some. It is also a difficult, highly subjective thing to define. Some people in their mid-twenties agonise that their best days are long gone, consigning themselves to the scrapheap of life, while 40-somethings blossom and people close to 55 hit the peak of their fitness and success.
“Old” is a moving target and something of an obsession, but that makes it no less important. Age can be an indicator of your experience, the attitudes you might hold and what stage you may have reached in terms of career, family and taste in jumpers.
On a more serious note, defining “old” matters so we can roughly estimate how long people are likely to work, live and at what point they may need support such as care or medical treatment.
A publication by Moody’s Investment Service, Population Ageing Will Dampen Economic Growth Over the Next Two Decades, grabbed my attention recently, both with its use of the unusual term “super-aged” and the broader warning that countries around the world will get older over the coming decades, dragging on the global economy.
“Super-aged” refers to the point at which 20 per cent or more of a country’s population is 65 or older, and many nations are either headed in this direction or already there. According to the report, Britain will be “super-aged” by 2025.
The report raises some valid concerns. It argues that an ageing society could limit the size of the working population and increase the number of people dependent on them, as well as reducing the amount people save and, subsequently, how much they invest.
All of this could cause problems for society, and threaten our current standards of living. But on reading the report I sensed an elephant in the room.
It works on the premise that 65 is the point at which “old” occurs and you may retire, become less active, or fall ill.
This may have been acceptable in previous decades. But as people live longer, healthier, more active lives, isn’t it a little patronising to write them off at 65?
In fairness the report, and others, do hint that the over-64s could play a more active role in society than before, and that certain industries could be suited to serving, or employing, this demographic. As people live longer and need to work to a later age, this could soon be a necessity.
Similarly, new pension freedoms and a shift, in some cultures and industries, to more flexible working arrangements could see a greater number opting to either keep working as before or leave full-time employment in favour of a form of semi-retirement.
Whatever the solution, we need to consider how people could remain in work longer, hopefully in a fulfilling way that adds different skills and perspectives to the workforce. While we’re at it we may as well retire the words “old” and “super-aged”.
