• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

By Sheila Bugdanowitz and Jean Galloway

America’s baby boom generation has redefined our nation’s social, cultural, economic and political landscape for the last six decades. With more than 77 million boomers in the nation — and most of them still working — America’s largest generation will continue to shape the way we all live and work.

Two recent reports forecast the future of boomers and the work force. The National Center for Health Statistics reports that the average American lifespan is now almost 78 years, up from 75.8 years in 1995 and 69.5 years in 1955. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that in 2006, nearly a quarter (23.2 percent) of people from age 65 to 74 were employed or looking for work, up from 19.6 percent in 2000.

Putting these two facts together, a recent Rocky Mountain News editorial pointed out that “demographers wonder who is going to support the swelling number of post-retirement-age workers,” then answering that question with, “ ... one answer is they’ll be supporting themselves.”

At Rose Community Foundation, we think the Rocky is right. Our Boomers Leading Change initiative is looking at how people in their mid-50s to mid-60s view their futures in the areas of work, lifelong learning and community service. For most, life after 65 won’t resemble the glossy brochures offering leisurely, carefree retirement lifestyles. Instead, most boomers’ futures include employment, volunteering and continual learning. (For the complete report, visit coloradoboomers.com.)

Let’s look at employment. Our economy will falter if most boomers stop working at 65 or younger. With one boomer turning 60 every eight seconds for the next 18 years, there won’t be enough replacement workers to sustain our economy. Then consider the loss of talent, experience and “know-how.” With reduced incomes, most boomers will pay fewer taxes, spend less money and contribute less to charity. Factor in the longer lifespan, growing health-care costs and the expanding need for caregivers, and it seems clear that government, business and philanthropy need to think about how to keep mature employees happily employed.

The good news is that baby boomers like to work. Some findings from our research on how metro Denver boomers see late-career employment:

Six out of 10 plan to work beyond age 65.

Half plan to change to part time or flexible work.

Almost a quarter say they want to start a business.

What matters most to late-career boomers are health-care benefits, involvement with others, retirement benefits and meaningful work. Many will need job income, but many others will keep working to remain productive, to enjoy workplace camaraderie and (particularly for men) because work is important to their identity.

The not-so-good news is that few employers are thinking creatively about recruiting and retaining older, more experienced employees.

Our thinking about work and retirement is antiquated. Boomers will trade off higher income for increased flexibility. Many want to work fewer hours, but still earn health benefits until they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare.

The foundation has mobilized a group of boomer volunteers and others to find ways for boomers to live productive, meaningful lives as we move through our 60s, 70s, 80s and beyond. We hope this work will begin to shift public policy, business practices and the very way we think about tapping the human assets of older adults. We simply can’t afford to lose the talent, experience and leadership of the boomers through a failure to re-examine the shape and structure of work in our society.

One of the biggest roadblocks is the way we think about the “R” word: retirement. For boomers, it’s a choice, but not the only one. Over time, we hope another “R” word will take its place: re-engagement. If tens of millions of boomers take the path of re-engagement in later life and redefine aging for succeeding generations, it will be their biggest contribution of all to social change.

Sheila Bugdanowitz is president and CEO of Rose Community Foundation. Jean Galloway is principal of the Galloway Group, a consulting firm specializing in corporate philanthropy and community investment, and a trustee of Rose Community Foundation where she chairs its Committee on Aging.

READER COMMENTS

The ploy is to keep the boomers working and not drawing any SS. Thank Clinton and the Dems for taxing your SS. It was set-up to be tax free retirement income. Not taxed again!!
As for me....I saved and retired.. to he__ with the politicans. Young people save for your own retirement.

Paul,
I definitely understand what you are saying. I'm 48 and lost a military pension when the "peace dividend" ended my military career prior to the 20 year point. I save 30 to 50 percent of my current income - and many people do who fully fund their 401K (Social Security and 401K amount to 30% of pre-tax dollars). The only people with true pensions anymore are state and local employees- many of whom do not even pay into Social Security since the program they are in exempts them. Those of us forced into the private sector must do it on our own - hence the very high savings rates. Practical no one has a corporate pension anymore. The shocking part is the leftist politicians who think they can raise taxes on working people to solve the problem - many of us are already in a 50% marginal tax bracket!! Raise taxes much beyond that 50% number and we will cut back on working - it's why vacations are so much longer in Europe; you can't keep the money, so why earn it?
I find it highly disturbing that these proposals to keep us working until we die don't attract more resistance. I starting working at 15 and will have over 50 years in the labor force before being eligible for retirement - my parents did the same thing. My father died at 70, not even recovering what he put into the system - my mother earned her social security through her work as well. The fact is that we fund our own social security retirement; the system of expecting current revenue to pay current retirees is the fraud politicians created by using the trust fund money to buy votes. The social security trust fund has been loaning money to the general fund to pay for current expenditures. How those loans are to be repaid is the challenge that was ignored when social security reform was killed by the Democrats. What is their solution now that they are in charge? Perhaps this is why the current Congress has an 11 percent approval rating?

I'm a 71 year old pre-boomer working at my third career. Face it, if you don't have a fully funded employer financed pension and health plan, you are on your own. Social Security as a plan is no longer workable. Too few workers to support too many beneficiaries. Medicare and Medicaid can't survive - too many beneficiaries and not enough taxes to support it. Don't look to the government to support you. Higher food, energy, and medical costs will eat those savings. Fix your education gaps (it's never too late), learn how to market yourself, make yourself invaluable to your employer, and keep on trucking.

25% of the Boomers are predicted to retire between 2007 and 2010. Extrapolating, that might mean someting like 50+% of the Boomers could retire by 2015. Employers know this and are preparing for the huge talent/experience vacuum that they are about to experience. They are offering all sorts of bonus arrangements for today's college graduates just to stay put, not to jump ship, and supply the needed talent and experience required for the next decade. They are getting "golden parachutes" in advance.

These kids, the "echo-baby boomers," are lucky. Unlike their parents, they are not going to be the "downsized" generation. They are in short-supply, scarce, and if they have decent educations and skills, are in the drivers seat for the next 3-4 decades. Good for them!

This is going to create an even bigger "income/wealth gap" between the skilled and educated and those who are unskilled and uneducated. Stay in college and line-up yourself for your own "up-front golden parachute."

America...what a great place to live!

"The not-so-good news is that few employers are thinking creatively about recruiting and retaining older, more experienced employees."
In point of fact, many major corporations are still laying off the older workers as they tend to be the ones with the highest incomes of the "base workers" (heaven forbid those corporations treat upper management the same way), and many are starting to experience health issues which raise health care costs for the pool. One co-worker was laid off after 25 years, then 3 weeks later asked to come back as a contractor, with NO benefits. This at a corporation which touts such beliefs as diversity, including age diversity & work/life balance (which turns out to be all work, no life).

"Boomers will trade off higher income for increased flexibility."
Major corporation (at least in the IT industry) seem to expect us to trade off years if not decades of experience for wages they are paying new entries to the field - AND expecting us to work 50 hours/week to meet corporate targets, while training the "newbies" to be productive - just to keep our jobs. Meanwhile, the 30-40 year olds are finding that if they have the courage to leave, they can get a salary increase of 20-50% (which is what CEOs see on a regular basis, while giving the rank & file 3% increases, based on the "average" ).

"The U.S. Census Bureau reported that in 2006, nearly a quarter (23.2 percent) of people from age 65 to 74 were employed or looking for work, up from 19.6 percent in 2000."
How many of those folks are looking for work because they HAVE to (as opposed to the "pie in the sky" view in this article that they WANT to) because of health care costs, heating costs, gasoline costs, food costs - all while corporations are dumping any fixed benefit retirement plans to the government & getting them slashed by up to 2/3. Ask UAL workers - pilots, flight attendants & maintenance crews, who took pay cuts for those retirement benefits if they really wanted a 2nd careers as WalMart greeters because the airline CHOSE to underfund retirement (which by the way is legal, while certainly not moral) - while giving CEOs PLATINUM parachutes. Or ask former Qwest employees if they think Nacchio got penalized enough for taking the stock down to pennies on the dollar (which was all they were allowed to put their retirement funds in) - while he was allowed to sell his stock & they were not allowed to sell their stock.

Ah yes - the concept of "re-engagement" is a wonderful thing - NOT!

Yes, we boomers are providing our own retirement - by paying over $12,000 a year into Social Security. In fact, the combined annual payroll taxes for a professional 43 to 65 year old worker are over $15,000 - the same as the maximum permissable payment into our 401K! Clearly, the politicians must figure out how to provide the retirement these workers have paid for through their own labor - not how to force them to give up their retirements because the politicians failed to protect their retirement funds. If retirement elgible workers CHOOSE to continue working, great - but it might help to eliminate the obscene taxes that make this, currently, a very unwise choice!

POST A COMMENT

• Mostly wrong on warming
• Doctors caught in the middle in health-care crisis
• Follow the money on the upcoming bond/tax increase elections
• Morris, Means don’t represent Indians
• Does al-Qaida even really exist?
• Paying for others’ health care
• A tale of two peoples
• Government education supporters cannot pick and choose how much government they get