I had never bought into the idea that “staying busy” was a good enough description for a “retired” life. “Busy doing what?” is what I often ask people. If the things that are keeping you “busy” are below your competency and experience grade and do not challenge your capabilities, then you’re actually not doing yourself a service. You’ll end up bored and feeling less useful. The world tells those past 62 that it is now time to move from a life of contributing to a life of consuming—but the consuming often consumes them. This is the reason I rail so vehemently about modern retirement assumptions and policies; they marginalize people in our society that still have something substantive to contribute.

Marc Freedman has become the Pied Piper of an anti-ageist revolution of sorts where gray-headed “social entrepreneurs”—a term I heard used gratuitously at the Encore gathering—are bucking a system that says you should be content playing your life away upon reaching 65 years of age. They are pushing back on this assumption with the collective force of their experience, savvy and willpower.

For all the good we’ve seen from Encore Nation so far, we haven’t seen anything yet. There are many more invitations yet to be sent to this party. Consider this article as an invitation for you to get involved in a meaningful way by entering into a new type of retirement dialogue with your clients. You can gain your citizenship simply by engaging in a more vibrant dialogue about meaning, purpose and relevance. The ageist views permeating our society go hand in hand with the concept of retirement, which sold our culture on the idea that one’s age was the paramount indicator of one’s usefulness. It is high time to rebuke such prejudice and to engage people in their 60s with a conversation on “encore engagement.”

As it stands, our retirement policies imply that one is “used up” or depleted by the age of 65. It’s important to note that in 1935, if you were 65 years of age, there was more than an 80% chance you were still working. Before institutionalized retirement came to the fore, one had to be physically incapable of working to stop contributing. Our corporate cultures and our culture at large are still hanging on to the remnants of shortsighted ageist approaches. Age is irrelevant if one’s mind, body and heart are still engaged and up to the challenge.

I love the idea of compounding wealth as an analogy. When does wealth (that has been accumulating) see its greatest multiplication and compounding? It happens in later years. Regrettably, it is at this critical point of amplification that many retirees start “drawing down” on their assets and undoing the potential compounding that would have taken place, say between 62 and 70 years of age. And consider the compounding effect of knowledge, experience and wisdom. Just because one turns 62 is no good reason to “unplug” from society.

I want to remind you once again of the difference between evolution and revolution. Evolution is what is going to eventually happen. We see the signs of what is emerging. Revolution is when I decide to do something to expedite the matter. The encore revolution is well under way … and those involved are hastening the pace of change in our society. 

Mitch Anthony is the author of The New Retirementality (Wiley), now in its fourth edition.

First « 1 2 » Next