This is the headline on an article by Charlie Fell that appeared in Fridays Irish Times. In the article he refers to the Thomas Malthus prediction in 1798 that population who soon outstrip the food supply. He also refers to Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb (1968) which predicted that 65 million Americans would starve by the 1980’s. He goes on to say that “the world faces an altogether different challenge – the ageing of the developed world”. He goes on to convince his readers of how big a problem this is all going to be. His final line betraying his self-interest:”The long term outlook for continental European property is poor.” This even though he describes himself as an independent consultant who lectures to the Institute of Bankers of Ireland.
My issue is this. How come commentators have come to the conclusion that ageing populations are such a bad thing. I believe that this assumption is based on the belief that age is bad. The belief, universally accepted, it seems, in financial circles, that people will have nothing to contribute beyond age 55. Since when did it become the ideal that we should all retire at 55?Since financial institutions started selling financial products to 30 somethings that’s when. Since when did people start to believe the financial institutions? Since the financial institutions helped to create employment conditions for many people that made productivity based on high stress environments the only game in town.
There exists a business model today that considers people as a resource: hence the Resource Manager who used to be the Personnel Manager. The creation of this work world of stress gave rise to the concept of creating even more stressful conditions for ourselves in order to earn enough money to pay to big business so that we can stop working sooner. It’s big business that is having a shit-fit over lack of pensions. Why? Well, they need pensioners to have money tospend so that they can continue to make profits from the rampant gravy train of consumerism. The leaders of big business will have no problem continuing the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. They already have seen to that with the wage levels they pay to themselves.
What if society were to create working conditions that supported people working all their lives. They could move from job to job doing always that which suited them best. Young people would all start their working lives doing physical jobs. A first career in construction or sports or in the police as beat cops. Then later career number two would be some kind of office factory job, less demanding but more regimented and suited to a family lifestyle. With company outings and family days but without any travel away from home. career number three sees an opportunity for retraining or teaching and the information/knowledge industry takes people on board with more working from home over the Internet. Next career, the travel can start again but longer trips away from home because of more use of public transport. The kids are grown and both partners can synchronise their scedules and meet in Paris or New York and whatever…
You can see where I am going with this idea. A life time of working and learning with lots of place for sustainable consumerism, supporting increases in productivity based on technological advances. This way gives meaning to peoples lives from birth to death and beyond.