Planet Money - Older workers aren’t retiring. Should they be forced to?

Episode Date: August 7, 2026

When workers past retirement age can’t afford to retire — that’s one thing. When they can, and just don’t want to — that’s trickier.It used to be legal to force people to retire when they hit a certain age. The trend used to be earlier and earlier retirement. Now it’s later and later retirement. And younger workers say it’s impacting their career advancement and their ability to save for their own retirement.At the same time, older workers are living longer, Social Security and Medicare funding are less secure than ever … and many people want to keep working.Age in the workplace is a tricky thing to talk about. But today on the show, we’re talking about it. On the latest Planet Money, a law professor who says retirement should be mandatory at age 70. And an economist who says, actually … people should delay retirement even longer. Show notes: More of Planet Money’s coverage of the lump of labor fallacySamuel Moyn: Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth? And What to Do About It.Gerhard Casper and Saunders Mac Lane: “Older Doesn’t Mean Wiser”Read: Our book: Planet Money: A Guide to the Economic Forces That Shape Your Life Our weekly long-form Planet Money newsletterOur weekly Indicator round-up newsletterFollow: InstagramTikTokYouTubeFacebookSupport public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show’s perks include bonus episodes and sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.This episode was reported by Sarah Gonzalez. It was produced by Willa Rubin, edited by Eric Misitzis Mennel, and fact-checked by Sierra Juarez. It was engineered by Robert Rodriguez and Jimmy Keeley. Alex Goldmark is our executive producer. Music: NPR Source Audio: “Don’t Cross The Line,”  “Aventure Burlesque,” and “Hollywood.”See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

This is Planet Money from NPR. When I talked to Ryan Hendrickson, he was sitting on a porch in Southern California on his lunch break. The wind chimes are such a nice touch. I feel like I'm relaxing with you. I hope that doesn't mess up the audio. On a lake. Yeah, right? Ryan is 37, the first in his family to go to college, and he's gotten to work on some cool, cool stuff in his career so far.

Working on a few different missions, when we send like a rover. or a spacecraft to another place. So wait, like NASA? Yes, yeah. Yeah. NASA, the dream. And he was crushing it. Ten years into his time there, he'd been promoted three times.

And an opportunity came up for me to move into like a supervisor type of position. And they ended up going with someone else for the role. Which, okay, fine. That happens, but Ryan was bummed and he asked the higher-ups what he could do differently next time. The response I got was, no, you're doing a great job. Just keep doing what you're doing. And it will work out. And I was just sort of like, that's what I've been doing.

And it didn't work. So Ryan was feeling a little stuck. Like he was doing everything right, everything he should do, but he just couldn't move up anymore. And he couldn't stop thinking about who got the job instead of. The person that ended up getting the role had been at NASA for somewhere around like 40, 45 years. And they actually had this same position like 20 or 30 years ago. The supervisor position that they were applying for, they had already had? Yeah, they had already had it.

Yeah. Frustrations kind of boiled up a little bit. You know, getting to a point where the role I was going to. for was filled by someone who was well into retirement age, but also had that exact same role, like 20 years prior to that. You know, definitely felt unfair. Yeah, we're talking about age here, just to name the 800-pound rover in the room. So you said that the person who got the job over you had been at NASA 45-ish years. Yeah. So they're like 66, 67? Yeah, I guess this This person also did have their PhD as well.

Oh. So they're like maybe 75? Yeah. Uh-huh. If you were being like your most petty self, like what were you feeling? Yeah, it was definitely really frustrating. But technically I don't have my PhD, right? So on that front, definitely they were more qualified for sure.

We did reach out to NASA. They said they generally do not comment on personnel matters. But yeah, this person was. obviously more qualified, more years on the job, had management experience, a PhD, was maybe even better than Ryan at doing the job, okay? And there are probably also a bunch of other good reasons why this person wanted their old job back again, right? But Ryan says he couldn't help but feel like this worker took an opportunity from him. Like, they already had the chance to do this job when they were younger. And Ryan felt like it was his time now.

His turn, he was feeling like this implicit agreement between employee and employer that if you work hard, you can move up in pay and position, wasn't happening for him anymore. And Ryan went where any late 30s millennial would go to commiserate, Reddit. For some reason, I went on to the millennial subreddit and made a post. Basically said, has anyone else been noticing senior colleagues at work refusing to retire and making it much harder to move up the ladder? Ooh. And there are several similar posts out there, like this one. Boomers won't retire, and it's screwing the rest of us. There I said it. Attention grabbing. Yeah. That's BJ Swami, an engineer in tech who wrote that colorful Reddit post. What kind of reaction did you get?

Oh, Reddit just lost its mind. Like, I got, oh my goodness, all varied reactions. The perspective of the younger colleagues was they work hard, they're ambitious, they want to go places, but then they're stuck. And then there's others that are saying, I would retire now, but I can't afford to retire. And I'm in my 70s. BJ had written that his boss was 71 and kept saying he'd retire next year. I know he said he had some health reasons and the family had to pay off medical bills. and I felt his pain, but it was also frustrating from my end because, like, I'm stuck in this position because I can't go to the next level because I'm, you know, there's already people there that are not retiring. And it's just hard.

And for VJ, it feels like the writing is already on the wall for him. You know, we're told to save for retirement constantly, you know, put money in the 401K and max your Roth IRA. Compound interest. Okay, cool. I would love to. But I can't get it. promoted so I can't make more money and I barely save anything. And it's almost like I know I'm going to probably be the same person in my 70s doing the same thing. And then some guy or girl

my age is going to be like, I should be in that position, but I'm stuck here because of you. You're going to be the 70 year old that some younger workers complaining about? Oh, yeah. I feel like that's the irony of life. Because you want to work until you're 70 or because you think you're going to Have to. Probably have to, in all fairness. All right, despite VJ's provocative headline, his post is actually pretty thoughtful. And it captures this feeling that many early and mid-career workers are having. When older workers cannot afford to retire, that's one thing.

When they can and just don't want to, that's trickier. It's just a cycle and it sucks. And I don't know what the solution is on. We heard about a potential solution. Hello and welcome to Planet Money. I'm Sarah Gonzalez. There are 11 million people over age 65 in the U.S. workforce. And age in the workplace is a complicated thing to talk about. In fact, sometimes it's illegal to bring up. But the trend toward later and later retirement is one of the most important labor market developments of the 21st century. So we're going to talk about it.

Today on the show, a debate over how long people should work, who wins when we delay retirement, who doesn't, and we consider an old idea to force people to retire. Plus, the case for why older workers want to, and maybe even should, work even longer. All right, you want to meet the person with the potential solution for our retirement problem if you think that it is a problem? Here he is. I'm Sam. I teach college and I teach law and I'm excited to chat. I teach college is the chillest way I've heard someone say that they're a professor at Yale.

Well, I always like professors who said they're teachers. Samuel Moyne, Sam teaches history and law and has just written a book called gerontocracy in America. It's about how, according to him, some older Americans are, quote, hoarding power. and wealth, and housing, and jobs. Now, we're just going to talk about the jobs part because Sam has a pretty provocative take that older workers are staying in their jobs way longer than they should.

Oh, absolutely. I think it's very widespread across a lot of domains. People are under the thumb of old people, old men, most commonly. And why is that a problem? So one of the most glaring is injustice or unfairness towards other people, especially younger people. We're going to get to his arguments in a bit, but first, it used to be that people didn't retire at all, right? For most of human history, you worked until you died on the farm or became physically unable to work. There was no such thing as retirement.

Then, in the 1880s, the head of Germany, this guy named Otto von Bismos, looking to score some points, said, what if we let people stop working when they get older and the government takes care of you? People were like, sounds great. And slowly, the idea picked up in the United States as well. In the 1930s, the U.S. got Social Security, then in the 60s, Medicare, and people started retiring. Also, traditional pensions were more common, where employers would guarantee workers a specific amount of money every month for the rest of their life after retirement. And these old school pensions actually incentivized workers to retire at a specific age. And for all of these reasons, the trend for four decades was earlier and earlier retirement.

But then, in the 90s, the trend reversed. The average age of retirement started going back up. People were working longer, and there were a few reasons for this. For one, people were living longer, so they could work longer. Also, jobs got a lot less physically strenuous, so it was easier to work longer, and traditional pensions started going away, so people couldn't afford not to work longer. The share of employed people, 65 and older, has close to doubled since the mid-1980s. Now, about 19% of the workforce is over age 65. And Sam Moyne says there have been some collateral effects, like upward mobility for younger workers. When older people are hoarding their positions and refusing to retire, they're inhibiting other people from getting what they have acquired.

This staying on is unfair to younger people who often have to choose different careers or wait around for assent in their career. Younger people can't move up in pay, can't move up in position, and then there... Or can't get the job at all. And then can't afford, like, to buy a home and the whole... Houses and other benefits. As the proportion of workers over age 55 has gone up, so has the pay gap between older and younger workers. Between 1979 and 2018, the pay gap between those over age 55 and under age 35 has increased by 61%. Sam points out, the U.S. is the first society in history where you're more likely to be poor if you're young than if you're old.

And yet, Sam says, most of the social safety net is for older Americans, right? Not like lower paid mid-career people struggling to afford child care and buy a house. Okay, now we have to get to the solution. What is your solution? Well, the main one I talk about is mandatory retirement. Mandatory retirement. Meaning you think we should force people to retire when they hit a certain age? Correct.

Sam is very careful to say that, of course, there are a lot of older workers who would love to retire but can't afford to, right? There are millions of Americans over age 65 that live near or below the poverty line. But he is not talking about those workers, you know, people in blue-collar, low-paying, back-breaking jobs. We should actually, like, be thinking creatively. about how we can do better by them in their retirement, too. But they're not the ones who are hoarding employment opportunity. Sam is talking about those who can afford to retire but don't, particularly those in powerful positions like, you know, politics,

and those in the highest-level, highest-paying white-collar job. So engineers, lawyers, judges, CEOs, journalists, professors. Sam says academia is actually worst of all as a place where older people, quote, stay on to the detriment of the rest. Now, is it legal to force millions of workers out of their job because of their age? Nope, sure isn't. Not in most sectors of the U.S., but it used to be not too long ago even. It used to be standard to have mandatory retirement. In the 1970s, about half of all jobs in the U.S.

with a non-negotiable expiration date, a date when workers would be forced to leave when they hit a certain age, usually age 65. One of the ideas behind mandatory retirement ages was to help, like, freshen up the workforce, bring younger workers in with their newer skills. So people like Albert Einstein, Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economists, had to retire. They had to leave their universities because they reach their age of mandatory retirement. This was standard. So people would be like at their job for a decade or two decades or four decades. And then they'd be like, oh, it's your birthday. You're gone? Absolutely. Like on their birthday? On their birthday. Really? And you knew when you got in. And you knew from the start, you retired at 65.

Yeah. People knew when they took the job. what their last day was going to be, and everyone could plan around that. Even when Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in 1967, employers were still allowed to force people to retire at age 65. But after lobbying from the AARP and pushed back from seniors who were like, hey, we're living longer now, why are we getting kicked out of work when we still have so much life to live? The law was revised. They said, you couldn't kick anyone out until they hit age 70. Then the law was revised again. in 1986 when it became largely illegal to force anyone to retire because of age.

Though Congress did make a temporary exemption for universities, because universities, academics, they were strongly warning against the consequences of eliminating mandatory retirement, saying it would be bad for business, bad for innovation, bad for research, like this former Chicago school provost who went on to be Stanford University president. Oh, Gerhard Casper, yeah, he went hard. What did he say? I've never met him, but he was one of my... heroes. He said that innovation and education comes from young faculty members. Faculty tend to

teach what they understand and they understand best what they learn when they were young. Everything he warned about has come true. I mean, you think that there's less, okay, you think there's like the less quality research being done by the older? Oh, yeah, you're shaking. Like, like, of course there. What do you mean? Absolutely. Yeah, no. It's. Okay, Milton Friedman, famous economist, one. won the Nobel Prize in Economics the year that he was forced to mandatorily retire from his university. Yeah, but that's for time served. It's not for future promise. Nobel prizes are for something you did, and no one's expecting you to do it again. Harsh. Now, Sam has been accused of ageism since his book came out,

but Sam says it's not ageism because what he's proposing would apply to everyone who eventually becomes old. So younger workers would also be subject to force retirement at some point, right? There were, of course, unintended consequences from making mandatory retirement ages illegal. Ironically, it created new ways to discriminate against older workers. Because, like, sure, it protects current employees from being forced out, but employers might choose not to hire older workers at all because they worry they'll be difficult to let go later. And kind of surprisingly, mandatory retirement. is still allowed in some industries in the United States for commercial pilots, air traffic controllers, federal firefighters, often state judges. In these professions, you do not have the right

to stay on until you decide to leave. Air traffic controllers have a mandatory retirement age of 56, so young. Commercial pilots have a mandatory retirement age of 65, and that age cap was based on a years-long safety study. When Congress tried to raise the age of retirement for pilots to 67 a few years ago, the pilots union said, we don't want that unless you can prove that raising the age is safe. And Sam's really just saying, maybe there are other professions out there that should also consider age caps. Okay. So I have to ask you, how old are you? I'm 54. You're 54 and a half. Okay. All right. Fifty-five. You're 54.

54 and a half. 54. Sorry. Sorry. At six months. So you're like, you're out at 65. You're retiring? I've said 70.

I mean, I like 69 and a half. Oh, 70. Look at you. You're already. No, but look, we have people who are in their 80s here. Look, I want a general rule we all agree about. And if it's 65, I'm down. I would retire earlier than that.

If I might. I mean, I'm not. committing to it, but I'm definitely committing to retire before a lot of my older colleagues have chosen to do so. Well, you know, 80 is the new 70 and 70 is the new 60. Oh, is it? Oh, I didn't. I wasn't aware. Okay, good to know, Olivia. We called up economist Olivia S. Mitchell for a counterpoint. Olivia started out as a labor economist now focuses more on things like pensions and retirement at the University of Pennsylvania's Warton School. And as an economist, fundamentally rejects the assertion that older workers are taking jobs away from younger workers.

This is known as the lump of labor fallacy, which we've covered on planet money before. The lump of labor fallacy is the mistaken belief that there is a fixed amount of work to be done in an economy, like one big lump of jobs that we all fight over and have to share. So the lump of labor fallacy is the notion that there's only a certain number of jobs in the labor market. And if the older people don't retire, there won't be any opportunities for the young or for women or for, you know, ethnic minorities. And the reality is that more people working create more jobs and create more demand for labor. I mean, I think a good example is like when women entered the labor force. Right. It's not like we took all the men's jobs and now there

weren't enough jobs for men, like we will make as many jobs as we need is sort of the idea. Right. And I would say that when women did go into the paid labor market, that created jobs for other people to help them, you know, help take care of their houses, help take care of their children. Babysitters. Right. The idea that an older person refusing to retire is preventing a younger person from finding a job is just wrong, Olivia says. But that's not. That's not. You know, necessarily the only thing that Sam is saying. I see that for, like, there's not a finite number of jobs. And the more people working creates new jobs and new opportunities.

That all makes sense. But I think some people's arguments, like this book author, Samuel Moyne, he's not really saying there aren't enough jobs for younger workers. He's saying there's not enough well-paying jobs. And that it's because the older workers have the highest salaries. How old is he? Not above 60. Yeah.

Why do you say that? I was just curious. Yeah, so anyways, yeah, people always bring up the lump of labor fallacy to Sam. And generally, he agrees that more people working, creates more jobs, is good for the economy. In general, it's great to have more jobs, and the fact that someone holds a job doesn't forbid the creation of a new job. But sometimes it does. So there is not a finite number of jobs in the economy, but maybe there are in some sectors, like tenured professors, for example. After the break, we put some real parameters on how mandatory retirement could work and for who.

Also, a hot take from Olivia. Well, I think people retire far too early. Um, do you mind sharing with us how old you are? I am 73. That's economist Olivia S. Mitchell again. And how do you feel about work? I love my work. I wake up every day, say, oh, there's new things I can explore.

I'm so excited. Really? Yeah, I'm not planning to retire. I mean, at some point. Well, maybe another 10 years. We'll give it. Everything's on a 10-year plan. We'll see.

Olivia will maybe consider retiring around age 83, but like hard. Maybe. I have a lot of research left to me. I have a lot of books I want to write. I told Sam Moyne about Olivia. She's like, I do not plan on retiring. I think that's, let's check the citation counts of those over 70 and see what happens. What work actually changes fields. Hard to think of a lot produced by those over 70. With all due respect. The hits keep coming from Sam. And listen, this is where Sam's argument does. does start to get more uncomfortable, okay? Because he is saying that when it comes to research, younger academics tend to be more innovative. He does admit that in some professions, the older you get,

sure, the better you get at your job, because it's more about repetition. So like think a pianist or maybe, I don't know, an interpreter. But like in science, for example, according to a peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Science, researchers from the University of Chicago did find that, quote, scientific innovation narrows as scientists age. They wrote, younger scientists are, quote, more likely to instigate disruption in their fields, replacing established ideas with new ones. While older scientists tend to iterate on their earlier work. Now, of course, this is not true for all jobs, but it's up.

And there is this economic theory that kind of backs some of this stuff up, too, and the case for mandatory retirement. Okay, so there is this economist, his name was Edward Lazier, and he used to say that mandatory retirement enabled this like implicit contract between the worker and the employer. And it basically says when you are a younger worker, you get paid less than your productivity. But we reward you by when you're an older worker, you get paid more than your productivity. Yeah, okay. Right? And he's like, but that only works.

And we all were okay with that because there was an end date to when you're an older worker. Because otherwise, if you stay past, you know, 70, 75, 80, you're just getting this high salary. And it's more than what we should have compensated you from this chunk when you were underpaid. Okay. Right. Brilliant. Brilliant. Totally agree with his point.

With the rise of gerontocracy, what we have is like a rupture of the implicit contract by those who are hanging on. Now, it's not that older workers necessarily become less productive. It's that their salaries are just higher than their productivity. And this economist, Edward Lazier, said mandatory retirement corrected for that. So I know Eddie Lazier quite well. The implicit contract, it worked for a time, but that model broke down. Olivia says the assumption that older workers are generally overpaid relative to productivity is much less convincing today than when Lizarre wrote his paper and that it is probably a less complete description of compensation practices in today's

labor market because people bounce around now. They don't stay at one job forever to reach that stage when they become overpaid and early career workers are less likely to tolerate being underpaid because of that. Also, it's just a different time now. Olivia says there were a bunch of things that actually enabled mandatory retirement ages to work for the employer and for the employee, like traditional pensions, which are so rare now. If we look at the system now, Olivia says there is every reason to work longer, as long as possible, actually. She says delaying retirement is not just good for you as a person. It's good for the economy.

For the economy, delayed retirement boosts labor force participation. It raises tax revenues. It eases labor shortages, and it generates more economic growth. Olivia travels all over the world advising governments about their pension and social security systems. And she says people are retiring far too early to cover their own needs. Under the U.S. Social Security rules, you can stop working as early as age 62. But I wouldn't advise that because if you delay claiming until you're 70, your benefits go up by 75%. Yeah, the system rewards you if you retire later.

So my advice is work more, save more, and expect less. That's my mantra. Expect less from the government to support you? Yes, because Social Security is running into insolvency within about six years. By the way, Medicare is also running short of money. So when you think about the amount of money you need to retire on these days, it's getting more expensive to retire at all. And this gets to the heart of Olivia's point. As a society, Olivia says, we can't actually afford to let people retire earlier. So if Sam's whole point is, you know, justice for younger workers, Olivia says early retirement would not give them that.

So if more people retired younger than those who are young would end up paying much higher taxes to take care of us, right, when we could be very productive. and we could be generating output for the economy. So I am not in favor of people retiring young. Companies would face terrible hiring challenges. Productivity would decline. Government tax revenues would decline. So it's not a good idea. Remember when Congress wanted to raise the mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots?

And the pilots union said, no, we don't think it's safe. The reason Congress wanted to raise the age was because we had a shortage of commercial pilots. We still do actually. We don't have enough workers in a lot of sectors, plumbers, electricians, registered nurses, home health aids. So everyone retiring when they turned 70 or whatever, not a great idea. But in fairness to Sam, his proposal is more nuanced than that. I think it could be domain specific. He's talking different age caps for different jobs and not for every single job even necessarily.

It really does depend on, is there? a supply crisis and is there a reason to force people out if they don't want to leave? He just thinks companies should have the option to force people to retire and that there should be government regulations that let each industry decide and let them change their mind depending on what their labor shortages might be. Give me an example of a profession or an industry where you think they maybe could be or should be exempt from mandatory retirement ages. Oh, primary school teacher is my best example because there's a crisis in supply. Nobody wants to do the job. It's very poorly paid. I think if we actually gave it the status it deserves and the pay it

deserves, it would be then just like other white-collar professions where you have pipeline issues. But right now, like the public school children of America benefit by having teachers stay rather than be forced out. Even if they're 80, 85, 75. No one else wants to, yeah. Because one of the things you're saying is like they might not be as good as their job as they once were. Well, any teacher is better than none. Okay.

While it seems like Sam and Olivia are pretty far apart, here's where they start to align a little more. Because, right, Sam is not actually saying that all people overage, whatever, need to leave the labor force entirely, right? He's just saying that those in high-paying, cushy jobs, as he says it, should, you know, step aside so younger workers can move up. And he does think that doing meaningful work is good for you. He's just saying, find other meaningful work that can still keep you moving, keep your brain active, keep you interacting with people. There is research that suggests that people who work longer and maintain their social networks live healthier, longer. Sam's not trying to take that away from. anyone. He's like, work at a bakery, open a bakery, work at a museum, or maybe just start

stepping aside in your current field. You can have phase retirement where you teach a bit, you know, you could remain in your firm as like an avuncular counselor. Come on as a paid consultant with all of your knowledge and experience, still do research, just not as a full-time tenured professor. For academics, I can write articles. and books until my dying day. But you lose your salary? You have a 401k. That means that you have an income,

but it's not a salary anymore. But you have a library card. At rich institutions like Yale, you have an office. At some universities, you get free housing forever. So you lose very little. Actually, Olivia thinks this is a good idea. You know, I think that's perfectly fine. In fact, in Japan, they still have mandatory retirement, but what happens when the older worker hits that age, they're not forced to go home. What they do is they start training the younger generation to be able to fill their shoes. And I think that would be a good model in the U.S.

Guys, we have agreement. Continue working if you want, but do something else that is meaningful, that is meaningful, that. but still allows for youthful succession. We did it. By the way, Sam says two people have reached out to him since his book came out to say that they were going to retire now because they thought it was the right thing to do for younger workers. As for Olivia, she's staying put. Her work brings her fulfillment.

If what you want to do is to work until at least 85, then that's what I want for you also. Thank you. And same to you. I'll see you working when you're a hundred, I don't think I want that. I wish for the opposite for me. I see.

And remember Ryan and Vijay, who felt stuck and couldn't move up in their jobs, they both ended up leaving their companies. They said there was just no way for them to advance anymore. Before you leave, we have a quick favor to ask you, please hit the follow button on your podcast app. We know that we have a lot of regular listeners who don't technically follow us. and these apps, they're changing all the time. And more than ever, hitting that follow button helps you not miss future shows.

But also, it helps other people find Planet Money. So it's one way to support our show. And thanks as always to our NPR Plus supporters who get sponsor-free listening and bonus episodes, like just recently, a live Zoom call-in where Adrian Ma and Waylon Wong from The Indicator answered your housing questions with a housing economist. For that, go to plus. npr.org for all the details. Today's show was produced by Willa Rubin with booking help from Sam Yellow Horse Kessler.

It was edited by Eric Maseetis menel, fact-checked by Charlotte Isidore and engineered by Robert Rodriguez and Jimmy Keeley. Special thanks also to Noah Shidlower at Business Insider. I'm Sarah Gonzalez. This is NPR. Thanks for listening.