At the recent annual conference of the American Society on Aging, Ken Dychtwald, a psychologist and gerontologist, spoke about what has pushed him for roughly five decades: finding ways to successfully navigate longer life spans, which was the topic of his provocative keynote address, “The Longevity Revolution: Triumph or Tragedy?”
One of history’s greatest accomplishments — increasing longevity — could turn out to be one of the world’s biggest challenges, said Dychtwald, a bestselling author of 19 books including “Radical Curiosity: My Life on the Age Wave.”
I caught up with Dychtwald after his talk to learn more (edited excerpts):
Kerry Hannon:What’s the impact of longer lifespans for retirees today?
Ken Dychtwald: Let’s set the stage in terms of the grand phenomenon of longevity because most people are inclined to think, well, I'm living a little bit longer than my grandparents did.
What I like to remind people is that throughout 99% of human history, the average life expectancy worldwide was under 18. Sure, there were some 40- and 60- and 70-year-olds, but there were very few. Life was short, you know, brutish, as we've heard. And most people didn't contemplate the idea that there would be a retirement.
Then, in the early part of the 20th century, we had breakthroughs in penicillin, antibiotics, public health, and surgical procedures. People began to take better care of their own well-being.
More people are now expecting that they're going to live to 80 or 90 or even more years. In fact, the average life expectancy in America is now 78. But that's a little misleading because if you look at life expectancy at 65, it's about 20 more years. That's a lot of time.
So what does that mean in practical terms?
This impacts retirement in three ways. Gen Xers and boomers are thinking of retirement as a whole new chapter in life. Our parents and our grandparents were inclined to think of it as a wind-down. You had lived your life. You'd have a few years to socialize, collect your thoughts, watch some TV, take a nice trip or two, and then you'd expire.
People are envisioning the idea that post-work years are becoming longer and offering more possibilities than they ever did before.
The second thing is, a lot of people are scratching their heads and saying, ‘Yikes, I don't know if I can afford that 20 years of life.’ That's reasonable. Unless you're very wealthy, living another 20 years after your earning years, relying on government safety nets or relying on savings may not go the distance. People are terrified of the idea of becoming a burden on their family or running out of money.
What’s a solution?
One solution is to shorten your retirement by working longer. Warren Buffett just announced that he's going to retire, but he'll be 93. We have a president who's about to go into his ninth decade of life. The Rolling Stones are out on tour in their 80s.
We're seeing examples of people who are working and they enjoy it. They might be doing the same thing they used to do, or maybe even reinventing themselves and trying something new.
The third thing we're seeing is that people are seeking a new purpose.
There's a lot of people thinking, I've got more wisdom, I've got more free time. How can I give back? How can I help not only my family, but my community? Maybe I could volunteer, maybe I could work pro bono.
We need to create an elder corps to harness the extraordinary talents and wisdom and abilities and, frankly, availability of a new generation of long-lived men and women.
Let’s discusswhat you mean by health span and lifespan. What are people missing there?
Health span is a relatively new concept. It's the idea of how many years do you have where you're relatively fit and healthy and energetic and vital and can do the things you want to do.
What we see in the United States is that people have about 12 years between the end of their vital health span and the end of their life. That means that there's a lot of pain and suffering and illness and disease and cost.
The average couple will spend, from retirement day to the end of their lives, $472,000 for out-of-pocket health and long-term care costs. So not only is not matching your health span to your lifespan truly unpleasant, but it's also very expensive — and it can really put a dent in your dreams of a wonderful retirement.
According to Ken Dychtwald, "A lot of people are scratching their heads and saying, ‘Yikes, I don't know if I can afford that 20 years of life.'" (Photo courtesy of Ken Dychtwald) ·PAIWEI WEI
One of your big concerns about longevity is the rise in elder poverty, particularly for single women. Can you elaborate?
This requires a willingness to take off the blinders and look at what's really going on. The boomers have lived a life living for today. Thanks to credit cards and easy access to debt, there's a lot of members of this generation that are living month to month. That's fine as long as you're still earning. But when you go into the stage of life where you’re retired or ill, or you're caring for a loved one, you might run out of money.
I really worry about this. There are tens and tens of millions of people approaching retirement who could be heading there if there was a pullback of benefits. We could be heading into a new era of elder poverty.
That's particularly problematic for women for a couple of key reasons. First of all, women live about five years longer than men. A woman who is married to a man, who is typically older than she is, will often care for the man at the end of his life. That requires expenses, or the woman has to step out of her job, or misses career elevations because of being a caregiver.
Then the man passes away and she's going to live another five or 10 years. Will she have enough money? Will she have saved enough?
That said, there are segments of women who have either earned a lot or they've inherited a lot, or their spouses have died and now they own the house. So it’s the tale of two worlds.
When you're 20 or 30 or 40, you think about certain things: Will I fall in love? Will I be able to buy a house? Will I have a job that I like? But, boy, you pass your 50th and 60th birthday and your greatest fears become your health or the health of somebody you love. The biggest worry that people have is Alzheimer's and losing their ability to think and function.
Second, even modestly wealthy people are worried about running out of money. There's this terrible fear that something could happen, or the markets could crash. That swirls around in people's minds continually. And it's not that people are seeking to be super wealthy, it's just they want to know that they're going to be financially secure.
Financial education ought to be taught in high schools because so many of us grow up and, ultimately, are responsible for our own financial planning. But no one ever taught us the basics.
There are a lot of people reaching their 50s or 60s and coming to terms for the first time with what all these costs are and how to manage them.
Ken, you were a producer for the documentary, “Aging in America: Survive or Thrive” airing on PBS stations throughout May and streaming. I found it dark and fascinating. Can you spell out why that’s so?
Filmmaker Neil Steinberg used the Pulitzer-prize winning book "Why Survive? Being Old in America," written by the pioneering gerontologist Dr. Robert Butler 50 years ago, to look at where things stand today for older Americans.
At the time Butler wrote "Why Survive?" there were roughly 23 million Americans over age 65. Now there are more than 55 million, of whom over 17 million are economically insecure.
Butler realized that we were living in a country that did not regard older people with much respect. The average physician had no training whatsoever in caring for older people — what's called geriatrics. There was a discomfort with older people and discomfort with one's own aging process.
Dr. Butler coined the term “ageism” to describe discrimination against older adults.
Bob's book was meant to shine a light on the dark recesses of what it is to grow old in America and ask some deep and challenging questions about nursing homes and families and prejudices and discrimination.
He was the first person in the modern era to seriously and reflectively try to identify what we need to be doing as a society to not only give more respect and care for older people, but create a better world for all of us in which to grow old.
Not enough has changed: 96% of all the medical schools in America require, in order to graduate, that you take a rotation in pediatrics. Only 10% require any rotation or any course in geriatrics, which is insane.
He was a crusader for respecting and appreciating the enormous contributions that have been made to allow us to live longer lives. But he really wanted people to live longer with health, and I think he'd be troubled to see how poorly we're doing at that.
