Are people above sixty-five really “passive” these days?

If you’re wondering where the concept of life stages learn, work, and retire (in order) came from, here’s a passage from my recent read:

When the Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck implemented the first national old-age social insurance plan, he was attempting to “domesticate” the working class by offering them something to look forward to. He came up with one of the great inventions of the late 1800s, which–along with the telephone, the internal combustion engine, and artificial fibers–would revolutionize modernity. In combination with universal schooling, another nineteenth-century innovation, retirement programs led to a radical compartmentalization of people’s lives into three distinct stages: learning, working, and resting. It was no longer a matter of personal choice: the government told you what to do depending on your age, and social norms reinforced that regimented model of life.

It’s astonishing to realize that for the longest time the government, the law, and even mainstream culture have told us that people above a certain age can no longer make genuine contributions to society and the economy. People above sixty-five (or some arbitrary number) were deemed to be part of the “passive” population neither takers nor givers.

But especially given the increase in life span–by 2030, the average sixty-year old can expect to live for another twenty-two years; in the developed world, that number grows to twenty-five years–it’s time to reconsider this so-called truism.

From 2030: How Today’s Biggest Trends Will Collide and Reshape the Future of Everything by Mauro F. Guillén

Wondering how life expectancy improved over the years?

Here’s an animation on the life expectancy of women vs. men from 1850 to 2021.