The U.S. Must Make Better Use of Him

SINCE 1890, the proportion of workers who stay on the job after age 65 has dropped from 68% to 40%. At the same time, the number of Americans who are over 65 has risen from 2,400.000 to 13 million. In the next six years, the over-65 group is expected to reach 16 million while the over-50 group will number 41 million. These cold statistics show the size of a grave new economic problem for U.S. industry and the nation: What can be done about the older worker?

Such workers are heavily handicapped because 1) any wage earner over 40 has a bad time getting a new job except in a boom, 2) many big corporations insist on compulsory retirement at 65. The difficulties of the over-40 jobseekers are based on the widespread belief of many companies that they are less efficient. This was reflected in a Temple University questionnaire, in which 31% of the industries polled expressed the belief that the work of older people tends to be poor. Paradoxically, the same questionnaire also proved this belief false. In rating the work of their own employees over 50, some 80% termed it as good as, or better than that of younger workers. -

There is a sounder argument for the compulsory retirement rules at 65. Business needs a constant flow of new blood and a way of making room at the top for promising executives. Many companies prefer to make retirement mandatory because making exceptions for key men may cause less-needed men to be resentful when they are forced to retire. But some companies that had compulsory retirement systems have dropped them, now permit older workers to stay, on their supervisors' recommendation. The companies decided that the principle is wrong because no two men age alike. Some men are young in spirit at 65 and well able to continue working; other men are old at 50. Actually, younger men are better only in physically exhausting jobs that require great muscular exertion. In more highly skilled jobs, such as tool & diemaking, skill increases with experience. Though older men lose some of their zip, they make up for it with their know-how, less waste, and greater dependability.

More companies are also beginning to realize that retirement itself is often a great emotional shock which must be prepared for in advance. For example, Standard Oil Co. (Ohio) starts preparing its men five years ahead of their retirement by explaining what income they will receive from pensions and Social Security, talking over what hobbies they might like to start, etc. Without a carefully thought-out program for retirement, many a man literally dies of boredom.

Nevertheless, the great majority of oldsters do not want to retire, and many of them can ill afford it. The Social Security Administration, interviewing 18,000 retired men and women, found that only 700 had retired voluntarily. And many find it hard to retire on the $100-a-month or less which they get from combined pensions and Government old-age benefits. Yet if they go back to work, the law cuts off all Government payments if they earn more than $75 a month. -

One aim of the law, passed during the Depression, was to force workers to retire and get out of the labor force to make room for someone else. Since then, the labor shortage has changed the need for such a requirement, and 26 bills to let a worker over 65 collect his pension no matter how much he earns are now awaiting action by Congress. But the chances are slim that all restrictions on earnings will be dropped. The chief objection is that the total cost of paying benefits to those over 65, no matter what their income, would amount to some $10 billion a year. This would either bankrupt the Social Security fund or force it to boost payments from individuals and corporations. A satisfactory compromise might allow $1,200 to $1,500 a year to be earned before benefits are reduced.

Many unions fear that older workers who are on a pension would take lower pay and thus depress all wages. But the attitude is changing. C.I.O. President Walter Reuther now denounces compulsory retirement programs as "socially wrong and economically unsound." Actually, the enforced idleness of oldsters is estimated to cost the nation $5 billion a year in lost production, more than the annual cost of all industrial and governmental pension systems. -

To handle this problem intelligently, Congress is likely to change the Social Security regulations that keep many older workers from taking jobs they need and would like to have. But the biggest part of the job must be done by private industry. Many corporations are already reviewing prejudices against hiring workers over 40 and policies on compulsory retirement at 65. Corporations which have done no thinking at all about the problem now realize that they had better start. Before long, the bulk of the nation's workers will be in the over-40 group.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.