AARP recently released its "Livability Index" -- a statistical take on which U.S. cities promote the good-life for the silver-haired. The Index does a good job of providing metrics on a slew of important factors -- walkability, public transportation, affordable housing, healthcare, and more. But these social services and quality of life considerations effectively downplay the centrality of jobs as a goal for all seniors who want and need one.
Yes, the Livability Index itself does have a reference in a section called "Opportunity" where the livability community is described as one to "improve [seniors'] well-being, from jobs to education." This builds on AARP's "Best Employers International" program, which highlights model practices that lead to jobs and economic opportunity for older citizens. And, then there is their employment assistance through AARP Foundation's Back to Work at 50+.
But, is a veiled reference to jobs enough in the Livability Index? Or, do we need to rethink and reimagine what it means to age in our 21st century?
There are two critical points to note: first, as we age in this new century, more and more of us want to work, as has been well-documented by multiple surveys, for example from Aegon, the Dutch based global insurance company.
Second, as we couple the reality of our longevity with low birth rates, the result is an aging society -- which will lead 20th century retirement standards to be fiscally unsustainable. This is as true around the globe as it is here in America, where the livelihoods of all people of all ages hinge upon "seniors" being active, productive members of working society.
So as one imagines livability for today's older Americans, opportunities for work must be at the core. Moreover, by emphasizing jobs and economic contribution, we actually enhance our ability to provide the public services that are so treasured by the AARP Index, such as healthcare and transportation. When 77 million potential taxpayers are taken out of the economic equation, there simply is not enough money to fund the stuff that makes our cities "livable."
A city will only be livable in the 21st century if older adults are at the heart of economic activity, as well as social and community life. BlackRock recently explained this shift in their White Paper on how "Longevity Changes Everything."
Take New York City, where earlier this week the AARP Livability Index was launched. New York -- which is part of the World Health Organization's Age-Friendly Cities program -- comes in at number five on the Index. It scores well on city-wide services such as transportation (83), neighborhood (81), housing (68), and health (61). But in a 21st century urban environment, designed to promote successful aging, these metrics aren't enough. Economic opportunity for older adults, and the consequent economic resiliency of the entire community is at the foundation of livability.
To lend weight to the Index and his own political play, even the Mayor showed up to the launch of the Livability Index, where he pushed his Affordable Housing proposal. This proposal, intended not least for seniors, begs the question of where the Mayor thinks this money will come from. In a city where less and less of the population are within the bounds of traditional "working age," the numbers don't work. As Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer said at the session, about 30% of her constituents are over 60, and that number is growing. Therefore, it is essential that we think about working, retirement, and the tax base differently. Here are three ideas for New York City and all the other aging metropolises around the globe:
First, New York's City Council should pass a resolution making it the first city on the planet to call for the end of any retirement age. This is not suggesting a new law or regulation, but through the power of political persuasion and moral force to announce that the 20th century idea of retirement is incompatible with 21st century life. This bold move would have the power of leadership and the virtue of economic contribution.
Second, work with the state government to reduce the tax burden on any employer who retains their employees as they age into their 60s, 70s and beyond. Further, provide tax credits for the education and training of older workers, as well as hiring older workers who can do the jobs required.
Third, create a silver entrepreneurship investment fund for small business start-ups by those in the 55+ demographic.
If New York were to add these kind of economic incentives to their current livability roster, it would not only be age-friendly, but it would drive an economic boom that would provide the tax base for compassionate services across the city. There would be capital to do more for those in need, and provide the leverage for those who only need a system in which they can prosper.
Earlier on Huff/Post50:
