Choosing Later Retirement Age?
Posted by languageandgrammar on January 2, 2008
I talked about the subtley of language a couple of days ago in a post about politics (Democrat Party). When a politician says something, he or she clearly does so for a specific reason; when it’s done in a news article, it’s less clear whether subtle language manipulation is intentional or accidental, which brings me to the topic of today’s post.
In the print edition of a local paper (that’s right, some bloggers still use those, which explains why I didn’t link to the story), a short story in the business section noted that many workers are choosing to work past normal retirement age. Choosing, huh? That’s what it’s called now? It used to be called having, as in many workers now have to work past retirement age since common sense tells me that very few people would choose to work longer than retirement age. The logical conclusion is that fewer people have the financial security needed to retire at a normal retirement age.
A few people do, of course, make the choice to keep working. They love what they do, and they want to continue. That’s not most of us, though, and it would be surprising to me if that number were growing. More people are living longer, but given the opportunity (meaning, being financially independent), most would choose to retire earlier and spend more time doing what they enjoy most–rather than doing what they’ve needed to do for decades.
I guess that, technically speaking, it’s still a choice. It’s a choice between continuing to work and not paying the bills; it’s a choice between continuing to work and living on the streets.
Was it done because the writer of the article believed that an increasing number of people want to work longer? Or was it done because the writer wanted to disguise the fact that the economy now is forcing people to work longer than they used to? What do you think?
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever;
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.