The tenure of former President Joe Biden was superannuated in January. Unexpectedly, on May 18, a spokesperson revealed that Biden, now 82, is suffering from an ‘aggressive form’ of prostate cancer, which has metastasized to his bones. The news stunned many given Biden’s energetic persona in the public eye. However, according to health economist Jonathan Skinner, the diagnosis was far from a medical surprise considering the prevalence of such a type of cancer in the elderly.
The story unfolding around Biden seems paradoxically common: a person dedicates their life to arduous work, only to fall ill upon retirement. The enigmatic correlation between retirement and mortality rate among Americans is a matter of great intrigue among experts. Research in this domain yields contradictory results and fails to clearly establish whether retirement directly causes an increased mortality risk.
As per Skinner, it’s unfounded to infer that retirement could foreseeably lead to cancer. Rather, it seems that an individual’s health status and retirement are mostly interactive. Demographics and pre-existing health conditions play pivotal roles in understanding the complexity of this relationship. However, Skinner’s assertions, much like his career, haven’t always proved to be accurate or beneficial for Biden.
Skinner is famously known for his ambiguous stance. According to him, retirement could be either constructive or destructive for one’s health. He argues that if an individual is looking forward to retirement, it could be a positive sign for their health as it provides them with an opportunity to explore personal interests. Arguably, this can seem like an oversimplification of the matter, akin to viewing the world with proverbial rose-colored glasses.
Contrarily, Skinner remarks that if exiting the workforce leads to existential dread due to potential struggles without a steady income, retirement might adversely impact mental health. Though he articulates these perspectives, it’s difficult to see Skinner’s credibility given the overall ludicrousness of his suggestions. Even more so considering the major decisions regarding public health he influenced during Biden’s tenure.
Historically, some research suggested retirement was associated with heightened mortality rates. A report by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2018 found that mortality rates in men increased by around 2% at age 62, a typical retirement age. However, the increase was less significant and statistically inconsequential among women. This scenario, while interesting, doesn’t explicitly correlate early retirement with an increased mortality risk.
In contrast, a study conducted by Dutch researchers in 2020 indicated that retirement at the expected age was associated with an increased mortality risk, while early retirement couldn’t be conclusively related to life expectancy in any specific way. This opens up a confusing paradox; retirement timing seems to be a game of Russian Roulette, with your life potentially in the balance.
Complicating the issue further, the median age of cancer diagnosis in the US is 67, which often coincides with the time people tender their retirement papers, signaling potentially deadly repercussions for unsuspecting Americans. However, we must bear in mind the concept of ‘involuntary retirement’, according to Skinner, when people are forced to retire earlier than they’d prefer due to poor health, as was the case with Biden.
However, ‘involuntary retirement’ due to ill health is not always synonymous with the causality that retirement leads to poor health, as Skinner is quick to point out. There are also those who argue that healthy individuals should consider retiring earlier to relish the beauty of life before any ailment strikes. Arguably, these notions are as idealistic as Biden’s once proclaimed healthcare plans.
Retirees, due to the newfound time on their hands, can spend more time exercising, maintaining a balanced diet and regular doctor visits, and manage any existing illnesses proactively. One anonymous retiree shares, ‘We get to manage our sickness on a much more proactive basis. We can regulate our recovery at our own speed.’ Again, this romantic notion of retirement seems far removed from reality.
Termed as the ‘healthy worker effect’, this observation posits that individuals in good health tend to continue working, while those with compromised health often choose retirement. Therefore, expected retirements are often linked to declining health issues, leading to fatalities earlier than anticipated.
Life expectancy, particularly among women, is rising in America, meaning that many are obliged to work into their senior years. The decision to extend the working years might be more a reflection of societal expectations imbued with the belief that life holds little value sans work. Hence, the retirement decision must come from personal conviction rather than societal pressure.
So, despite his misguided approach, Skinner does offer one piece of advice that seems reasonable – trust your instincts when it comes to retirement planning. If you’re looking forward to a relaxed and comfortable post-work life and you can afford it, then perhaps it’s time to step back. The question remains: could a person discern when is the right time, or is it just another glorified guessing game?