Concerns Against Raising Retirement Age: white-collar lawmakers, blue-collar burdens

By Alex Fernandez, Reporter

Life News Today

For many Americans, retirement moved farther away. In 2026, the full retirement age for Social Security reached 67 for all workers born in 1960 or later, extending the required working years before full benefits can be collected.

This shift was not a sudden decision but the final stage of a phased adjustment set in motion by the Social Security Amendments of 1983. The law was created during a period of concern over the long-term solvency of the retirement system. Legislators believed that gradually increasing the full retirement age from 65 to 67 would help stabilize the program, since people were living and collecting benefits longer, and contributing insufficiently to support the financial outflow.

The increase occurred in two-month increments, beginning with workers born in 1938 and continuing until it reached 67 for those born in 1960 or later. The 2026 change does not raise the retirement age beyond 67. It simply completes the multi-decade rollout designed to protect the Social Security trust fund by delaying full benefit eligibility.

Real working conditions, however, tell a different story. For Americans in desk jobs, reaching age 67 is usually manageable. For those whose jobs require lifting, climbing, bending, carrying, standing, or operating equipment, their bodies simply cannot keep up that long.

The difference becomes more evident when examining who continues to work after claiming Social Security. According to a Social Security Administration beneficiary data analysis, approximately 40% of retirees continue to work in some capacity after claiming benefits. Within that group, nearly 70% claimed their benefits early, before reaching full retirement age. Although workers who held physically demanding jobs before retiring were significantly less likely to continue working once they began collecting benefits. Among early claimants (ages 62–64), over 20% reported health conditions serious enough to impair their ability to work.

"My husband works construction and often times he says his colleagues suffer immense physical strain, illness, long-term health complications, and they are only in their early 40s," Jasmine Rodriguez, 31, said during a Life News Today (LNT) interview on Nov. 26. She continued, "I could not imagine my husband or anyone in that line of work could tolerate the physical demands day in and day out nearing their late 60s."

Rodriguez’s experience reflects a broader reality for many Americans. Different jobs age the body at different rates, and people in physically demanding fields tend to reach a point where the work becomes painful earlier in life. While some workers remain physically capable into older age, many in heavy-labor roles begin facing health limitations long before retirement eligibility.

Joints deteriorate, lungs weaken, hearing declines, spinal discs collapse, muscles stiffen, and knees simply stop cooperating. According to analyses by researchers at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (CRR), individuals who claim Social Security benefits early, meaning before full retirement age, tend to report poorer health, lower educational attainment, and nonprofessional occupational histories. Many early Social Security claimers are workers whose bodies gave out long before federal policy recognized their exhaustion.

Workers like waiters who stay on their feet for most of the day face their own kind of physical strain. While their work does not involve lifting heavy materials like construction crews, the constant walking, carrying, bending, and balancing carried throughout six to eight-hour shifts, places steady pressure on the knees, back, and joints over many years.

"A lot of kids are entering military service so they can retire at age 42,” Haylee Littleton, waitress at Inferno Brewery said in an interview with LNT staff on Nov. 19. Littleton continued, “I am studying nursing and could not imagine doing that, all day on your feet, at 70.”

A U.S. postal worker interviewed by LNT staff explained how the United States Postal Service offers a range of roles, including indoor sorting positions and shorter walking routes, which can make the job more sustainable as employees age. He noted that some workers are able to shift into less strenuous positions as they get older, while others cannot and eventually reach a point where the physical demands of the work exceed their capacity.

A similar recognition of occupational strain appears in the military system. In the United States, a person who enters armed service at age 18 can retire with pension eligibility by 38 or 40. The system acknowledges the intense psychological and physical demands of military duty, the accelerated wear on the body, and the inherent risk involved. It demonstrates a retirement model accounting for the nature of the work itself. The age threshold is not treated as a uniform number, but as a measure of occupational hardship.

In many European countries, retirement age also accounts for occupation type. Often factoring separate retirement structures for high strain jobs such as mining, transportation, or industrial production. These systems recognize that not all workers age equally in physical capacity. The United States retirement system remains unwavering, where everyone, whether stockbroker or steelworker, has the same retirement age.

Aging is not only physical but also cognitive and emotional, an aspect often overlooked in retirement discussions. Work demands different levels of focus, adaptability, and decision-making across ages.

"I retired a few years back and couldn't dream of teaching [beyond 65]," Raymond Gennings, former public-school teacher, 74 said. "I do not have the same patience or flexibility as I did when I was younger."

Gennings additionally mentioned how at an older age, a challenge emerges. Older individuals often 'cannot relate' or identify with younger generations. Gennings claimed the gap in lived experience and stages differ wildly among generational needs and aspirations.

White collar professionals such as lawyers, executives, researchers, legislators, and technical specialists are more likely to reach age 67 with sufficient health and stability to continue working. Many even defer claiming benefits until age 70 to increase payout. Alternatively, manual labor workers are more likely to be forced into early claiming, resulting in permanently reduced income.

The United States representatives setting retirement policy are far older than the general working population. According to the United States Census Bureau, 39 is the median age of Americans today. By contrast, the Pew Research Center reports that the median age of House members is about 57, with U.S. Senators reaching 65 on average. A difference which represents a clear and measurable generational divide.

These statistics reflect how people age within their professions. Public office does not require continuous exertion, which enables many lawmakers to continue working well into their 70s or 80s. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi began her political involvement in the 1960s and was first elected to Congress in 1987, stepping down from leadership at age 85, serving nearly four consecutive decades.

Her long career in legislative office shows that political and administrative roles do not rely on sustained physical effort. Pelosi is not unique in this regard, occupational classifications place legislative and office work in low-physical-demand categories, meaning they involve minimal lifting or strain compared with construction, manufacturing, or service work.

Most Americans in their 30s and 40s are still building careers, retraining skills, managing living costs, and saving for retirement. Many members of Congress are in a life stage associated with accumulated experience, established routines, and a stronger orientation toward institutional continuity. This does not mean older policymakers are inflexible, but it does mean they often make economic decisions from a perspective shaped by different financial and workplace conditions than those affecting mid-career workers today.

Cognitive research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) shows aging is associated with a greater reliance on accumulated knowledge and experience rather than rapid adaptation. Younger adults tend to respond more quickly to technological and workplace shifts, reflecting the faster pace of change in their working environments. These differing patterns of cognition and adaptation mean that decisions made by an older Congress may not fully reflect the reality of a younger workforce currently navigating faster economic pressures and more volatile labor-market conditions.

Under current rules, workers may claim benefits at age 62, but doing so permanently reduces the monthly payout, by roughly 30% for most retirees. The policy treats early claiming as a financial choice made in exchange for reduced benefits. For many, however, it is not a choice. It is a necessity dictated by the realities of declining physical ability or health.

The legislative architects of the 1983 amendments did not intend to create inequity. They faced a mathematical problem: more retirees and fewer workers paying into the system. Their solution mitigated the deficit by increasing the full retirement age. It was a technical, rational, spreadsheet level solution. But in the decades since, the workforce has changed. The gap between professional and physical labor occupations has widened. Economic mobility has slowed. Life expectancy gains have stalled among lower income populations. The retirement model, built around uniformity, remains unchanged.

The question now confronting American society is not only how long people live, but how long they can work, and under what conditions. If retirement policy is to remain fair, it may need to evolve beyond a one-size-fits-all model.

As the retirement age reaches 67 for millions of Americans, it raises a fundamental national question: should retirement age be tied not only to chronological, but also years worked and the physical cost of that work? A system that acknowledges occupational wear may be more complex to administer, but it would also be more accurate, more equitable, and more reflective of the real experience of the American workforce.