# Retirement age public policy considerations

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/retirement-age-public-policy-considerations/1030879>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [June 13, 2026, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/retirement-age-public-policy-considerations/1030879 "2026-06-13T19:29:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\
**Post date:** [June 28, 2026, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/retirement-age-public-policy-considerations/1030879/41 "2026-06-28T12:44:22Z")

</div>

> [@CaveMike](#):
>
> Instead of addressing an inequity before it starts

Well first off, hard to do anything about it now for those who are approaching the end of their working lives now.

But second, in the fantasy in which the politically impossible and the Herculean are at least considered - it raises the interesting question of exactly why those to the lower SES, manual labor side of the spectrum have such significantly lower health and lifespan than those towards the other pole.

And let’s eliminate the early deaths before 65 from consideration - homicide, suicide, overdose in particular - focus on survival after 65.

Healthcare access is a clear inequity that should be addressed but I don’t think it makes the top of the list.

Accumulation of lifestyle factors that travel with SES and occupation probably are up there. Tobacco, alcohol, fewer vegetables and fruits, higher ultraprocessed food intake, less of the sort of exercise that protects and more of the sort (occupational) that wears a body down.

Chronic stress inclusive of that from economic and food insecurity but also from less of a sense of autonomy/control in the job.

Yes occupational exposures to particulates, solvents, etc. Best efforts for workplace safety should be made and some exposures will be inevitable.

Neighborhoods impacts including various sorts of pollution exposures.

All of which are unquestionably worth addressing to the degrees possible … but changing FRA based on occupation seems a bit less Herculean.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\
**Post date:** [August 23, 2026, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/retirement-age-public-policy-considerations/1030879/42 "2026-08-23T00:25:17Z")

</div>

> [@Mama\_Zappa](#):
>
> Nitpick: retirement ages have been updated much more recently than that. 1983 was when the gradual approach was first implemented. In 2016, the ability to “file and suspend”, where the lower earning spouse could start collecting earlier while the higher earner suspended theirs until age 70, was taken away for anyone born later.

And there was one more loophole taken away a few years later, where the higher earning spouse could delay filing for benefits yet still get spousal benefits from the lower earning spouse. I did this. At age 70 I filed and my wife got spousal benefits from me which were greater than her individual benefits.  
I’m not sure either file and suspend or my hack are really changes to the retirement age.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/retirement-age-public-policy-considerations/1030879.md?page=2)