In a recent episode of his wildly popular podcast, conservative commentator and author Ben Shapiro drew viral attention for arguing that the concept of retirement is “stupid” and that people should work until they die.
While much of Shapiro’s monologue on the topic dealt with increasing the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare to account for changes in life expectancy and social conditions, his contention that retirement is “stupid” ignores why this practice arose in the first place and its role in placing the family at the center of community formation.
For someone like Shapiro, who makes his living talking to a camera and typing away at the computer, retirement is a luxury rather than a necessity. The physical stress that comes with an office job is quite minimal, while a factory worker in the Midwest endures a punishing physical toll over the course of a 30- or 40-year career. For someone in a physically demanding job, retirement is the end of a long and arduous journey, but also the first step in a new one.
The practice of retirement is a necessary and healthy part of generational change that ensures families, communities, the economy, and the nation remain strong and prosperous.
Regardless of what sort of personal fulfillment one draws from his daily occupation, at the end of the day, a job is still a means to an end. Earning a daily wage through regular work is a necessary action in order to provide for one’s needs and the needs of his family: a sturdy home, a warm bed, hot food, and clean clothes. This ideal holds true whether someone loves his job or not.
Retirement, then, used to mark the moment when a new generation stepped forward to take care of those needs. A father who spent years working in a factory would hang up his hard hat and work gloves and his son would pick them up, marking a generational shift that helped industry and the economy serve the local community and its families first, rather than relentlessly pursue expansion and profit for its own sake.
This cycle served a dual purpose: the son and his wife would assume the responsibility of providing for his family, including his father and mother, and in turn, his parents could become a valuable and integrated part of the home life and would be cared for and supported by their children and grandchildren as they advanced in age. This is what bore the multigenerational home that was the standard until the 20th century, and it is what gave people purpose until their dying day.
Today, the multigenerational home is largely a thing of the past (unless you count unmarried adults living with their parents). Instead, retirees drive off into the Arizona or Florida sun to enjoy daily golf rounds as far from their families as possible until the day comes when they must enter soulless nursing homes and wait for the inevitable embrace of death to take them.
In contrast, a family that lives in close proximity to one another, whether it be in the same house or town, develops a much stronger sense of community and service than one that is separated by geographic distance. Children can learn from their grandparents just as much as their parents, parents benefit from free child care, and grandparents are given a purpose in life far more fulfilling than can be provided by a 9-to-5 job.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Shapiro may pooh-pooh the tradition of retirement as “stupid,” but the truly stupid practice is the way that retirement has evolved over time and is now practiced. It is now merely an emancipation from work and purpose, rather than a transition from one stage of life to another. It is no wonder that so many retirees are unhappy or die soon after leaving the workforce.
A renewal of the multigenerational home could go a long way toward restoring the family as the building block of the community, and would give our older family members the honor and love that they deserve and need to live better and longer in retirement.
