If you know anything about Social Security you have bumped into the term "full retirement age" — now 67 for people my age. It's time to get rid of it.
For one thing, monthly Social Security benefits continue to increase up to age 70 if workers delay taking them, in effect delivering a risk-free rate of return on retirement money that beats what's available in the market.
For another, there's the simple reality that people live longer than they used to. People today retiring at age 70 can expect more years ahead of them than 65-year-olds could back in 1940, when Social Security was new.
But maybe the biggest problem is that full retirement age only encourages people to see the point of a working life as stumbling across a finish line at the end and then putting up their feet. There seem to be better ways to think about work, retirement and the arc of a good life.
Twin Cities economist Timothy Taylor doesn't think there's one correct retirement age, but if asked to pick one he likely would land on 70. It's what he called the "conceptually accurate" retirement age that's baked into the Social Security program.
"We all sort of know people are living longer. We all know there's more people living into their 90s or even their 100s," Taylor said. "But we're still living, at least a lot of people, like 'I'll retire at 60.' And that's just a hard thing."
This is one of the points Taylor found interesting in some recent research on retirement and aging that he later summarized into one article on his economics blog, called the Conversable Economist.
Part of what clearly bugs Taylor is that most things people might read about retirement, at least those of us forced to run our own do-it-yourself retirement savings project with a 401(k) or IRA, seem to reinforce the idea that it's best to retire as early as possible. But there are lot of hard-to-anticipate things that can happen between someone's last day on the job and their last day on earth.