Richard Tomkins: A problem to contemplate at leisure
Technically, I suppose, I was still just a boy when I left school at 17 and started my first full-time job (as a delivery driver for a sheet metal company, since you ask). So perhaps immaturity explained my feeling that the way our lives were arranged was awry.
Surely, I thought, the time you most needed lots of free time and the money to enjoy it was when you were young, fun-loving and eager to discover everything the world had to offer. Instead, you were obliged to become a low-wage drudge with nothing to look forward to but decades of relentless toil until ludicrously, when you were completely shagged out and staggering into your dotage, society suddenly rewarded you with a pension and a life of leisure just at the point when you were much too far gone to enjoy them.
Of course, things have changed a bit since then, as the latest report from Demos, a UK think tank, reminds us. Called Eternal Youths: How The Baby Boomers Are Having Their Time Again, it follows a fairly well-trodden path, pointing out how boomers are using their wealth and leisure to re-live their youth rather than grow old gracefully. But it is none the less true for that.
Only a generation or two ago, most people would probably have said that old age began at 60 or 65. But today, as the over-60s have become healthier and their life expectancy has risen, "old" has been redefined. Many of the boomers interviewed by Demos felt old age now began at 80, a full 15 years beyond Britain's state pension age, and were looking forward to spending many years of retirement partying, cruising around on Harley-Davidsons and taking adventure holidays in Borneo before putting on their metaphorical carpet slippers and settling down in a comfy armchair.
It sounds too good to be true, and it is. The cost of subsidising such large numbers of people partying for so long would place an enormous burden on those still working. So this week, the Confederation of British Industry, an employers' federation, came up with the party-pooping suggestion that people might spend a little less of their extended lives enjoying themselves and a little more of them in relentless toil, advocating an increase in the pensionable age from 65 to 70.
The idea was hardly a vote-winner and not surprisingly, the government rejected it. But simple economics suggest some such measure will soon become inevitable, in Britain and elsewhere, which will leave my adolescent carping with the system almost as valid as ever.
So here is my adolescent solution. Giving people pensions at the end of their lives is not only irrational, since old people are unable to make the most of them, but inequitable, since those living longest receive far more than those who have the misfortune to die soon after retiring.
Under my plan, everyone would become entitled to the same state pension on reaching the age of 18. Like jackpot winners in a US state lottery, recipients would be allowed to choose between taking the full value of the pension in staged payments over a period of 15 years or a reduced amount as an up-front lump sum. They could also choose to receive the payments over any period of their lives provided the last payment was made on or before their 60th birthday. After that, they would be compelled to work until they dropped.
No doubt the plan will have its critics. To them, I say: if you think this is a bad idea, wait till you hear about my alternative to liberal democracy.
But just in case, I do have a plan B. Less ambitious than plan A, it amounts simply to a suggestion for publicising a little of the history of work and leisure in the hope of lending the retirement debate some perspective.
A century ago, there was almost no such thing as leisure. Partly, this was because people worked very long hours. But what is less often remembered is that they also worked for a much larger proportion of their lives. Children moved straight from school into work without being teenagers in between. And at the other end of the age spectrum, people really did work until they dropped, or at least until they were incapacitated and became dependent on their families.
In recent years, the big increases in leisure time have come not just from shorter working hours, but from shorter working lives. In the rich world, extended educational opportunities and gap years mean many youngsters do not enter the workforce until they are well into their 20s. And people no longer work to the end of their days; most people retire at 65, and many much earlier.
When combined with rising life expectancy, the result is that the fraction of people's lives devoted to work has shrunk remarkably. For Americans, the effect is documented in The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism (2000), where Nobel laureate Robert Fogel calculates the proportion of people's lives devoted to work and the proportion left available for leisure. In 1880, he says, 81 per cent of people's lifetime waking hours were consumed by work, including household chores; in 1995, the figure was 41 per cent; and on present trends, he predicts the proportion will have shrunk to 24 per cent by 2040, leaving an astonishing 76 per cent available for leisure.
Seen in that light, the suggestion that the retirement age might be nudged up a little bit seems slightly less than outrageous. True, I would be happier if this happened after September 4, 2017, which happens to be my 65th birthday. But even if it does, I know this: that much as we boomers are reviled for our greedy self-indulgence, future generations will live longer, and have more leisure, than ours ever did. Perhaps, far from bemoaning their predicament, they should just get on with enjoying it.
有空儿想想退休金的事
为了行文方便，假定我仍旧是刚从中学毕业的17岁少年，开始干第一份全职工作（如果你要问的话，那么我是一家金属板公司的送货司机）。也许是因为我不成熟，所以我觉得生活的安排好像出了差错。
我当然认为，青年时代最需要大量空闲时间，也最需要金钱供他享受闲暇。因为青年人热衷娱乐，渴望去发现这个世界该向他提供的一切。不料，你却不得不做一名低薪苦工，前途无望，只是面临着几十年的无情劳役。可笑的是，到了你精疲力尽、然后蹒跚地步入老年时，社会突然赏给你一笔退休金和一份闲暇光阴，但是此刻你已经老得享受不了这些东西了。
当然，自那时以来情况有了少许变化，正如Demos的最新报告提醒我们的那样。Demos是英国的一家智囊机构，它的最新报告名为《永驻的青春：婴儿潮（Baby boomers,指第二次世界大战后二十年间人口剧增）时代出生的人如何重新享受生活》。这份报告指出：婴儿潮人群正在利用他们的财产和闲暇，重新体验青春，而不是等着慢慢变老。虽然有点儿老调重弹，话却说得不错。
仅仅在一两代人以前，大多数人可能会说，老年始于60岁或65岁。但是今天，60岁以上的人变得更加健康，平均寿命有所提高，于是“老年”也被重新定义。Demos采访的许多婴儿潮时代出生的人觉得如今老年始于80岁，超出英国规定的政府退休金发放年龄足足15年。这些人盼望将大量的退休岁月用来开派对、乘哈利-戴维森（Harley-Davidsons）电单车周游世界、去婆罗洲作假日探险，然后才象征性地穿上他们的软毡拖鞋、在舒适的扶手椅中安顿下来。
听起来，这好得不像是真的，但它确实如此。补助这么一大批人去开这么漫长的派对，这笔费用成为在职者的极其沉重的负担。因此，本周雇主同盟组织英国工业联合会（Confederation of British Industry）提出了一个大煞风景的建议，希望人们少用一点寿命享乐，多花一点时间做苦工，倡议将退休金领取年龄从65岁推迟到70岁。
这种想法是很难赢得选票的，难怪政府拒绝采纳。但是简单的经济学表明，在英国和其他国家，很快就要不可避免地采取诸如此类的措施了，那么我青年时代对退休制度的非议几乎仍旧成立。
请看我青年时代的解决方法。在人生终点给人们发放退休金不仅不合理，因为老年人不可能充分利用它；而且这样做也不公平，因为活得长久的人领取的退休金，比起刚刚退休就不幸身亡的人领到的，要多得多。
根据我的计划，每人在年满18岁时都能获得资格，领取同样数量的政府退休金。就像一种美国彩票的奖金得主一样，退休金领取人有权在两种方法中做出选择，要么以15年为期分期支取全额退休金，要么一次性预先支取一笔削减数额。他们还可以选择在一生中的任何阶段领取分期退休金，只要最后一期是在他们60岁生日当天或60岁生日以前支取即可。此后，他们将不得不工作到生命结束之日。
这种计划无疑将遭到批评。我要对批评家们说：如果你认为它是个馊主意，且听我说说我对自由民主的另一种选择方案。
为了预防万一，我确实准备了方案乙。它不如方案甲那么雄心勃勃，只相当于一个提议，即公布一下劳动与休闲的一些历史，以期给退休问题的争论提供某种视角。
一个世纪以前，几乎不存在所谓闲暇的概念。部分原因是人们每日的工作时间很长。但是还有一个我们不常记得的原因是，人们一生中的整个工作期也长得多。儿童从学校直接走向工作，没有少年时代作为间隙。而在年龄段的另一端，老人们实际上一直工作到死，至少工作到他们不能继续胜任而靠家人赡养的一天。
近年来闲暇时间的大大增长，不仅是因为每日工作时间的缩短，而且是因为一生中整个工作期的缩短。在这个富裕的世界里，教育机会扩大了，间隙岁月变长了，因此许多年轻人直到二十好几岁才加入劳动大军。同时人们不再一直工作到生命的末日，大多数人65岁就退休了，还有许多人退休得更早。
再加上平均寿命增长，结果人们一生中的整个工作期显著缩短。对于美国人，其结果在《第四次大觉醒与平等主义的未来》（The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism）（2000年）中有所论述。在书中，诺贝尔奖得主罗伯特?福格尔（Robert Fogel）计算了人们一生中的工作期和剩余的闲暇期。他说，在1880年，人们醒着的时间有81%被工作所消耗，其中包括做家务杂事；在1995年，比例降低到41%；而照目前的趋势，他预计2040年比例将会降到24%，剩下76%可用于休闲，这的确令人吃惊。
以这种眼光看问题，略微提高退休年龄的建议似乎就不那么可恶了吧。确实，假如2017年9月4日以后能够实施，我将更加高兴一点，因为那一天正好是我的65岁生日。即使真的实施，我也很明白：虽然我们这些婴儿潮出生的人因为贪心的自我放任而受到猛烈斥责，未来的一代代人却会更加长寿，也会比我们拥有更多的闲暇时光。或许他们很不该哀叹自己的困境，而应该逍遥自在地活下去。
