i've pointed this out a few times before, but it's one of those stern reality checks that i think it's important to hit yourself over the head with from time to time.

when they set the retirement age at 65 back in the depression/new-deal period, they picked that age because it was *life expectancy*. it wasn't based around this idea that everybody gets to retire after they've worked for a while - that it was some kind of right that everybody earns. rather, it was based around the idea of beating the odds. if you made it to 65 (and you weren't a member of the propertied class, of course - they tended to live longer, but they didn't really work) then you were the exception. you were unusually long-lived. you beat the averages. there were workplace management considerations, of course, but the idea was that most people wouldn't live long enough to retire, because that was the average lifespan.

in canada, we're upset that they changed it to 67. or, some people are anyways. and there's good reasons for it. but, realize this: if they were to follow the initial logic that they used in setting the retirement age, they wouldn't be setting it to 67.

they'd be setting it to 82.