I read Death of a Salesman as a teenager. Arthur Miller's Willy Loman — a man who spent his entire working life believing in a promise. Work hard, be loyal, give your best years to the system, and the system will take care of you. He died having never received what was owed. Broke, exhausted, obsolete. His sons inheriting not security but debt and disillusionment.
I thought it was a tragedy about one man. Then I started working. And every time I asked for permission to take a holiday — as a specialist, as a manager, as a director, as a C-level executive — I thought about Willy Loman. Because the asking for permission never stopped. At every level, regardless of title or seniority, you were still inside the same arrangement. Your time was not yours. The system owned it. The holiday was granted, not taken.
|
"To suffer fifty weeks of the year for the sake of a two-week vacation, when all you really desire is to be outdoors, with your shirt off." — Arthur Miller, Death of a Salesman (1949) |
Miller wrote this in 1949. The working culture it describes — fifty weeks of your life in exchange for two weeks of permission to exist freely — was not unique to Willy Loman. It was the arrangement. Work, take your short vacation, work again for twenty-five or thirty years, retire, die. The deal was accepted so completely that most people never questioned whether it was a good one. I did not question it either. I just thought about Willy Loman every time I asked.
That implicit promise — give your working years, receive security in return — is breaking. Quietly, systematically, and with very little honest public discussion about what it means for the generation currently in their forties and fifties.
· · ·
Writing last week, The Economist examined what it calls Japan's Ice Age Generation — people now in their late forties and fifties who entered the workforce between 1993 and 2004, just after Japan's economic bubble burst. Companies stopped hiring. Many graduates could not get permanent jobs. They spent years in temporary and contract work, earning significantly less than regular employees. When they eventually secured permanent positions, their careers, salaries and promotions never fully caught up. Japan's rigid job market made it difficult to leave and find better-paying employers.
The cruel irony is what is happening to them now. Japan is finally experiencing inflation, labour shortages and rising wages after decades of stagnation. But the biggest wage increases are going to younger workers, because companies desperately need new employees. College-educated workers in their twenties and thirties saw wages rise 10 to 16 percent between 2020 and 2025. Workers in their early fifties saw wages fall 1.3 percent over the same period. Someone aged fifty can discover that new employees doing similar work are being offered more money than he earns after almost twenty years with the same company.
The compounding effect is what makes this a retirement crisis rather than just a salary problem. Lower salary means less saving. Less saving means lower pension contributions. Lower pension contributions mean lower pension. Less wealth in retirement. This generation is also less likely to own homes, while renting becomes harder as people age. Japan could eventually face a large group of older people with low savings, low pensions, limited housing security, and fewer younger workers supporting them.
Japan is not exceptional. It is early. Two people can have similar education and ability, but if one graduates during an economic boom and another during a severe recession, their twenty-year career trajectory can be completely different. And even when the economy eventually improves, the disadvantaged generation may be too old to fully benefit from the recovery.
· · ·
Across the developed world, retirement ages are rising. The OECD's 2025 Pensions at a Glance report shows the average normal retirement age across member countries was 64.7 years in 2024 — and retirement ages are expected to increase further in 19 of 38 OECD countries. Denmark already has workers who may not retire until age 74. The pension systems were designed when people retired at 65 and died at 70. Life expectancy has moved dramatically. The funding has not kept pace. So they raise the age instead, and say very little about what that means in practice.
What it means in practice is a gap that nobody is naming directly. The age at which labour market discrimination becomes significant — studies consistently show this starting around 50 to 55 — and the official retirement age are moving in opposite directions. You are told to work until 67 or 68. You simultaneously become significantly harder to employ after 50. That is a gap of twelve to eighteen years in which you are too old for the job market and too young for the pension. This gap is not being addressed. It is being ignored.
|
The Gap Nobody Is Naming Official retirement age: rising toward 67-68 across most OECD economies. Denmark heading toward 74. Age at which labour market discrimination becomes significant: approximately 50-55. The gap: 12-18 years of being too old to be easily employed and too young for the pension. This gap is not being addressed. It is being ignored. |
This is the broken social contract. The previous generation had a deal: give your working years, receive security in return. That deal was imperfect but it broadly held. The current generation gave their working years to a system that is now telling them the terms have changed. The retirement age has moved. The pension is less certain. The employer loyalty that was supposed to be part of the exchange turned out to be one-directional. And the government that was supposed to backstop all of it is raising the age and hoping nobody does the arithmetic too carefully.
· · ·
There is a scene in Andor — the Star Wars series — that I keep returning to. A group of prisoners trying to escape reach water. It is the only way out. One of them says: I cannot swim. Everyone starts shouting — one way out, one way out. And the way out is the water. Watch it if you have not. It says more about this moment than most economic analysis does.
The retirement system is not going to be fixed in time for the people who are currently forty-five or fifty-five. The pension mathematics are what they are. The demographic shift is what it is. The age discrimination will not be legislated away before it affects you. The government will not design a new social contract for your specific cohort in the next ten years.
The water is the only way out.
Some will build income streams that do not depend on an employer — consulting, creating, advising, building something small that generates enough to close the gap. Some will develop skills that compound rather than depreciate. Some will redefine what enough looks like — not the retirement their parents had, but a version of financial independence that is achievable on a realistic timeline. Some will not make it across. That is the hard truth. Not everyone figures out the swimming on the way down. But standing at the edge waiting for a rescue that is not coming is the worst strategy available.
Willy Loman waited. He believed in the promise until there was nothing left to believe in. He died having given everything to a system that did not give it back — not because he was weak or foolish, but because nobody told him the promise had an expiry date.
Now you know. Do not wait.
|
This week's insight The retirement your parents had was the product of a specific demographic and economic moment that is not repeating. The system that was supposed to catch you is raising the age, reducing the benefit, and discriminating against you in the labour market simultaneously. This is not a temporary problem. It is structural. The water is the only way out. Start building something that does not depend on the rescue. The promise had an expiry date. Now you know. Do not wait. |
If this landed, there is one piece every week at stillnavigating.com — honest writing about the stuck middle, from someone still in it.