Thanks! I don't think people usually think about what a historical novelty "retirement" is. The extension of the non-working life of the elderly is a very recent phenomenon - perhaps the last 50 years. It's been pretty successful for many, so far, but the future doesn't look as rosy.
Exactly, Tax-chick. Retirement, as such, didn't exist until very recent times. People worked until they dropped or until physically unable, at which point they were provided for in their last few months or years by one or more of their several children. In fact, the Social Security age was set at 65 at a time when most people died by their early 60's. The understanding was that the vast majority who paid into the system would not live long enough to collect.
We need to switch to private accounts, or at the very least index the Social Security age to life expectancy. There's no reason why somebody with 20-30 good working years left in them should retire at 62 on the taxpayer's dime.