Your remark is true, but there are also those who, though prudence and business acumen have managed to retire younger than 65 (I know a fellow who wasn’t working for years after he sold his share in a very successful company that supplied ancillary computing hardware — he had an unpaid gig as the driver for our bishop, hoped to become the bishop’s deacon, but went back into the job market after there was some impediment to his ordination).
My point is “all families” with “families” defined in such a way as to include married couples is sweeping up a large number of retirees, which neither stands nor falls with 65 having become a less reliable marker of retirement. Even if only 3/4 of the “families” consisting of a couple both of whom are over 65 and one in ten of the “families” consisting of couple one of whom is over 65 are living on retirement income, that’s 10% of “families” with no one working who are not on the dole, and about whose “no one working” status we might actually be happy, leaving 9.9% of “families” to be upset about, not the 19.9% of the trumpeted statistic.