Do Not Use “Working Until 70” as a Fig Leaf to Justify the De Facto Disposability of Middle-Aged and Senior Workers

Read the original article (in Japanese):

Introduction | The Discomfort Behind the Slogan “Working Until 70”

“A society where people can work until 70.”

This phrase has come to be treated as an unquestionable good, framed as a rational response to demographic aging and pension strain. Extending working life appears logical, and companies are adjusting their systems accordingly.

Yet we must ask:
Is “making 70 the norm for active employment” truly the highest priority?

This is not a denial of older individuals. If someone has the ability, age alone should not matter.
But from the perspective of national resource allocation, is the sequencing correct?

Before expanding employment in the 70s, have we fully utilized the generations already in their 50s and 60s?
If this question is absent, the slogan risks drifting away from reality.

Chapter 1 | Are We Confusing Policy Means with Ends?

The government’s goals are clear:

Maintaining the labor force
Stabilizing social security finances
Securing pension sustainability

Extending employment to age 70 is a means to achieve those ends. It is not, fundamentally, a labor-protection policy.

The real question should be:
Which age groups, if effectively utilized, produce the most stable productivity?

Those in their 50s and early 60s often combine mature judgment and experience with preserved physical capacity. In many occupations, they form a “core competence band.”
Extending the exit age to 70 without maximizing this core band is backwards—it raises the ceiling without reinforcing the foundation.

Chapter 2 | Is a “70-Year-Old Workforce Society” Realistic?

No one should be dismissed purely by age. Exceptional 80-year-olds exist.
But social design must be built on the median, not exceptions.

On average, individuals in their 70s face:

Increased health risks
Wider performance variation
Reduced stability in output

■ Key Trends in Continued Employment for Individuals Aged 70 and Above

Category	Main Trend	Employment Implication
Physical Function	~30% decline in muscle mass; ~20% decline in grip strength	Disadvantage in heavy or endurance-based work
Cognitive Function	Gradual decline in processing speed; ~30% including MCI	Constraints in multitasking and rapid decision-making
Occupational Safety	Accident rate approximately double that of younger workers	Increased costs in on-site/field operations
Employment Reality	Employment rate around 30%; mostly light-duty work	Job redesign i

Broadly assuming the 70s as a stable active workforce may not be structurally sound.
A more sustainable model may be one where people in their 50s and 60s are maximized—and those in their 70s have the freedom to work, not the necessity.

Chapter 3 | The Neglect of the “Core Competence Band”

How are people in their 50s and 60s treated in reality?

Authority reduced through role-based retirement systems
Encouraged early retirement
Rehired at half pay
Avoided in the job market

Even where employment technically continues, many are sidelined.
Though age-discriminatory listings are formally restricted, loopholes allow practical age filtering.

Yet this group contributes:

Tacit organizational knowledge
Client trust relationships
Mentoring capacity
Risk detection ability

Treating them as declining cost burdens wastes accumulated experience capital.
Without optimizing this band, the “70-year active society” becomes little more than a symbolic gesture.

Chapter 4 | What Is the Real Labor Shortage?

Companies repeatedly claim labor shortages—yet hesitate to hire mid-career workers over 50.

Is the shortage truly labor supply?
Or is it compliant, inexpensive, culture-moldable youth?

Recruitment preference data reveals a stark drop after the 30s.
The underlying logic is clear:

Youth is easier to mold
Younger workers are cheaper
Long-term development is seen as “efficient”

Thus, what is scarce is not labor—but a specific type of labor.

Expanding 70-year employment without confronting age bias does not resolve this contradiction.

Chapter 5 | A Labor Market Dominated by Age Orientation

Japan’s system remains structured around age:

The “35-year-old wall”
Cohort-based promotion
Mandatory role retirement
Post-retirement rehiring

Ability is not the primary axis—age is.

Category	Peak Age (Approx.)	Trend Thereafter	Key Sources / Research Examples
Processing Speed / Novel Problem-Solving / Fluid Intelligence	Around 18–35 (often early 20s to early 30s)	Gradual decline after 30 (onset of sharper drop)	Hartshorne & Germine (2015) / Skirbekk (2004) / General fluid intelligence research
Overall Productivity / Job Performance	35–50 (often early to mid-40s)	Gradual decline, but relatively high levels can be maintained into the 50s	Feyrer (2007): Productivity growth peaks at 40–49 / Skirbekk (2004): Highest in 30s–40s, significant decline after 50
Overall Cognitive Function (Strong influence of Crystallized Intelligence)	Around 55–60	Peaks in later middle age (as a composite function)	Large-scale studies by Harvard & MIT (related to Hartshorne & Germine 2015) / Recent integrative research

Performance emerges from a composite of speed, judgment, accumulated experience, and adaptability.
While physical capacity may decline with age, experience and efficiency often rise. Yet age remains the first filter in Japanese hiring logic.

Without shifting this axis, institutional reform alone will not alter structural outcomes.

Chapter 6 | What Should Truly Be Prioritized?

Demographics will not reverse. Youth populations will shrink.

The rational strategy is maximizing effective capability bands across generations. This includes both youth and mid-to-late career professionals.

Government priorities should include:

Facilitating mobility for those in their 50s and 60s
Correcting hidden age filters
Promoting role-based evaluation systems

Companies must reconsider:

Age-linked promotion
Title-dependent organizational design
Premature “peak-out” assumptions

Choosing “rejuvenation” over optimization is often short-term cost thinking disguised as strategy.

The immediate, sustainable design choice is clear: maximize the capabilities of the 50–60 generation—not merely extend working age to 70.

Conclusion | From an Age-Based Society to a Capability-Based One

This is not a call to ignore aging. Biological realities exist.

But a society that centers age as its organizing principle inevitably wastes capability.

Before proclaiming a “70-year active society,” Japan must construct a system that fully utilizes those already in their 50s and 60s.

Only then does true freedom emerge—where people in their 70s can choose to work, rather than be compelled to.

The issue is not aging itself.
It is an inability to escape age-based thinking.

Without shifting from an age-centered to a capability-centered labor structure, neither policy nor corporate reform will reach the core of the problem.

Read in Japanese ↓（For Japanese learners!）↓

このブログを検索

CRIA Global – Japan Workplace Knowledge for All Workers