Retirement and couples

 Since I started work, back in the 60s' there have been many changes in living arrangements for both couples and families. There are many who have studied these changes in relationships over time. This does affect the dynamics of retirement, with more women working and fewer women being exclusively housewives, the balance between independence and dependence has significantly changed couples’ relationship patterns that may carry over when both or one person wants to retire.

Couples are often forced to accept more independence in their relationships as a matter of economic necessity. Dependency and co-dependency can result in stresses that can end a relationship. Sometimes the degree of independence in a relationship can be carried into and even exacerbated by retirement.

When there is an age difference within a couple, one person might be retired while the other is still working. Women may be reluctant to retire until necessary if they have spent earlier years raising a family but are now engaged with their careers. For retired older male partners of such women, the prospect of “home alone” and “cabin fever” may result unless the partner is willing to live more independently. Also, women who have stayed at home may have developed life, apart from their partner, that they wish to continue even when their partner retires.

The balance between intimacy and isolation is important for a variety of living arrangements. However, the transition to retirement begins a new lifestyle that can change the nature of past patterns of intimacy and isolation. A couple probably needs to adjust to the acceptance of increased mutual independence in retirement if their retirements are not concurrent. 

This urge to merge is often motivated by the need for security or the lowering of anxiety regarding the tenure of a relationship. There is also the magical belief that this merging will bring healing that solves many personal problems. Research based on socio-emotional selectivity theory suggests that as people age, they may prefer fewer but closer friends whose company they enjoy. As a result, there could be more time spent in solitude unless retirees spend more time with fewer friends.

It is hard for us to make new friends. When we were younger, we could make friends and it was easy. We made friends at work, with people we shared hobbies with, with people we met at our children’s activities. We cast a wide social net and met many acquaintances some of whom became friends. Our social network shrinks over time, friends move, or we move, children move on, and those who share our hobbies are younger. There are many reasons why it is hard to make new friends. There is also the distinct possibility that retirees who move to a distant new residence will not have a shared history with new friends formed in that location. The social convoy of which they were a part in their previous community is left behind. This can become an additional loss to those already triggered by retirement.

 

Should retirement be abolished?

I read an interesting paper about the future of work and retirement that at one point said "It is a difficult thing to say but my conclusion is that retirement should be abolished. It should be abolished in tandem with the major transformations of what constitutes work and employment now taking place in the technology-driven world of work of the twenty-first century."

The author argues “that the divide between working life and retirement is equally an artificial one that has lost relevance in post-industrial society.”

The premise is that all of us live in a “post-industrial society” which is not true. Many of us still work manual jobs that take their toll on us. The attack on unionized jobs by corporations, libertarian and others over the years have made many worksites unsafe and harder for workers

There are forces over which we have no control in our working lives, factors such as technological advances, and other unpredictable events which change our jobs and because there is the emphasis on the individual, it is up to us to figure out how to adapt and change. Support for individuals facing change may be available but it appears always at the employers advantage. As employers and government have shifted the responsibility of caring for oneself as we age from themselves to the workers, we are seeing more seniors in poverty.

Some would argue that there have always been peaks and troughs in people’s working lives related to raising children, ill-health and disability, and caring, as well as educational activities. Ongoing employment into later life will emerge as a possibility that workers are faced with, because we have not built safeguards into our system.

Pensions used to be a vehicle for workers to provide themselves and their families when they could no longer work. Starting in the 80’s and the rise of liberalism and libertarianism that changed. Over the years we have slowly adapted the idea that the individual is responsible for themselves when they are retired. This worked when prices were rising slowly, and inflation was in check. Now with inflation rising, stocks plummeting, and pensions being taxed higher, those who have retried are caught in a perfect storm. To pay the rent, or mortgage and feed themselves they have to go back to work and the authors argument that there is an artificial divide between work and retirement is going to come true.

WHO recommendations on a healthy diet for those over 65

For adults, the WHO guidelines recommend the following.

A healthy diet contains:

§   Fruits, vegetables, legumes (e.g., lentils, beans), nuts and whole grains (e.g. unprocessed maize, millet, oats, wheat, brown rice).

§   At least 400 g (five portions) of fruits and vegetables a day. Potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava and other starchy roots are not classified as fruits or vegetables.

§   Less than 10% of total energy intake from free sugars which is equivalent to 50 g (or around 12 level teaspoons) for a person of healthy body weight consuming approximately 2000 calories per day, but ideally less than 5% of total energy intake for additional health benefits. Most free sugars are added to foods or drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and can also be found in sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates.

§   Less than 30% of total energy intake from fats. Unsaturated fats (found in fish, avocado, nuts, sunflower, canola and olive oils) are preferable to saturated fats (found in fatty meat, butter, palm and coconut oil, cream, cheese, ghee and lard) and trans-fats of all kinds, including both industrially-produced trans-fats (found in processed food, fast food, snack food, fried food, frozen pizza, pies, cookies, biscuits, wafers, margarine and spreads) and ruminant trans-fats (found in meat and dairy foods from ruminant animals, such as cows, sheep, goats, camels and others). It is suggested to reduce the intake of saturated fats to less than 10% of total energy intake and trans fats to less than 1% of total energy intake. In particular, industrially produced trans-fats are not part of a healthy diet and should be avoided.

§   Less than 5 g of salt (equivalent to approximately 1 teaspoon) per day and use iodized salt.

WHO’s Global recommendations on physical activity for health

HO’s Global recommendations on physical activity for health (2010)

Below is an extract from these recommendations for adults 65 years and above:

For adults 65 years and above, physical activity includes recreational or leisure-time physical activity, transportation (e.g., walking or cycling), occupational (if the person is still engaged in work), household chores, play, games, sports or planned exercise, in the context of daily, family, and community activities. In order to improve cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, bone and functional health, and reduce the risk of  noncommunicable diseases, depression and cognitive decline, the following are recommended:

1.  Adults aged 65 years and above should do at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week, or do at least 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity.

2.  Aerobic activity should be performed in bouts of at least 10 minutes’ duration.

3.  For additional health benefits, adults aged 65 years and above should increase their moderate- intensity aerobic physical activity to 300 minutes per week, or engage in 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity per week, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity.

4.  Adults of this age group with poor mobility should perform physical activity to enhance balance and prevent falls on 3 or more days per week.

5.  Muscle-strengthening activities should be done involving major muscle groups, on 2 or more days per week.

6.  When adults of this age group cannot do the recommended amounts of physical activity due to health conditions, they should be as physically active as their abilities and conditions allow.

7.  Overall, across all the age groups, the benefits of implementing the above recommendations, and of being physically active, outweigh the harms. At the recommended level of 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity, musculoskeletal injury rates appear to be uncommon. In a population- based approach, in order to decrease the risks of musculoskeletal injuries, it would be appropriate to encourage a moderate start with gradual progress to higher levels of physical activity.