Older Americans Want to Work into Their 70s

More Americans are signaling an intention to work beyond traditional retirement ages, a generational and structural shift that has implications for corporate human-capital strategies, pension liabilities and macro labor supply. MarketWatch published a dispatch on Mar 21, 2026 documenting growing interest among older cohorts in continuing employment into their 70s (MarketWatch, Mar 21, 2026). Demographic pressure is already quantifiable: the U.S. Census recorded that the 65-and-older population comprised 16.0% of the U.S. population in 2020 and projects that share will rise to roughly 20.6% by 2030 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Meanwhile, Social Security’s full retirement age is now 67 for those born in 1960 or later, changing incentives for delayed retirement (Social Security Administration). Institutional investors and corporate boards should calibrate strategy around these durable shifts in labor supply rather than treating them as transitory behavioral quirks.

Context

The demographic narrative is straightforward: the U.S. is aging. The 16.0% share of the population aged 65+ in 2020, and the Census projection of ~20.6% by 2030, translate into a larger pool of potentially working-age older adults relative to traditional retirement cohorts (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). That shift matters because the labor market is tight in many sectors; in sectors with chronic shortages—healthcare, skilled trades, and professional services—retaining or re-engaging older workers can materially affect capacity and unit labor costs. From a public-finance perspective, later retirement reduces near-term pressure on Social Security outlays and can improve tax revenue profiles if older workers remain employed and taxable.

Employers have historically concentrated resources on early-career talent pipelines—apprenticeships, campus recruiting, rotational programs—and have underinvested in mechanisms to retain institutional knowledge at the tail end of the career lifecycle. The MarketWatch piece (Mar 21, 2026) highlights that talent-retention gaps at older ages are not simply cultural but structural: benefits design, scheduling practices, physical workplace design and training modalities are often calibrated to younger workers’ career arcs. For corporate governance, this creates an asymmetry: boards that prioritize early-career investment while ignoring attrition risk among senior employees risk a net loss of human capital that is costly to rebuild.

Finally, the legal and regulatory backdrop is evolving. Anti-age-discrimination law in the U.S. creates compliance risk for firms that fail to adapt; simultaneously, pension accounting and healthcare-cost expectations for older employees change the calculus of retaining versus replacing skill. Institutional investors should therefore treat older-worker dynamics as part of ESG and human-capital disclosure analysis, not merely an HR problem.

Data Deep Dive

Demographics provide a hard anchor. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 count placed the 65+ cohort at 16.0% of the population and projected an increase to about 20.6% by 2030; that six-percentage-point rise in a decade is large by demographic standards and implies millions more older adults available to the labor market (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Social Security policy affects incentives: the full retirement age is 67 for individuals born in 1960 or later, a statutory change that encourages continued labor-force participation beyond ages historically associated with retirement (Social Security Administration). MarketWatch’s March 21, 2026 reporting is consistent with surveys and firm anecdotes indicating rising demand among workers to remain employed into their 70s (MarketWatch, Mar 21, 2026).

Labor-market participation trends support the narrative of aging-plus-work. Bureau of Labor Statistics series show that participation among older cohorts has been rising since the 1990s and into the 2010s, such that the share of prime-age labor supplied by workers over 55 expanded materially over the past two decades (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Where participation rates for 65–74-year-olds were historically in the low double digits, many recent series put older-worker participation into the high-teens to mid-20s percent range in the early 2020s depending on the exact age band and economic cycle (BLS; early-2020s data). Comparatively, participation among prime-age adults (25–54) has been more resilient but not expanding commensurately, increasing the relative importance of older cohorts to overall labor supply.

Investor-relevant metrics follow. Firms in services-intensive sectors can lower turnover costs and vacancy-related revenue loss by retaining older workers: anecdotal case studies point to multi-percentage-point reductions in recruitment costs and faster time-to-fill when flexible scheduling and phased-retirement programs are implemented. Macro-level implications include a non-trivial effect on potential GDP growth if labor-force participation at older ages continues to climb: even a one percentage-point increase in participation among 65+ could translate into hundreds of thousands of additional workers and incremental GDP contribution.

Sector Implications

Health care and social assistance, leisure and hospitality, and retail are two-way streets: these sectors present both high demand for labor and elevated physical and scheduling challenges for older workers. Employers that redesign roles—moving heavy-lifting tasks, substituting duties that require less standing, and offering hybrid schedules—can capture productivity from older cohorts while controlling occupational-injury risk. Financial-services, professional-services and technology firms that can modularize work (e.g., advisory roles, mentoring, part-time subject-matter-expert roles) stand to retain high-margin experience at lower marginal cost compared with external hires.

Pension and benefits design will be central. Employers that shift from defined-benefit toward defined-contribution architectures have already changed retirement timing incentives; similarly, offering phased retirement or continued accrual while enabling part-time work can keep experienced staff engaged. From a competitive standpoint, firms that aggressively adapt their benefits and workplace design could see relative improvements in operating margins through lower churn and faster onboarding of new workers, while peers that lag will face higher replacement and training costs. For publicly listed firms, improved disclosure on human-capital metrics that capture age-based retention could become a differentiator among long-only investors assessing long-term operational resilience.

Real-estate and workplace-planning teams will also need to act. Office ergonomics, quieter spaces, and accessibility improvements do not just benefit older workers—they reduce presenteeism and increase productivity across age bands—but they require capital allocation decisions that need to be justified to CFOs. Firms with distributed or hybrid models have an advantage because they can more easily incorporate flexible scheduling and remote duties that older workers may prefer.

Risk Assessment

Retention of older workers is not a costless panacea. Older worker populations can have higher healthcare utilization and, in some cases, higher short-term absenteeism; firms need calibrated benefits-management strategies to avoid cost spikes. Moreover, physical-demand jobs face limits: there is a practical ceiling on retaining 70-year-old workers in roles that require sustained heavy manual labor without redesign. Companies that attempt to retain older workers without redesigning roles risk increasing on-the-job injuries and workers’ compensation costs.

There is also reputational and regulatory risk if employers inadvertently discriminate or implement poorly designed programs that disadvantage older cohorts. Age discrimination litigation is a real threat in the U.S.; firms must maintain clear, performance-based criteria for role changes and ensure that any phased-retirement or flexible-work programs are applied equitably. From a macro-financial perspective, an overreliance on older-worker participation to fill systemic labor shortfalls could mask the need for broader workforce development, including immigration policy adjustments and training of younger cohorts.

Finally, investor risks include mispricing human-capital transitions in valuation models. Models that assume static productivity profiles by age may under- or over-estimate future cash flows if older-worker retention materially alters unit labor costs or operating leverage. Active monitoring of metrics such as tenure distribution, retirement-rate incidence and phased-retirement uptake is therefore essential for accurate forecasting and stress-testing.

Fazen Capital Perspective

Counterintuitively, the most durable inefficiency is not that employers fail to hire older workers at all, but that they fail to reconfigure knowledge-transfer economics. Institutional practice has been to spend heavily on early-career training while tacitly accepting attrition of senior talent as inevitable. Our analysis at Fazen Capital suggests a higher-return allocation: modest investments in role redesign, mentorship stipends and phased-retirement options can preserve institutional knowledge at a fraction of replacement cost. For example, reallocating 1–2% of a mid-sized firm’s LTI spend to structured senior mentoring and partial-retirement consultancy can yield outsized reductions in onboarding time for new hires and lower error rates in legacy systems.

A contrarian operational playbook is to monetize expertise: convert retiring senior employees into part-time consultants or ‘fractional chiefs of staff’ for critical projects. This both reduces severance and transitional inefficiencies and creates a stop-gap for succession planning. From a valuation perspective, companies that demonstrate measurable retention of senior knowledge will show lower revenue-per-hire deterioration and shorter time-to-productivity, metrics we believe are underweighted in current market multiples for labor-intensive firms. We encourage investors to seek granular human-capital disclosures and to test scenarios where older-worker participation rises by 1–3 percentage points over five years.

Outlook

Expect a gradual but persistent shift rather than an abrupt one. Demographics and policy incentives are long-duration drivers; the Census projection to ~20.6% 65+ by 2030 and Social Security’s retirement-age structure point to multi-year adjustments in labor supply (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020; Social Security Administration). Firms that proactively pilot flexible arrangements, retraining and phased-retirement options will accumulate an operational advantage that compounds over time. Conversely, firms that ignore the trend will face higher churn costs, slower knowledge transfer and potential reputational risk.

For investors, the short-term signal is the quality of corporate disclosure and the existence of pilot programs; the medium-term signal is measurable improvements in retention, vacancy rates and recruitment costs. We expect regulators and proxy advisors to increase scrutiny of human-capital metrics, and for some sectors to begin reporting age-stratified retention and productivity statistics. For further reading on human-capital analytics and operational adaptation, see Fazen Capital’s insights on workforce strategy topic and demographic investment implications topic.

Bottom Line

The rise in willingness to work into the 70s is a structural factor that will reshape labor supply, corporate strategy and long-term valuation; investors should evaluate firms on their capacity to capture and redeploy senior experience. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

FAQ

Q: What practical steps can companies implement immediately to retain older workers?

A: Short-term measures with measurable impact include flexible scheduling, phased-retirement contracts, role modularization to reduce physical strain, and targeted re-skilling budgets. These actions typically require minimal capex but do require HR-policy amendments and planning for equitable application to avoid age-bias claims.

Q: How did historical recessions affect older-worker participation, and what does that imply now?

A: Historically, recessions tend to push some older workers into earlier retirement, reducing participation, while recoveries see gradual re-entry. The long-term demographic trend, however, means recoveries are likely to bring older cohorts back into the labor force more than in previous cycles—suggesting that current tight labor markets will increasingly rely on older-worker participation as a structural buffer.