To save Social Security, consider the age of full retirement, says BlackRock CEO Larry Fink

In his lengthy letter, Fink wrote, "I do think it's a bit crazy that our anchor idea for the right retirement age — 65 years old — originates from the time of the Ottoman Empire." He argues that this concept is outdated no longer aligns with the reality that people are living longer and facing different economic challenges.

He points to demographic shifts showing married couples over 65 now have a 50% chance of one spouse living to 90, creating potentially 25- to 30-year retirements.

However, some economists challenge this view, emphasizing that the U.S. has already raised the full retirement age for Social Security from 65 to 67, effectively cutting benefits across all income levels.

Critics warn that further increases in the age to quality for full Social Security retirement benefits could disproportionately burden lower-income workers in physically demanding jobs who have shorter life expectancies.

The impact of raising the retirement age varies dramatically based on occupation, socioeconomic status, health conditions and work history, creating potential disparities in retirement accessibility and security.

Workers in physically demanding occupations face particularly challenging obstacles if retirement age increases. Construction workers, manufacturing employees, agricultural laborers, service industry workers and health care providers often experience physical deterioration earlier in their careers due to the demanding nature of their work. These individuals typically face higher rates of workplace injuries, chronic physical stress and occupational health challenges that can make extended careers difficult or impossible.

Socioeconomic factors further complicate the retirement age debate. Lower-income workers generally have shorter life expectancies, often by 10-15 years compared to top earners. Blue-collar workers typically enter the workforce earlier than their white-collar counterparts, yet they would be required to work additional years under increased retirement age proposals. Less-educated workers frequently lack job flexibility and alternative employment options, while minority communities face higher health disparities that can impact their ability to work longer.

The disparity in life expectancy particularly highlights these inequities. Professional and office workers typically enjoy better health outcomes and can often extend their careers more easily through flexible work arrangements and less physically demanding roles. Higher-income workers also benefit from better access to health care and preventive services, enabling them to maintain their health and work capacity longer.

Labor advocates and policy researchers propose more nuanced approaches to address these disparities. Rather than implementing a blanket increase in retirement age, they suggest occupation-based solutions that consider different retirement ages for various job categories, with earlier benefits available for physically demanding work. These approaches would recognize cumulative physical stress, workplace exposure risks and the impact of long-term physical labor on workers' health and capacity to continue working.

Social Security faces significant strain, with trustees projecting its inability to pay full benefits by 2034. Fink and others suggest the system needs modernization to reflect current demographics, particularly as the ratio of workers to retirees continues to decline. When Social Security was established in the 1930s, most workers who paid into the system didn't live long enough to collect benefits. Today, with significantly increased longevity, the system is supporting retirees for decades rather than years.

The demographic shift is stark: In 1950, there were 16.5 workers for every Social Security beneficiary. That ratio has fallen to about 2.7 workers per beneficiary, and projections show it continuing to decline. This shift fundamentally challenges the program's pay-as-you-go funding structure, where current workers' payroll taxes fund current retirees' benefits.

Policy experts offer various solutions to address these challenges. While Fink emphasizes the need to reconsider retirement age and benefit structures, many argue that the system's challenges can be addressed through revenue increases rather than benefit cuts. Social Security taxes only apply to earnings up to $176,100 (as of 2025), and removing this cap could significantly increase program funding. Additional proposed revenue solutions include:

• Adjusting the payroll tax rate.
• Expanding the tax base to include certain types of income currently excluded.
• Creating a new tier of contributions for very high-income earners.
• Investing a portion of the trust fund in higher-yielding assets.

The debate also encompasses broader economic factors affecting Social Security's sustainability:

• Wage stagnation limiting payroll tax revenue.
• Income inequality reducing overall system contributions.
• Health care costs affecting disability benefits.
• Changes in workforce participation patterns.
• Impact of immigration on the worker-to-retiree ratio.

These challenges are compounded by the impending depletion of the Social Security trust fund reserves. While the program would still collect enough payroll taxes to pay an estimated 80% of scheduled benefits after 2034, this reduction could significantly impact millions of retirees who depend on Social Security as their primary income source. An estimated 40% of Americans age 65 and older rely on Social Security for 50% or more of their income, with 13% depending on it for 90% or more of their income, according to published reports.

The urgency of addressing these challenges grows as the baby boomer generation continues to retire, putting additional pressure on the system. However, experts emphasize that Social Security's challenges are solvable with proper policy adjustments, though reaching consensus on these solutions remains a significant political challenge.

While Fink emphasizes automatic enrollment, simplified investment products and a higher retirement age as key solutions, many financial experts advocate for a more comprehensive approach to making retirement investing accessible to all Americans. Their proposals address both structural barriers to retirement savings and the need for more flexible, user-friendly investment options.

Improving accessibility to retirement savings opportunities stands as a critical priority. Experts suggest implementing universal retirement savings access, ensuring that all workers, regardless of their employment situation, have the ability to save for retirement. This could include creating state-sponsored retirement programs for workers without employer plans, similar to successful initiatives already launched in several states. Simplified enrollment processes could remove bureaucratic barriers that often discourage participation, while enhanced financial education programs could help workers better understand their retirement needs and options.

The concept of portable benefits has gained significant attention as a solution for today's mobile workforce. This approach would allow workers to maintain consistent retirement savings even as they change jobs, addressing a significant challenge in the modern economy where frequent job changes are common. When workers switch employers, their retirement savings would follow them seamlessly, preventing the common practice of cashing out retirement accounts during job transitions.

On the investment side, experts emphasize the importance of expanding available options while keeping them simple and affordable. Low-cost index funds provide broad market exposure without high fees that can erode long-term returns. Guaranteed income products such as annuities offer security for retirees worried about outliving their savings, while flexible withdrawal options allow retirees to adjust their income streams based on changing needs and circumstances.

The debate over the future of retirement in America extends far beyond the question of retirement age. While Larry Fink's provocative statement about retiring at 65 being "crazy" has sparked important discussions, the challenges facing retirement security require multiple solutions addressing various needs across the workforce. The right mix of solutions could ensure Social Security's sustainability, make retirement investing more accessible, address socioeconomic disparities and create more flexible retirement options.