Welfare for seniors

It’s time to discuss how old is old enough

Young men think old men are fools; but old men know young men are fools. — George Chapman, English dramatist (1559-1634).

Western countries prioritize women and children. However, in East Asia, an agrarian region with big families for thousands of years, the younger had given precedence to the older. Especially in Korea, with a strong Confucian tradition of filial piety, elders came first and ancestors were worshipped.

That time-honored culture collapsed in the past two generations or so, along with Korea’s breakneck industrialization and Westernization.

Now, older adults, especially poorer ones, are avoided and alienated. Numerous people who contributed to the Miracle of the Han River scavenge for paper boxes to earn a day’s living. They are the victims of their country’s unrivaled economic success.

According to a survey by the Seoul Metropolitan Government, citizens think they should be 72.6 years old to receive various senior benefits — free or cheaper use of public facilities. Another opinion poll found Koreans want to work until they are 75, 15 years longer than the legal retirement age, primarily for economic reasons.

Against this backdrop, Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon calls for reopening the discussion on free subway rides for citizens 65 and older. Oh and five other metropolitan mayors want the central government to raise the age to around 70 to make up for city metro operators’ losses. Their demand appears reasonable, considering the snowballing deficits of subway operators and that the central government should be responsible for its policy of treating seniors preferentially.

But the issue may not be as simple as it seems for at least two reasons.

First, experts point out that reducing free subway services will be penny-wise but pound-foolish. One economist said Seoul can save about 133 billion won ($106 million) a year, but must pay 227 billion more in social costs caused by higher medical bills from the increase in depression and other diseases due to a lack of activity or lost tourism income. So, the city should apply different discount rates or limit rides to non-rush hours.

Second, Korea must approach the old age issue more comprehensively. Four in 10 older adults are poor in this country. Korea’s elderly poverty rate — the share of people with less than half of the median income — is the highest in the OECD. Suppose the nation puts off preferential treatment for seniors and extends the pensionable age. In that case, the income gap will grow wider, and the incomeless period will get longer. The only alternative is to let people work longer — even if that could mean dying in harness for some.

Compare this with France. In the European country, millions of people have taken to the streets opposing a pension reform that extends the retirement and pensionable age to 64. The French protesters cite three reasons — work-life balance, respect for social consensus and consideration for the weak. They are halfway across the globe, but seem to live on a different planet.

Welfare pundits suggest two things in this regard.

First, policymakers must classify older adults in detail by their age, assets and income and differentiate various benefits. Uniform giveaways deepen the gap, enriching the rich and providing little help for the poor. One may ask who will divide the age group in detail. Older people will be only glad to do that — provided optimal time and money.

Second, approach the aged people’s welfare issue not from a financial viewpoint, but by focusing on how to make their later lives happier and more dignified. Older adults want to prolong their social activities for money and get a sense of belonging and participation.

President Yoon Suk Yeol has advocated welfare for the weak and better spending for customized programs. However, his administration recently decided to slash 60,000 public jobs for seniors, saying the policy was the brainchild of the previous government, which sought to inflate the employment figure.

Fake job tally or not, older adults want to work for income or other rewards. The government’s move quashed both desires.