It's "divisive" because the potential difference between what one TRIES to do and what actually HAPPENS is colossal. If I were 61, I'd be VERY interested in a retirement that could pay me 100k/yr or more starting before the next contract expires... I'd even trade in all of my DC for the next 4 years to make that happen. But since I'm in my forties, I don't trust management, DALPA, bankruptcy courts, arbitrators, mediators, politicians or negotiators to ensure anything like that lasts for two decades (when I retire) ...much less four decades (when I still may be alive).

Older folks simply have much less risk in negotiating for not-in-their-name retirement benefits when many of them will be dead in 10-20 years (roughly 75% chance of living to 80 if they're 60 now). I don't hold anything against them and am certainly not surprised different demographics have different needs and wishes. I don't call that divisive, I call that a difference in priorities.