This is quite the divisive topic. I can make strong arguments for both sides of this issue.

What is being missed by many here is that there is a shortage of young people who want to be pilots and that isn't likely to change. 15 days a month away from home in some crummy hotel seems glamorous for a few years. Then one gets married and has children. Then being away from home for holidays and special events starts to suck.
ALPA is full of crap when they say there's no shortage of pilots - one just needs to go to any halfway decent high school and ask students there how many want to be airline pilots. The response/follow through is underwhelming.
There are a few ways to fix this problem, two of which are short term and have been mentioned here - lower minimums for entry and raising retirement age. What hasn't been mentioned is single pilot ops ... and a shortage of pilots will accelerate that transition. Then the industry will rapidly go from deficit to surplus. That should create another 'lost decade'.

Travel demand is growing and will continue to grow as the world's population has greater disposable income so one can expect companies to add more and more flights. If airlines can't find enough pilots, they'll just raise the number of block hours each pilot flies. So expect to be working more days every month.

The argument's been made that ICAO will stay 65. I would suggest that everyone finds out what staffing is like at foreign carriers and anticipated hiring as China reopens. I expect ICAO to quickly raise retirement age to match the US.

As far as the politics of raising retirement age, one of the drivers to raise the age to 65 was to extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund; that's likely to be used as a reason to extend retirement age for any/all professions.

There are also good reasons to keep the retirement age where it's at, but the reasons for raising retirement age will get stronger until the industry moves to single pilot ops.