Originally Posted by
Andy
You're correct. And you are not following the groupthink in this echo chamber.
I have made no effort to contact my representatives either in favor or against age 67. I have done nothing to support or oppose an age change. That doesn't matter; my problem is that like you, I'm just telling everyone the extremely likely outcome which is that the retirement age will change to 67.
They'll use the safety/science argument, but now that I've pointed out the elevated coronary risk of 50-60 year olds - you know, science - they focus on cognitive decline. Never mind that anyone who's studied cognitive decline would know that there's no inexpensive or reliable way to determine cognitive decline. No science, but that doesn't matter to them. Because we're all selfish pricks arguing for what will benefit us.
To be clear for everyone, I'm not arguing for or against an age change; I'm agnostic on hte subject. I am simply stating the obvious on the sugject.
No one cared or argued about coronary disease. It’s always been cognitive decline. Which is already a problem I see on the flight deck as it is. It is expensive and difficult to deal with. A great reason to leave it alone. And you have been promoting the age change here. You don’t care about science, stop pretending.