Retirement Was Invented and It’s Time We Reimagine It
We need to tell you something that might make you angry about the history of retirement.
Modern retirement as you know it was invented by a 74-year-old German chancellor in 1889 as a political chess move. And here’s the part that should really get you: Otto von Bismarck set the retirement age at 70 when the average life expectancy was around 45.
When people ask “who invented retirement?”, the answer is Otto von Bismarck—and he wasn’t thinking about your golden years. He was thinking about keeping workers quiet and socialists at bay.
When we looked around at what everyone else in the retirement industry was doing, we saw the same tired playbook. Fear. Decline. The subtle message that your best days were behind you. The industry had turned ageing into something to be managed rather than celebrated.
So we went the opposite direction.
The Absurd Math Behind Your “Golden Years”
Here’s the part of the history of retirement they don’t tell you.
When Bismarck eventually lowered the retirement age to 65 in 1916, the average male working in the Industrial Revolution lived to be 46. This wasn’t a retirement plan. This was a bet that you’d die before cashing in.
The whole system was designed around the assumption that most people would never collect.
Bismarck’s invention didn’t stay in Germany. It spread across Europe, then to America, and eventually to the rest of the world—including South Africa. Each country adopted the model with minor variations, but the core assumption remained the same: people should stop working at a predetermined age, regardless of their health, capability, or desire to contribute.
When Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935, America locked in 65 as the retirement age when the average life expectancy for an American man was 58. Want to know how they picked 65? According to Robert Myers, who worked on creating the Social Security program: “Age 65 was picked because 60 was too young and 70 was too old. So we split the difference.”
We literally split the difference on one of society’s most defining constructs.
Think about that. The age that determines when you’re supposed to stop contributing, stop working, stop being economically relevant wasn’t based on biology or human capability. It was based on political convenience and actuarial gambling.
We’re Using 1889 Technology for 2025 Lives
From the mid-19th century until today, global life expectancy has more than doubled—soaring from around 34 years in 1913 to over 72 years in 2022.
We’re living 30 to 40 years longer than when retirement was invented, yet we’re still accepting retirement age 65 as gospel.
Imagine using any other 1889 technology in your daily life. A telegram instead of a smartphone. A horse-drawn carriage instead of a car. Gas lamps instead of electricity. You’d be laughed out of the room.
But we’re doing exactly that with retirement.
We’ve added decades to human lifespans but we’re still operating on Industrial Age assumptions about when people should exit the workforce, when they stop being valuable, when their contributions no longer matter.
The Longevity Economy: A $15 Trillion Opportunity We’re Ignoring
Here’s what happens when you cling to outdated models.
The longevity economy was valued at $15 trillion globally in 2020 and is projected to reach $27 trillion by 2030.
In 2020, the 50-plus population contributed $45 trillion to global GDP. That’s 34% of the total.
The people we’re relegating to the “retirement waiting room” represent one of the world’s largest economic forces.
Age discrimination costs economies billions. Fear-based retirement narratives aren’t just ethically bankrupt. They’re economically short-sighted.
But you wouldn’t know it from how the industry talks about ageing.
The Demographic Milestone No One Noticed
Something significant happened in 2020 that barely made headlines.
For the first time in history, people aged 60 and over outnumbered children under 5 years globally.
We crossed a demographic threshold that demands we rethink everything about how we structure work, life, and contribution. Yet we’re still operating on assumptions designed for a world where most people died before they could retire.
This isn’t a crisis. This is an opportunity.
But only if we stop treating ageing as decline and start treating it as what it actually is: a dynamic third life of purpose, contribution, and possibility. Working past 60 isn’t an anomaly—it’s increasingly the norm.
Retirement Reimagined: What It Actually Looks Like
At Oasis Life, we made a decision to change the language we use around modern retirement.
We weren’t going to use overplayed phrases like “next chapter” or “golden years” or “slowing down”—the sort of age-insensitive nonsense that treats 60-plus as a consolation prize. We talk about “third life” and “longevity lifestyle” and being dynamic.
We celebrate residents who are still working, still building businesses, still adventurous, still curious.
The rebels. The entrepreneurs. The bold. The people who refuse to be defined by an Industrial Age construct.
And you know what happened? Our community started attracting exactly those people. Positive, energetic, socially engaged people who don’t see retirement as an ending but as a beginning.
We’re inspired by voices like Ken Dychtwald from Age Wave and have worked with South African futurist Dion Chang to shift the narrative. We’re questioning what everyone else accepts as inevitable.
Everything is possible at any age.
That’s not a slogan. That’s our business model.
How Oasis Life Is Building an Age-Positive Future
Here’s what makes South Africa’s position particularly exciting: we have the opportunity to lead a cultural shift rather than import outdated models from elsewhere.
At Oasis Life, we’re committed to building an age-positive culture from the ground up. We’re creating environments where people in their 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s are celebrated for their energy, experience, and contribution—not warehoused and managed.
This isn’t just philosophy. It’s embedded in how we design our communities.
We deliberately place our retirement villages in Cape Town in established neighbourhoods where intergenerational living isn’t just possible—it’s inevitable. At Clara Anna Fontein and Burgundy Estate, our retirement villages in Cape Town aren’t isolated from the broader community. They’re woven into it.
Our world-class Clubhouses are designed for retirees, their adult children, and their grandchildren to enjoy together. We’ve created Wi-Fi zones and lounges where adult children can work remotely in beautifully designed environments. Kids can explore something delicious from the Clubhouse restaurant menu and roam freely across secure estates whilst parents handle business calls or catch up on emails.
Because here’s what the data tells us: age discrimination against people 50-plus costs economies billions. But we’re equally committed to thinking about our retirees’ adult children and their needs. The longevity economy isn’t just good ethics. It’s good economics.
We’re attracting the kind of residents who set the tone for what a community feels like. Who bring their humour, their curiosity, their entrepreneurial spirit. Who refuse to accept that turning 65 means turning off.
And in doing so, we’re creating communities where people belong rather than just live.
The Real Question
Retirement was invented by a politician who never expected you to collect it.
It was codified into law by splitting the difference between two arbitrary numbers.
It’s based on life expectancies that are now 30 to 40 years out of date.
So here’s what we want to know: why are we still pretending this makes sense?
Why are we accepting a model designed for an era when most people died at 45 as the framework for lives that now regularly extend past 80?
Why are we letting an outdated construct determine when people stop being economically relevant, socially engaged, and culturally valuable?
The answer is simple: because no one’s questioned it loudly enough.
Until now.
Retirement wasn’t handed down from on high. It was invented. And if it was invented once, it can be invented again.
What comes next isn’t about adding a few more years to the end of life. It’s about reimagining what those years mean, what they offer, and how we structure society to honour the reality that people are living longer, healthier, more capable lives than ever before.
The longevity revolution is happening whether the retirement industry is ready for it or not.
The only question is whether you’re going to be part of building what comes next or clinging to what came before.
We know which side we’re cheering for!
