So a Michigan congresswoman just floated the idea of raising the retirement age, and the internet reacted with the quiet dignity of a raccoon trapped in a dumpster fire.
Haley Stevens, Democrat, mind you, suggested that maybe, possibly, we should talk about pushing back when Americans can collect Social Security.
For the record, the current full retirement age tops out at 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later.
Stevens' proposal reportedly nudges that number higher, because nothing says "thank you for your decades of service" like asking a 68-year-old to keep stocking shelves at Target.
Here's the part where I'm supposed to be fair and balanced, so let me try.
The math on Social Security is genuinely ugly.
The trust fund's running low, boomers are retiring en masse, and fewer workers are supporting more retirees.
But let's be honest about who "something's gotta give" always lands on.
It's never the guys in suits who fly private.
It's the 63-year-old with a bad back and a mortgage.
Meanwhile, every think tank in D.C. writes another white paper explaining why your grandmother should pick up a few more shifts.
I asked the internet what it thought, and by "asked the internet" I mean I read the replies, which is basically a form of self-harm.
Top comment energy: "Great, so I can work until I die and then the government saves money on my funeral." Another gem: "They want us to work forever but also want us to stop saying 'okay boomer.' Pick a lane." And here's the twist nobody mentions.
Raising the retirement age isn't some neutral actuarial tweak.
It hits people who do physical labor the hardest.
A lawyer can bill hours at 70 from a recliner.
Funny how the people proposing this never seem to have a roofing background.
Supporters argue we're living longer, so we should work longer.
True, if you're the guy who discovered cold plunges and has a Peloton and a nutritionist.
Less true if you're a nurse who's been on her feet for 35 years.
Life expectancy gains haven't been equally distributed, and pretending otherwise is how you end up with a policy that sounds smart in a hearing room and cruel everywhere else.
Stevens hasn't dropped a full bill with numbers yet, which is the political equivalent of saying "we should hang out sometime" and never texting back.
A way to see which way the wind blows before anyone commits to anything.
Which is honestly the most infuriating part.
Politicians love to "start a conversation" about your retirement while conveniently never starting one about, say, lifting the payroll tax cap on high earners.
Weird how that conversation never gets scheduled.
Opinion: Stevens is right that the program needs fixing, but "work longer" is the coward's solution, not the smart one.
If Congress wants to solve this, it can start by asking the people who'll never need Social Security to chip in a little more.
Final Thoughts
Otherwise this whole thing is just a fancy way of telling you to die at your desk.