Let's face it. The workforce just isn't getting any younger. And though our aging population creates challenges for workers, employers and government policy makers, there are some real economic opportunities to be had. By now, you know about the impending retirement of boomers and the smaller size of younger generations labor pool.

A new report from The Urban Institute, "Work and Retirement: Facts and Figures," outlines the availability of older workers, benefits of delaying retirement and challenges for employers in implementing programs for older workers. From part time work to self employment and including the transition from physical labor to congitive work, the demographics point to increased economic output for individuals and employers who take steps now to attract and retain older workers. http://www.urban.org/publications/900985.html

If all workers delayed retirement by five years, the additional Social Security taxes would offset more than half of the Social Security shortfall projected for 2045. The additional government revenue from both income taxes and Social Security payroll taxes would far exceed the size of the Social Security deficit. Money talks, I think.

"The work family duel can fuel poor outcomes for children -- tomorrow's workers." So says Jodie Levin-Epstein in her new report published by CLASP: Center for Law and Social Policy. http://www.clasp.org/publications/getting_punched_fullnotes.pdf In the course of one's career there are two kinds of time off that affect our ability to stay on the job. More companies need to acknowledge that replacing workers at any level in the organization is less attractive than retaining the trained staff already at work. One kind of time that stops the work clock temporarily is Work Leave, which includes paid sick days, personal or vacation days, and leave for family and medical reasons. The United States ranks low in all these categories and the story just keeps getting worse. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, access to paid sick days dropped from 69 percent to 56 percent; paid holidays dropped from 96 percent to 89 percent and paid vacations dropped from 98percent to 95 percent for employees in medium and large firms between 1988 and 1997. See http://www.bls.gov/data/home/htm

The second type of clock time is Flexibility, which is responsive scheduling that responds to the needs of employees and includes the number of hours on the job, their predictability, and the start and stop times of the workday. You've heard me on the subject of how straightforward is the case for flexible, responsive scheduling. It enhances attraction and retention of high talent. It helps address the challenge of upcoming skill gaps and talent shortages due to an aging workforce.

And how about the children? Parents are working more hours. Parents who work typically feel their children are deprived of their time. Childcare arrangements are often stressful resulting in poor health for children and parents. Parents with paid leave are five times more likely to care for their ill children. There is a correlation between children's success at school and their parents' work schedules. The Leave No Child Behind program caused a few states to enact laws allowing workers time off for parental involvement in school but overall the parents have gotten left behind because their workplace is not responsive to their scheduling needs.

Levin-Epstein throws down the gauntlet for the Government to do it's part for working families. By fostering family friendly solutions the nation stands to retain and regain global competitiveness and create a future for high productivity even as the workforce ages. The high road is perfectly capable of generating profits but the impetus for businesses to take the high road presents an opportunity for the Government to lead the way. It has already done so in the federal agencies which are models for flexible workplaces.

Where is the leadership? The time for balanced hours is now.

You don't hear as much about the glass ceiling anymore. It seems that women have taken on the responsibility for not getting to the top positions in corporate America. Sure there are still the softer, subtler but pervasive barriers to advancement but it seems that fast tracking - presuming women are willing to give it their all -- is the key to getting that top position. Unfortunately it is such barriers that are keeping the economy from growing to its full potential. Let's say that women are willing to sacrifice their career advancement for a time. What is to prevent a full return to the fast track? Perhaps there is a way. Many women find that when they are ready to reenter the workforce full time and full bore, they are relegated to lower level positions. Although it is a rough road, there are plenty of women who have been successful at climbing back up the corporate ladder from this lower rung. I have clients who have negotiated high profile (but low paying) good for the company/department positions by promising to return to full time eventually. Their management bought into the investment for the short term and were paid back in time. Of course, these women never really caught up in the earnings bucket but they are ok with that. It is a little like compounding in your IRA. If you take a loan out against your IRA, it will be tough to make up the earnings you have foregone. Given that women make up over 50% of the job market, of course it is good for the economy to consider the needs of women in the workforce. The myth that you could have it all or do it all gave way to take your choice -- work or family. The time is right for another correction in the job market. It isn't fair to say that the imbalance is the men's fault, the glass ceiling or women's lack of dedication that makes it so hard to balance work and family. What is called for is a mapping of what businesses can do to attract and retain the best talent and a chance for individuals to assess how they can work at various junctures in their careers.