Briefly, this would depend very much on the type of industry. The most studied industry in the U.S. is higher education and professors, who, because of the enjoyment of the work and the great working conditions, and so on, often will work into their late 60s and into their 70s.
More generally, I think the adaptation needed is, in some firms, a tightening up of the method of evaluating performance. At least, that is perceived as an issue. And of course, giving better performance evaluations can be beneficial to the employer and employees, not only when people are approaching 65 but when they're 40 or 25. They can work to the benefit of both parties in improving individuals who are having issues and in properly rewarding people for their performance.
One other area that has come up more recently, particularly in Canada, is the issue of job-related benefits, such as life insurance and extended health insurance. In this area, because certainly our mortality rates, our risk of dying in any given year, are higher when we're 67 than when we're 57 or 27, life insurance becomes more costly. Extended health insurance becomes more costly, and disability insurance particularly does. If I understand it, at least in most jurisdictions, the courts have allowed differential treatment of individuals over age 65 under life insurance and disability insurance coverage paid for by the employer. That, to me, seems reasonable. Yes, it is a form of discrimination, but it is one whereby we don't want the cost of employing an older worker to become so high that the employer really wants to get rid of that person.
By and large, the adaptation has been fairly straightforward. It is nothing really insurmountable. It is not all that difficult. It's really, in essence, something that can be handled. It's not an issue that should make anyone shrink from pursuing the proposal you have on the table.