Thank you for that excellent question; it truly reflects the paradox of our society.
It is true that women can expect to live up to 85 years and men up to 79 years. Life expectancy is constantly going up. We can be proud of the medical advances and the fact that we can live ever longer and still have a good quality of life. Ironically, the social clock, meaning the expectations that we have in terms of people's social participation, is going backwards. So there are two different messages. On the one hand, the official message is: “Let's enjoy our extra years”. On the other hand, the message is: “Leave the workforce and retire”.
Freedom 55 really is a myth. Many people who retired when they were 55 actually returned to work—not full-time work, but part-time. That shows that work is not necessarily a burden. Your question is important because it has to do with people's attitudes and collective responsibility. That means that we must change the whole rhetoric around work. Work can be something meaningful and can be an enriching tool in the lives of those who wish to keep working.
Changing a rhetoric means changing the rhetoric of a government and researchers. As gerontology and psychology researchers, we too can sometimes be “ageists” without even realizing it. The media's rhetoric is also very “ageist”.
Your question deals with the rhetoric on ageing. How do we change that? I think awareness campaigns that promote work and ageing can start to change people's attitudes slowly but surely.