Yes, absolutely. I think there would be a big difference.
I will just comment on that as well as the other point you were making. Part of what progressive organizations are doing is talking about the fact that training is a shared responsibility between the individual as well as the organization, and maybe looking at training a little bit differently, not necessarily as an expense for older workers, but perhaps as an opportunity to link it to some of the other business challenges they have, like hiring younger workers where they can't find the talent, with older workers then assisting the younger workers.
Definitely, we're seeing employers right now opening up their eyes to the fact that employees are staying past the age of 65. They are looking around and saying, “Well, I guess we knew that with the repeal of mandatory retirement this was going to happen”, but they don't have any practices in place to educate employees starting much earlier—perhaps in their forties—and saving for retirement and what it takes, and now they are caught in a position. I'm talking to employers who are saying to me things like, “It's all fine for you to be saying this kind of thing, but I'm trying to run a five-star hotel, and the bartender who has been with me for 30 years is handing me a drink like this. How do I deal with that?”
So you have a combination of both physical issues and performance issues. There are many different sorts of things that are going on and need to be separated out.