Thus, as an educated man concerned with the health and longevity of the nation's economy, it is my perspective this scenario is a ridiculously inefficient use of capital. Therefore it is no surprise the only people who argue against this perspective are those holding the resources (re: Mitt Romney). To wit:

So demographically, older workers have not saved enough for retirement. That drives them to maintain employment. With a lack of job opportunities (the slack), the youngest generations are presented a significant challenge – with amongst the highest debt levels and least job prospects, the youth cohort entering its first (or prime) earning years can be paired with another observed phenomenon, that of the wealth disparity. As a premise, poor people and young people spend aggressively, wealthy households invest and don’t spend proportionally to their means, and a significant number of older Americans have no retirement savings to speak of, and therefore cannot spend proportional to offset their declining economic contribution. Essentially, this is a perfect recipe to grind an economy to a halt: Wealthy people don’t spend, elderly workers don’t spend, poor people and young people love to spend but can’t without reasonable access to funding.

Hi, Federal Reserve, is it comfy in between that rock and hard place? Didn't think so. Ineffectual bunch of elites.