Eternal Youth Doesn't Mean Immortality
    It should be noted that even the limiting case of eternal youth doesn't mean immortality. In a world of the forever-young, people would continue to die at the mortality rate of, perhaps,  twenty-somethings. Of course, improvements in health care, and reductions in the accident rate could increase life expectancy. I read a Nation Institute on Aging estimate of 400 years for the life expectancy of a population that didn't age. And of course, what's being discussed for the near future is, initially, a modest reduction in the aging rate, leading to health improvements. This would allow someone who were 30 at the time they began treatment to reach 70 looking and feeling like a 60-year-old. It would allow someone who is 45 to reach 85 looking and feeling like a 75-year-old--not terribly dramatic. That can presumably be done now through caloric restriction. But I think that's only the beginning. For the first time, doubling, tripling, or quadrupling of the animal life spans is occurring. And the calf-cloning incident suggests that aging can be reversed, and that aging might possibly be reversible in adults. I now believe that perpetual youth might possibly be in the cards.

Not Talking About More Time in Failing Health
    It should be emphasized that we're not talking about gaining more time at the wrong end of life. We're talking about extending the youthspan. And we're not talking about a static state of prolongevity technology, but about a dynamic one. However things stand at the start, they'll rapidly improve.

Problems That Chronic Youth Might Not Correct
    There are aging problems that may not be corrected by perpetual youth. For example, one's teeth would eventually wear down. Teeth implants might be necessary. Bone deformities, such as bunions and bone spurs (e. g., from tight shoes), might develop over time. These can probably be corrected, but might require medical intervention.

Financial Implications
    The financial changes would/will be mind-boggling. If life extension pharmaceuticals cost an average of $10 a year for everyone on the planet, that would amount to $60,000,000,000 a year in annual income. If it cost a more-reasonable $100 a year (perhaps) $100 a month in first-world countries), that would amount to $600,000,000,000 a year in annual pharmaceutical income. That's a lot of lucre.
    Today, if a couple saves and conservatively invests (at 4% a year, after taxes and inflation) 15% of their salaries over a period of 40 years, at the end of that time, they will have saved  about 15 years of salary at the end of the 40 years. (Between Social Security, that extracts 7.5% of your after-tax money, and retirement plans that probably extract a minimum of another 7.5% of after-tax money, prudent workers are probably setting aside at least 15% of their after-tax money today.) 15% is probably a lower limit on what what people should be setting aside. Assuming a conservatively-invested rate of return of 4% on their joint savings account, they could expect an income of about 60% of their combined salaries. Considering that they had been saving about 15% of their after-tax money or 20% of their gross income, that would mean that they had only been receiving 80% of their gross salary when they were working. 60% of their working-years gross salary would be 75% of their after-saving-for-retirement salary. In my own case, I was setting aside, out of gross salary, $9,500 a year for our 403B plan, 6% of my gross salary for the Georgia Tech retirement plan, about $7,500 in after-tax money, or $10,000 of gross salary for Social Security, and about $3,000 in gross salary for our two IRA's. That all added up to about $22,500 plus 6% of my gross salary diverted to retirement systems. At a guess, that would have amounted to 30-some % of my total salary diverted to retirement plans. So we were living on, perhaps, 60+% of my income before I retired. However, for two people with no house payments, that was quite enough, thank you.
 

    Something would have to be done within a few years about increased life expectancies for retirees. Social Security, already a problem, would be elevated to the crisis status that problems must reach before they can be politically solved. However, whatever were done should apply only to those who opted for longevity treatments.
 

    The greatest benefit about retirement is probably financial security. You no longer have to worry a about losing your job. The next greatest benefit is probably that you don't have to be on the job every morning at 8 am, and you don't have deadlines and politics always hanging over your head. You own your own time.