Call to raise retirement age to at least 70

kabayiri

The wider issue is that there is still ageism at play when it comes to recruitment policy.

People over 50 are being passed over in favour of younger people. On a certain level, this would seem obvious as to why you would do it.

I met a guy 6 months ago : mid 50s and recovering from Cancer. In an unguarded moment, the interviewer let it slip that it was his age which was an issue. She mean't to reassure him about his illness.

I'm not sure what we do about this. Is this a growing issue?

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Define reasonable health. Over sixty suffering some form of affliction is highly likely. Previous medical history having no bearing. Simply called age. Catches up with us all in different ways.

The reality is health outcomes have and will continue to improve. Not so many years ago a 70 year old could reasonably expect to be dead. Today a 70 year can expect to live to around 93.

So yes, age catches up with us all but it's happening later and, expecting to live another 23 years at 70 rather than being dead is evidence of improved health. Unless you're suggesting today's, and future, 70 year olds are simply the living dead on life support.

wotsthat

kabayiri wrote: »

The wider issue is that there is still ageism at play when it comes to recruitment policy.

People over 50 are being passed over in favour of younger people. On a certain level, this would seem obvious as to why you would do it.

I met a guy 6 months ago : mid 50s and recovering from Cancer. In an unguarded moment, the interviewer let it slip that it was his age which was an issue. She mean't to reassure him about his illness.

I'm not sure what we do about this. Is this a growing issue?

Won't it resolve itself? As the workforce ages recruiters will have less opportunity for discrimination.

A tiny bit of anecdotal for you. My employer were trying to reduce sick leave; as part of the data gathering it was very clear that it was the younger members of staff taking the most days off sick.

economic

kabayiri wrote: »

The wider issue is that there is still ageism at play when it comes to recruitment policy.

People over 50 are being passed over in favour of younger people. On a certain level, this would seem obvious as to why you would do it.

I met a guy 6 months ago : mid 50s and recovering from Cancer. In an unguarded moment, the interviewer let it slip that it was his age which was an issue. She mean't to reassure him about his illness.

I'm not sure what we do about this. Is this a growing issue?

do about what? companies can hire whoever they like, age and illness should be factors in that decision.

kabayiri

economic wrote: »

do about what? companies can hire whoever they like, age and illness should be factors in that decision.

You're not supposed to discriminate on age grounds alone. But, let's be honest, it does happen. It's not hard to dress it up in acceptable terms either.

I saw a report saying that the average age will be 50 by the year 2030.

There's another report saying 30% of jobs will disappear in the UK by 2030.

What do these things mean to recruitment and retraining ?

p00hsticks

chucknorris wrote: »

Although everyone (should) know exactly what the thread is about, the title is not correct, because it isn't about what age to retire, it is about what age that the state pension should be paid. These two different events will most likely occur at different times for those that plan their financial future. I don't want to retire (just yet), I did hand my notice in to retire last December (at 58), but my employer asked me to stay on and work one day a week, which I consider better than retirement. At the moment I am thinking that I will work way beyond my state pension age of 66.

But surely any financial projections should be looking at both the age of retirement and the age at which the state pension is paid, as the amount of workers / taxpayers broadly fund the pensions ?.

Longevity determines how much state pensions will cost in total, but the age at which people are actually retiring (i.e. giving up work) will determine to a large extent how much tax income is available to fund those pensions.

Like others here, I'm currently 'economically inactive', having quit my job at the age of 56 and am currently just living off savings until my pensions kick in in a few years time. If we all decide to quit work at 50 there's going to be fewer and fewer people to fund the state pensions for those over 70 (or whatever age is appropriate)

chucknorris

p00hsticks wrote: »

But surely any financial projections should be looking at both the age of retirement and the age at which the state pension is paid, as the amount of workers / taxpayers broadly fund the pensions ?.

Longevity determines how much state pensions will cost in total, but the age at which people are actually retiring (i.e. giving up work) will determine to a large extent how much tax income is available to fund those pensions.

Like others here, I'm currently 'economically inactive', having quit my job at the age of 56 and am currently just living off savings until my pensions kick in in a few years time. If we all decide to quit work at 50 there's going to be fewer and fewer people to fund the state pensions for those over 70 (or whatever age is appropriate)

Obviously, but like I said, the thread title was not strictly correct.

economic

kabayiri wrote: »

You're not supposed to discriminate on age grounds alone. But, let's be honest, it does happen. It's not hard to dress it up in acceptable terms either.

I saw a report saying that the average age will be 50 by the year 2030.

There's another report saying 30% of jobs will disappear in the UK by 2030.

What do these things mean to recruitment and retraining ?

by not supposed to you mean the law. but its a BS law anyway.


you say you saw a report. do you believe everything reports say? I have no idea what report you are talking about, but I do know there is a lot of crap being reported.


my views are:
- ban minimum wage
- repeal all these stupid laws about workers rights/discrimination - companies can hire whoever they want - the best people to do the job for the least money they are willing to pay for the skills.


if I was a company CEO and was hiring - had a choice between 2 people, exactly the same skill level and both perfectly capable of doing the job and both same pay level. except one was 20 years older then the other. I would choose the younger one. less chance of illness and more time to grow into the role and be successful at the company.


harsh but the ONLY sensible way to do things.

Tromking

There's many ways to alleviate the pain of an extended working life.
My plan is to follow the lead of many in the public sector and go part time in my 50's, take possible partial retirement in and around 60yo and carry on working and adding to my admittedly still generous pension till I hit my SPA, in my case 67yo.
Work is good for you and life extending IMO.

kabayiri

There's a bunch of workers at my cousin's factory up here. It's meat processing mostly, and it's the kind of work which attracts migrant workers. They range from mid 20s to 40s.

It's not particularly nice work, and my cousin is pretty blunt. When the workers get older he fully expects to just recruit younger replacements. By older he doesn't mean 60s either.

When there is less work around in the future, the scales tip further in his favour don't they?