Call to raise retirement age to at least 70

PixelPound

kabayiri wrote: »

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?

It depends on the type of job. Low paid manual work will get employers wanting younger workers. Jobs where skills and experience required will often favour those who have the experience.

The raising of the state pension is likely to hit those who don't get the income to make provisions for retirement.

economic

kabayiri wrote: »

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?

your cousin is doing what any rational person would - cheap (migrant) and efficient (young) workers. I would do the same and while it MAY be discrimination, I would do the exact same as all I would care about is revenues/profits.

kabayiri

economic wrote: »

your cousin is doing what any rational person would - cheap (migrant) and efficient (young) workers. I would do the same and while it MAY be discrimination, I would do the exact same as all I would care about is revenues/profits.

I got roundly criticised on here by suggesting we could bring in a load of cheap subcontinent labour on temporary work visas once out of the EU.

To me though, it's not so different to exporting the work to the Far East.

Do people want factories here or in the cheapest places. It's a direct choice.

But, we need to be realistic and at least speculate on how this might affect the different age groups.

Charles Handy wrote a book where he speculated how the work profile would change for people as they got older. I don't think that what he suggested has come to pass.

economic

AFF8879 wrote: »

Most people with a half decent career will be able to plan their retirement relying on investments, corporate pensions etc. This policy will hit the poorest hardest, who are ironically also the most likely to be suffering from health conditions that would prevent them from being able to work until they are 70 anyway.

A better idea IMO would to increase the provision of mandatory workplace pensions. Of course many employers will offset the cost in other ways, but at least it ensures people do not reach their elderly years penniless.

My personal plan is to maintain a modest lifestyle and continue in my banking career with the aim of retiring in my mid-late 40s, living mortgage free in a small house with sufficient investment (most likely a combo of annuity / BTL flat / dividends) income to enjoy a comfortable (not extravagant) lifestyle.

government is having to take more and more measures to reduce unfunded liabilities. and rightly it should as there is a looming pension crisis in the not too distant future.


you are doing the right things about making sure you only have to rely on yourself. how old are you now?

prosaver

hope mps, police and fireman do the same then.

Mojisola

prosaver wrote: »

hope mps, police and fireman do the same then.

If I'm in a burning building, I want the firefighters who rescue me to be fit and youngish - not some 69 year olds who are struggling to do the job!

economic

Mojisola wrote: »

If I'm in a burning building, I want the firefighters who rescue me to be fit and youngish - not some 69 year olds who are struggling to do the job!

indeed.


this is why employment discrimination laws are sooooooo stupid. they should all be completely axed. government is ALWAYS the problem when the economy goes wrong.

Fella

The problem is that life expectancy may be getting longer but ability to work isn't really.

IMO most people can do most jobs up until they're 50 as well as they could at any age.

Between 50-60 this becomes steadily less true, partly depending on the type of work.

60-65 this is dramatically less true. Many people would have zero chance of doing a fulltime job & the rest would find it an increasing struggle.

Above 65? There will be some who are still sprightly but most will simply be knackered.

The only obvious answer is that people need to save way more of their wages from the point they start work, to fund their retirement. However the reality is almost nobody is going to do that. It's boring, unappealing & almost everything you'll be exposed to in the modern world will tell you to live for today because "you deserve it".

The reality is most young people in first-world countries can probably look forward to something more like a second-world existence, as conditions in the 1st world deteriorate & conditions in the 3rd world improve. But no politician is going to get elected on that ticket.

economic

Fella wrote: »

The problem is that life expectancy may be getting longer but ability to work isn't really.

IMO most people can do most jobs up until they're 50 as well as they could at any age.

Between 50-60 this becomes steadily less true, partly depending on the type of work.

60-65 this is dramatically less true. Many people would have zero chance of doing a fulltime job & the rest would find it an increasing struggle.

Above 65? There will be some who are still sprightly but most will simply be knackered.

The only obvious answer is that people need to save way more of their wages from the point they start work, to fund their retirement. However the reality is almost nobody is going to do that. It's boring, unappealing & almost everything you'll be exposed to in the modern world will tell you to live for today because "you deserve it".

The reality is most young people in first-world countries can probably look forward to something more like a second-world existence, as conditions in the 1st world deteriorate & conditions in the 3rd world improve. But no politician is going to get elected on that ticket.

indeed. I look forward to the crisis.

Tromking

Fella wrote: »

The problem is that life expectancy may be getting longer but ability to work isn't really.

IMO most people can do most jobs up until they're 50 as well as they could at any age.

Between 50-60 this becomes steadily less true, partly depending on the type of work.

60-65 this is dramatically less true. Many people would have zero chance of doing a fulltime job & the rest would find it an increasing struggle.

Above 65? There will be some who are still sprightly but most will simply be knackered.

The only obvious answer is that people need to save way more of their wages from the point they start work, to fund their retirement. However the reality is almost nobody is going to do that. It's boring, unappealing & almost everything you'll be exposed to in the modern world will tell you to live for today because "you deserve it".

The reality is most young people in first-world countries can probably look forward to something more like a second-world existence, as conditions in the 1st world deteriorate & conditions in the 3rd world improve. But no politician is going to get elected on that ticket.

It's going to interesting to witness 68 year old Paramedics and Prison Officers carrying out their duties in the not too distant future.