Call to raise retirement age to at least 70

chucknorris

kinger101 wrote: »

Past performance is no indicator of future performance.

Yes, obviously that is true, but it doesn't hurt to seek the insight of those that have succeeded in what they want to do, in similar circumstances that you are considering following. You don't necessarily have to follow that advice, just have the benefit of considering it.

For example, if you had to ask someone about investment advice, I'd bet that you would prefer Warren Buffet over Crashy (and also me obviously)?

kabayiri

I'm still not sure how we can discuss this subject in isolation. It has to be against the backdrop of the changing world of work surely?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/03/24/robots-will-take-third-british-jobs-2030-report-says/

There you go, I've just thrown that pebble in the discussion pond.

It's just a prediction of course, but 30% jobs going in a little over a dozen years is a fairly bold statement. Even if the impact is half that the effects will be profound.

We are essentially trying to accommodate more labour hours, shared between an expanded populace which is ageing, when the demand for this labour might be set to shrink, and we still face increasing competition from new challengers like China and India with ambitious plans of their own.

kinger101

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm still not sure how we can discuss this subject in isolation. It has to be against the backdrop of the changing world of work surely?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/03/24/robots-will-take-third-british-jobs-2030-report-says/

There you go, I've just thrown that pebble in the discussion pond.

It's just a prediction of course, but 30% jobs going in a little over a dozen years is a fairly bold statement. Even if the impact is half that the effects will be profound.


We are essentially trying to accommodate more labour hours, shared between an expanded populace which is ageing, when the demand for this labour might be set to shrink, and we still face increasing competition from new challengers like China and India with ambitious plans of their own.

The article seems to suggest it's more a case that jobs will change rather than disappear. I can see that in my own work. I can do today what might have taken 3 or 4 people just a decade ago because of improvements in technology. But it just means I'm more productive, and can tackle more complex problems.

I guess its a problem for those in professions which might become obsolete, as they might need to retrain. I remember hearing something similar about the the professions which many people in school today will end up in do not yet exist.

lisyloo

wotsthat wrote: »

I think most people make an assumption that lifetimes will be longer than in the past but still assume they'll be too tired/ ill to work at the same age as in the past. It's wrong - people are 'younger' for longer.
.

What is your basis for saying that?
It's not what I see in our extended families or the Hundreds of colleagues I've had.
Most people in their mid 60s will not have the energy/physical fitness to carry on a full time job with only a few days off sick per year and work overtime when required, like a younger person. Some will but I'd say it's the minority who enjoy good health and high levels of energy.
They may be able to downshift and do a easier job with fewer hours.

We still don't have good medications for conditions like arthritis.
People can have replacement parts, but rarely would it put back someback into the position they were before. So for example a carpet fitter having a knee replacement at 50 probably needs to find a different career.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

What is your basis for saying that?
It's not what I see in our extended families or the Hundreds of colleagues I've had.
Most people in their mid 60s will not have the energy/physical fitness to carry on a full time job with only a few days off sick per year and work overtime when required, like a younger person. Some will but I'd say it's the minority who enjoy good health and high levels of energy.
They may be able to downshift and do a easier job with fewer hours.

We still don't have good medications for conditions like arthritis.
People can have replacement parts, but rarely would it put back someback into the position they were before. So for example a carpet fitter having a knee replacement at 50 probably needs to find a different career.

I'm older that 65 and I feel I could still work if I wanted to and that is the case with many of my friends in fact some are still working. Obviously the number of jobs I could do are fewer but if I had to I could still do my old job but if I was a builder I might struggle, one of my friends is a builder and is now 70 his still works but as he is self employed he only take less strenuous jobs.

lisyloo

When you say the number of jobs, do you mean the number of hours or do you mean different types of work?

If you are self-employers then it might be easy to cut down your hours.
My industry (IT) requires full time plus sometimes overtime/on-call. It's unusual for anyone to do less hours and usually only for women with babies and even then it's a 4 day week. So that industry is pretty much full time ++ or nothing.

harebellsinenfield

Oh well.

I do not mean that flippantly, but I know that my life expectancy is such that I will not be one of those reaching 90. Maybe I will, odds are I won't make it to 70. My plan has been, and will remain, retiring at 60. It will be tight, but the mortgage should be paid off and I should be able to secure something which will not leave us on the breadline. In theory.

The state pension is an extra, it has never featured in my retirement plans because it has been out there for quite some time that pushing the age up to 70 was in the works (at least in the pensions industry, maybe it did not trickle down to other sectors). It's just a question of when and how.

lisyloo

I think the state pension age will go up and I think that means there will be greater (than younger age groups) of disabled people on other benefits.
I am not saying this will be everyone by any means, but there will be some who cannot work and past 65 I think it could be as high as 50%.

On a personal level of course it's better to retire whenever you want by making your own provision.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

When you say the number of jobs, do you mean the number of hours or do you mean different types of work?

If you are self-employers then it might be easy to cut down your hours.
My industry (IT) requires full time plus sometimes overtime/on-call. It's unusual for anyone to do less hours and usually only for women with babies and even then it's a 4 day week. So that industry is pretty much full time ++ or nothing.

I mean the number of types of job. In my job there was no opportunity for me to work fewer hours so I choose to retire early. I could have got part time work in other areas but the pay would have been low and I could manage without so I didn't work.

wotsthat

lisyloo wrote: »

What is your basis for saying that?
It's not what I see in our extended families or the Hundreds of colleagues I've had.
Most people in their mid 60s will not have the energy/physical fitness to carry on a full time job with only a few days off sick per year and work overtime when required, like a younger person. Some will but I'd say it's the minority who enjoy good health and high levels of energy.
They may be able to downshift and do a easier job with fewer hours.

We still don't have good medications for conditions like arthritis.
People can have replacement parts, but rarely would it put back someback into the position they were before. So for example a carpet fitter having a knee replacement at 50 probably needs to find a different career.

Because I expect the future to be better than the past. By the time 2050 comes around do you expect treatments for arthritis to be better than today or worse?

In an aging population employers will have no choice but to be more accommodating to the needs of older staff.