Please come back

pensionpawn

MikeJXE said:

After reading moist of the posts on here I find it surprising almost everyone retired early, did no one think enough of their job to stay longer, wasn't there no job satisfaction ? I'm 82 and had to retire at 63 because my wife became ill and I had to look after her, I did that for 10 years till she passed. Now I'm raring to go and start again, When I was working in the construction industry I couldn't wait to get up and go to work, I'm not fit enough to do that now but I am fit enough to do something so I applied for a job, if I get it thats when my life will begin again. 

My father in law is 86 and still works part time (for himself), because he loves what he does, and more importantly, he's his own boss. I enjoy the specific function of my job however there are too many idiots in management, HR, and training who make the rest of the work experience unbearable when you're in a position to retire. So I've compromised and reduced my hours by 30% (in April) which has cut out the majority of box ticking and encounters with inept management. This has improved my overall job satisfaction considerably, however I still can't see myself working, even at these reduced hours, more than another 18 months. Why? There is too little time (and increasingly too little energy) to enjoy all the other interests I have by myself and with my wife. I've always been a work to live, not live to work, person. A lot of the people I work with, within +/- 5 years of my age, appear apprehensive to contemplate retiring as they appear to have few interests to occupy them outside of the workplace.

zagfles

OldScientist said:

zagfles said:

OldScientist said:

zagfles said:

OldScientist said:

Kim1965 said:

According to the latest stats there has been a massive increase "in the long term sick". It has follow ed the covid lockdowns, i can only assume that the furlough scheme has "enlightened" more to the benefits culture?
 I think the uk has more of its population defined as disabled than any othe Europe an country, so is our definition stretch ed to folk with bunions? 

For those interested, the stats are at https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/economicinactivity/articles/halfamillionmorepeopleareoutofthelabourforcebecauseoflongtermsickness/2022-11-10

From this report, it would appear that the ONS do not currently have enough data to speculate on what the reasons behind this increase actually are. For example, "A range of factors could be influencing this recent increase. We introduce some of these in this article, but more understanding is needed about the impacts of National Health Service (NHS) waiting times, long COVID, and the ageing workforce".

It is also interesting that industries with significant customer involvement and that, to a large extent, kept open during the lockdowns appear to be most affected (retail, transport and storage, accommodation and food, health, and construction) - you have to scroll quite a way down to find that graph.

Also interesting that the trend started about a year before COVID. Not sure how the "ageing workforce" is relevant since the stats are about 16-64 year olds! Particularly if there's the supposed problem of more 50-64 year olds retiring early, so that would mean the workforce is getting younger not ageing! The trend by occupation seems to be more that lower paid occupations had bigger increases in those long term sick.

There's certainly more going on than the easy answer of 'everyone else apart from me is lazy or dishonest'!

Well the ONS don't even include it as a possibility. Instead they just mention safe options like "the impacts of National Health Service (NHS) waiting times, long COVID, and the ageing workforce". An "easy answer" is one thing, avoiding a possible but controversial answer is another, and not something any objective statistical organisation should do.

Longer time series long term sickness data (I cannot find the original ONS, but it is plotted at https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-long-term-sickness-rate-rises-highest-since-2005-2022-09-13/ ) indicates a decline over 2005 to 2019 before the trend reversed. Looking at the same graph on the reuters page, the number of retired appears to be down by over 50 basis points from 2012, so recent rises are returning us to historical norms.

So much for blaming retirees! Shows a significant long term decline in retirees under 65.

PS - when you quote links in brackets - please add a space to the end of the URL before the close brackets, otherwise the link doesn't work, it includes the ) and you have to manually change the link. Or at least that happens in my browser, others may be different.

I also note that the current economic inactivity rate  (16-64 year olds)(https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/economicinactivity/timeseries/lf2s/lms ) of 21.5% doesn't appear to be significantly out of line with historic values back to 1971 (where it has been between 20% and 26%). The downward trend over the last decade, reversed towards the end of 2019. Looking at short periods of data (like in the ONS report) can be a bit misleading.

Right - but as discussed above with international comparisons, that's likely to be due to increasing female participation in the workforce. In 1971 married women generally weren't in paid employment and so "economically inactive", similar to other countries which now have a higher economic inactivity rate than the UK. In 1971 sex discrimination was perfectly legal - I've got an old newspaper from around that time and the job adverts are an eye opener, adverts mostly mentioned "man" (eg "university educated man required for...") or "Girl Friday" required!

My guess is that they haven't included laziness or dishonesty because a) it is unlikely to encompass a significant number of people and b) it is not easy to measure or define (well, fraud is, but laziness isn't).

For example, among the early retirees on this forum (including myself) how many of us can be categorised as lazy? In the last year, I have written about 75% of a book and 3 academic papers (and, when I've finished responding here, am in the process of finishing off a fourth), but only the book, if I can make money from it, will count as economic activity. Admittedly, I only spend a couple of hours a day doing this instead of the upwards of 10 hours a day I spent when being paid for it (when not being interrupted by meetings, meetings about meetings, targets, meeting about targets, targets about meetings, etc.). I might be safely categorised as one of the 'idle comfortable' since I have enough income to supply my wants without recourse to direct resources from the state. Of course, that will change once I reach state pension age.

Not sure why you're bringing up "lazyness", it seems to be a strawman, it could apply to early retirees or even people who go part time. I was talking about fraud - ie lying about or exaggerating a condition in order to claim PIP/DLA, or get UC with LCWRA. Something that the ONS don't even include as a possibility. I'm not sure why you think it's unlikely to be significant, what do you base that on? I personally know people who have real conditions but exaggerate them, for instance with a condition that varies, claiming that a bad day which may occur occasionally is typical, or not reporting an improvement in a condition. Some were even advised to do so by supposed charities! Or even getting advice from friends on what to say/do to get PIP/LCWRA. There is a culture in some areas of this being acceptable, normal practice. People who've lived all their lives in middle class areas and don't socialise with people in poorer areas may never see it, possibly like people in cushy public sector jobs like the ONS?. But it exists, and has changed. People who hate it the most IME are people in bad circumstances themselves who see others defrauding the system. As mentioned earlier, the UK has massively more people on disability benefits than other similar countries, Scotland has a bigger problem which may be why it was the Scottish govt that commissioned this report a few years ago:

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2018/07/foi-18-01623/documents/foi-18-01632-international-comparison-disability-benefits-report-pdf/foi-18-01632-international-comparison-disability-benefits-report-pdf/govscot:document/la-commission-des-droits-et-de-l-autonomie-des-personnes-handicapees

Albermarle

Getting_greyer said:

Do you not think that rather than medical professionals misdiagnosing "sadness" as MH illness, the increase could be due to better recognition of signs and symptoms plus people feel more comfortable seeking help as the social stigma has lessened.  

This is definitely one factor, but I think it the whole subject has gone from one extreme ( getting hardly any attention, or having a stigma) to another extreme ( constantly referring it to in media/news/interviews)

Albermarle

MikeJXE said:

After reading moist of the posts on here I find it surprising almost everyone retired early, did no one think enough of their job to stay longer, wasn't there no job satisfaction ? I'm 82 and had to retire at 63 because my wife became ill and I had to look after her, I did that for 10 years till she passed. Now I'm raring to go and start again, When I was working in the construction industry I couldn't wait to get up and go to work, I'm not fit enough to do that now but I am fit enough to do something so I applied for a job, if I get it thats when my life will begin again. 

Firstly you have to be clear that posters on here are not a representative cross section of the public. People actively interested in pensions are more likely to be the type to have the resources to retire early, and/or their interest in pensions etc is driven by a desire to retire early.
Secondly retiring early has no set age. The average retirement age is around 62/63. So is retiring before then classed as early? Or is anything before state pension age 'early' ? Personally I think 55 is early, but anything from 60 onwards is normal.
Many posters on here actively hate working ( or hated it) Some like it but are winding down. Personally I was OK with most aspects of it, but >35 years in one area was enough, so retired at 62.5 ( Mr Average  )

jimi_man

MikeJXE said:

After reading moist of the posts on here I find it surprising almost everyone retired early, did no one think enough of their job to stay longer, wasn't there no job satisfaction ? I'm 82 and had to retire at 63 because my wife became ill and I had to look after her, I did that for 10 years till she passed. Now I'm raring to go and start again, When I was working in the construction industry I couldn't wait to get up and go to work, I'm not fit enough to do that now but I am fit enough to do something so I applied for a job, if I get it thats when my life will begin again. 

I think it's mainly because a lot of people have found that there is more to life than work. That's definitely the case with me and my wife - we are both 57 and giving up in Feb/March (I may keep a small zero hours contract just in case, I'll see how it goes the first couple of months.)

Grumpy_chap

There is a real issue with those that reached some financial flexibility that the work place seems unable to facilitate the worker that does not need to work for the money as the primary cause.  Everything is geared to those that want to desperately climb the ladder and be rewarded through increased salary.  Those that have financial flexibility may well want a less-than-full-time role and just do the core job without being concerned with strategy away-days and all the other activities that burn time.

RetSol

(when not being interrupted by meetings, meetings about meetings, targets, meeting about targets, targets about meetings, etc.).

ROTFL!!!! 

ZeroSum

MikeJXE said:

After reading moist of the posts on here I find it surprising almost everyone retired early, did no one think enough of their job to stay longer, wasn't there no job satisfaction ? I'm 82 and had to retire at 63 because my wife became ill and I had to look after her, I did that for 10 years till she passed. Now I'm raring to go and start again, When I was working in the construction industry I couldn't wait to get up and go to work, I'm not fit enough to do that now but I am fit enough to do something so I applied for a job, if I get it thats when my life will begin again. 

Do you not have any interests outside of work?

I don't mind my job, but there's a thousand things I'd rather be doing that I simply don't have the time for. Life's too short to spend your end of days grafting. If you genuinely enjoy your job, then good luck to them, but it's not for me.

horsewithnoname

RetSol said:

Twenty or so years ago, I spent a total of over twelve months on sick leave on full civil service pay.

My experience is that it is possible to return to work following long-term sickness, particularly where there is support available to do so.

As @zagfles points out however, it may not be so easy to do in today's workplace culture. 

Not sure how you managed that, for the near 40 years I’ve been a civil servant it’s been 6 (now 5) moths full pay 6 (now 5) months half pay then pension rate. 

OldScientist

zagfles said:

OldScientist said:

zagfles said:

OldScientist said:

zagfles said:

OldScientist said:

Kim1965 said:

According to the latest stats there has been a massive increase "in the long term sick". It has follow ed the covid lockdowns, i can only assume that the furlough scheme has "enlightened" more to the benefits culture?
 I think the uk has more of its population defined as disabled than any othe Europe an country, so is our definition stretch ed to folk with bunions? 

For those interested, the stats are at https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/economicinactivity/articles/halfamillionmorepeopleareoutofthelabourforcebecauseoflongtermsickness/2022-11-10

From this report, it would appear that the ONS do not currently have enough data to speculate on what the reasons behind this increase actually are. For example, "A range of factors could be influencing this recent increase. We introduce some of these in this article, but more understanding is needed about the impacts of National Health Service (NHS) waiting times, long COVID, and the ageing workforce".

It is also interesting that industries with significant customer involvement and that, to a large extent, kept open during the lockdowns appear to be most affected (retail, transport and storage, accommodation and food, health, and construction) - you have to scroll quite a way down to find that graph.

Also interesting that the trend started about a year before COVID. Not sure how the "ageing workforce" is relevant since the stats are about 16-64 year olds! Particularly if there's the supposed problem of more 50-64 year olds retiring early, so that would mean the workforce is getting younger not ageing! The trend by occupation seems to be more that lower paid occupations had bigger increases in those long term sick.

There's certainly more going on than the easy answer of 'everyone else apart from me is lazy or dishonest'!

Well the ONS don't even include it as a possibility. Instead they just mention safe options like "the impacts of National Health Service (NHS) waiting times, long COVID, and the ageing workforce". An "easy answer" is one thing, avoiding a possible but controversial answer is another, and not something any objective statistical organisation should do.

Longer time series long term sickness data (I cannot find the original ONS, but it is plotted at https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-long-term-sickness-rate-rises-highest-since-2005-2022-09-13/ ) indicates a decline over 2005 to 2019 before the trend reversed. Looking at the same graph on the reuters page, the number of retired appears to be down by over 50 basis points from 2012, so recent rises are returning us to historical norms.

So much for blaming retirees! Shows a significant long term decline in retirees under 65.

PS - when you quote links in brackets - please add a space to the end of the URL before the close brackets, otherwise the link doesn't work, it includes the ) and you have to manually change the link. Or at least that happens in my browser, others may be different.

I also note that the current economic inactivity rate  (16-64 year olds)(https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/economicinactivity/timeseries/lf2s/lms ) of 21.5% doesn't appear to be significantly out of line with historic values back to 1971 (where it has been between 20% and 26%). The downward trend over the last decade, reversed towards the end of 2019. Looking at short periods of data (like in the ONS report) can be a bit misleading.

Right - but as discussed above with international comparisons, that's likely to be due to increasing female participation in the workforce. In 1971 married women generally weren't in paid employment and so "economically inactive", similar to other countries which now have a higher economic inactivity rate than the UK. In 1971 sex discrimination was perfectly legal - I've got an old newspaper from around that time and the job adverts are an eye opener, adverts mostly mentioned "man" (eg "university educated man required for...") or "Girl Friday" required!

My guess is that they haven't included laziness or dishonesty because a) it is unlikely to encompass a significant number of people and b) it is not easy to measure or define (well, fraud is, but laziness isn't).

For example, among the early retirees on this forum (including myself) how many of us can be categorised as lazy? In the last year, I have written about 75% of a book and 3 academic papers (and, when I've finished responding here, am in the process of finishing off a fourth), but only the book, if I can make money from it, will count as economic activity. Admittedly, I only spend a couple of hours a day doing this instead of the upwards of 10 hours a day I spent when being paid for it (when not being interrupted by meetings, meetings about meetings, targets, meeting about targets, targets about meetings, etc.). I might be safely categorised as one of the 'idle comfortable' since I have enough income to supply my wants without recourse to direct resources from the state. Of course, that will change once I reach state pension age.

Not sure why you're bringing up "lazyness", it seems to be a strawman, it could apply to early retirees or even people who go part time. I was talking about fraud - ie lying about or exaggerating a condition in order to claim PIP/DLA, or get UC with LCWRA. Something that the ONS don't even include as a possibility. I'm not sure why you think it's unlikely to be significant, what do you base that on? I personally know people who have real conditions but exaggerate them, for instance with a condition that varies, claiming that a bad day which may occur occasionally is typical, or not reporting an improvement in a condition. Some were even advised to do so by supposed charities! Or even getting advice from friends on what to say/do to get PIP/LCWRA. There is a culture in some areas of this being acceptable, normal practice. People who've lived all their lives in middle class areas and don't socialise with people in poorer areas may never see it, possibly like people in cushy public sector jobs like the ONS?. But it exists, and has changed. People who hate it the most IME are people in bad circumstances themselves who see others defrauding the system. As mentioned earlier, the UK has massively more people on disability benefits than other similar countries, Scotland has a bigger problem which may be why it was the Scottish govt that commissioned this report a few years ago:

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2018/07/foi-18-01623/documents/foi-18-01632-international-comparison-disability-benefits-report-pdf/foi-18-01632-international-comparison-disability-benefits-report-pdf/govscot:document/la-commission-des-droits-et-de-l-autonomie-des-personnes-handicapees

My apologies - you replied to my earlier comment which mentioned by laziness and dishonesty and I ran with one and not the other.

Fraud is interesting, prior to 2019 (when the way it was calculated changed), the level of benefit (including state pension) overpayment (which may be fraud or error) sat at about 2% of payments. Since they changed the methodology, and particularly since the pandemic, overpayments now appear to be running at 4%. So, assuming the 500k extra economically inactive are all on benefits of some kind (which they aren't) that would appear to be a maximum of about 20k cases (see the rather fascinating document at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-2021-to-2022-estimates/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-ending-fye-2022 ). While 4% is not a small number (and represents about £500m), it is relatively small compared to whatever other reasons are in play.

The Scottish report is also interesting, but only covers 'extra costs disability allowances' and 'Although extra costs disability benefits are found in the countries reviewed here, this report shows that the UK and Scotland are unique in the reach of such benefits. This may be because in most other countries, the main disability support is provided in the form of contributory ‘disability pensions’, and extra costs are assumed to be covered by these.'

In other words, care must be taken in interpreting these data (the caveats listed by the authors in Section 3 are extensive) since they do not include all of the disability benefits paid by the other countries.