PDA

View Full Version : Retirement age increased by a few years - for or against ?



Maciamo
15-02-10, 22:58
The Spanish and German government are planning to increase the legal retirement age from 65 to 67 years old. Other European countries are considering the idea too.

With the declining birth rate and the ageing of the population prognostics for the future are grim. If people do not keep working for a few more years there just won't be enough tax money to pay for the retirement allowances in a few decades. Measures have to be taken now.

I am all in favour of postponing retirement. Not only is it necessary, the number of healthy years in life increases constantly and it has been proven that staying active also helps staying fit and mentally alert. The new measures shouldn't apply to particularly demanding and stressful jobs though.

Wilhelm
15-02-10, 23:04
I think more and more young people have difficulties to find a job when they finish their studies because people are retiring much later. I think this is a big problem. I would go for more young people , instead of more old people.

^ lynx ^
15-02-10, 23:11
I voted yes. It makes sense.

Marianne
02-03-10, 14:12
I am in favor too. I think that since live expectancy becomes higher, retirement age should increase too. Two years should be enough for now. I also think that women should retire 2-4 years earlier than men, but this is a different topic and from what I read EU politicians are not huge fans of it :D

Starship
02-03-10, 14:46
Im not sure, I know of people forced to retire at 65 who were not ready to go and had plenty still to offer but as some one else said what about the younger generation trying to get a foot on the ladder.

The other consideration should be the different types of occupation, do we want 68, 70 or maybe 75 year old police men on the beat, firemen, teachers, brick layers etc just a thought.

Cambrius (The Red)
02-03-10, 15:45
Yes, something like 68 is probably fair. People today are living longer and, on average, much healthier than even just a few decades ago.

Gwyllgi
02-03-10, 16:00
Do away with a fixed pension and instead make all support means tested.

While people can provide for themselves, even if only in part, they should. That includes sale of any property to fund their lives when they can't work.

edao
02-03-10, 23:52
I think everythig is life is being delayed a few years.

People are studying longer, leaving it later to get married, later to have kids, and children are living at home longer. I think its a natural extension of our longer life spans. I am all for increasing the retirement age, the 60 year olds of today are in much better shape than those 40 years ago.

Although when I get there perhaps I wont be so sure:angry:.

elghund
03-03-10, 02:43
As long as they are doling out one welfare check, then no. Cut out all entitlements to the young an healthy before denying those who worked their whole lives.

A ke bono kane kotto
27-04-10, 09:50
It makes no sense to keep the same retirement rules now as in the 1950's. The pyramid of age is completely different and so is the economy !

Minty
13-06-10, 21:19
France's retirement age is 60 years old, everybody else from other countries all can work longer and retire longer, and I don't see why the French can't work longer. Anyway either you increase the pay for retirement or you decrease the pay for retirement, which both have made different people very upset, increase retirement looks like the best option.

France has one of the world's highest standards of social benefits; this attracts foreigners coming over here trying to get a piece of the share of the benefits. The problem is we know for sure one day the government will no longer be able to feed all these people, of course here we are not just talking about retired people.

Sarkozy has tried to reform many of these problems and his approval rating has taken a dive. The French are never happy; I think he will not win for the next election.

It also depends on how many years a person has contributed working for the French economy, right now you need to have worked up to 41.5 years in France to receive the full retirement here.

denaria
03-08-10, 23:34
I have no intention of retiring until my health forces it. Hopefully I will die at my desk!

Aristander
04-08-10, 02:56
I am in favor too. I think that since live expectancy becomes higher, retirement age should increase too. Two years should be enough for now. I also think that women should retire 2-4 years earlier than men, but this is a different topic and from what I read EU politicians are not huge fans of it :D

I think since women live longer than men they should retire 2-4 years after men! :good_job: :grin:

Seriously here in the US there is a sliding scale depending on what year you were born in. For me I have to wait until 66 years old. People younger than me have their retirement ages adjusted up to 67. Anyone born in 1955 has to wait until 66 years 2 months, 1956 66 and 4 months, and so on, until any one born in 1960 or later has to work until 67. This has been in place since the Clinton presidency.
This is for the Government provided retirement stipend. The place I have worked at for 38 years has a fully funded retirement system that allows full retirement at 62. It used to be you could get fully funded retirement at 58, but we were sold to a new company and they adjusted our retirement up to 62.

Chris
06-08-10, 08:48
It's inevitable, when you look at the state of the global economy and the changing demographics of society.

GP850mAh
19-04-11, 18:03
I voted yes, we can't afford having people retire at such an early age as they are some places. We need all the workers we can get to create wealth.

Reinaert
19-04-11, 18:32
I vote NO, because global economy is a disaster nowadays. Money that was saved by my generation for a pension, wasted by companies that used it to speculate on shares instead of using it to build houses, where it was originally meant for.
Now that the capitalists have destroyed a lot of assets, the older people must not be the victim of that fraud!

In many European countries taxes are the reason why people can't save enough money themselves to take care for a life after work. Fir instance in The Netherlands you can only have a 20.000 euro savings per person, without having to pay some wealth tax.
If you sell a house, and earn let's say 100.000 euro per person, you have to do something with it, or you lose it in a few years.
If you hire a house, the rents are even higher than when you buy a house.

And let us not forget, it's ridiculous that older people should work so hard like they still do.
The younger are poorly educated. Whose fault is that?
Indeed, the stupid right wing governments.
I work with young people, and it takes at least a year or two to get them some experience in the technology industry.
The management is bad and ignorant. Older workers still work hard, and are badly paid.
Companies kick out skilled workers, and then simply ask them back for a poorer wage.

Who wants to work anymore for those leeches?
Not me.

Regulus
19-04-11, 18:53
I vote NO, because global economy is a disaster nowadays. Money that was saved by my generation for a pension, wasted by companies that used it to speculate on shares instead of using it to build houses, where it was originally meant for.
Now that the capitalists have destroyed a lot of assets, the older people must not be the victim of that fraud!

In many European countries taxes are the reason why people can't save enough money themselves to take care for a life after work. Fir instance in The Netherlands you can only have a 20.000 euro savings per person, without having to pay some wealth tax.
If you sell a house, and earn let's say 100.000 euro per person, you have to do something with it, or you lose it in a few years.
If you hire a house, the rents are even higher than when you buy a house.

And let us not forget, it's ridiculous that older people should work so hard like they still do.
The younger are poorly educated. Whose fault is that?
Indeed, the stupid right wing governments.
I work with young people, and it takes at least a year or two to get them some experience in the technology industry.
The management is bad and ignorant. Older workers still work hard, and are badly paid.
Companies kick out skilled workers, and then simply ask them back for a poorer wage.

Who wants to work anymore for those leeches?
Not me.

I have to agree with some of these points.
Those in control of pension funds should know that they must invest properly, avoiding speculative markets, or face severe puishment.
I do not agree with those who claim that we should raise the retirement age simply because people are living longer. The fact that we are living longer does not make one more able to work or more vigorous at 65 years old than a person of similiar age twenty years ago.

Of course the age minimum of 65 applies to the US, but the principle is the same for all countries when it comes to changing whatever minimum there is and by extension forcing older people to work longer.

edao
09-06-11, 20:56
A video about the world aging population from everyones favourtie institution the IMF!

"The world's population is getting older. Countries need to think about how fewer young people can continue to support the elderly."

Watch video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ukNFMeZvcc&feature=feedu)

LeBrok
10-06-11, 08:16
I've heard this many times in many forms. Usually the theme goes that in past, when pension, retirement started (about 100 years ago) there was 30 people working for one retiree. Now we have 8 working for one retired, and it will get to 4 in a generation.

It made me thinking, how is it really possible, to achieve in 8 now what 30 had to do in a past. On top of it our retired people have much better retirement than people one hundred years ago could afford.
The explanation that I found is in production, economy, the growth of GDP per capita.
I found this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190-economy-gdp-per-capita-1900 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190-economy-gdp-per-capita-1900)
It shows GDP per capita in 1900 for many countries, in today’s dollars.

It means that GDP per person has risen roughly 10 fold, in last 110 years. It makes sense when we compare what life was like in our countries 100 years ago and now. We have bigger and nicer houses, fast shiny cars, phones, tv, more food, bigger bellies, clothes, travel, health care, fly around the world, you name it.
How is it possible?
Do we work harder? - No
Do we work longer? - No
So how can we produce 10 times as much as hard working people of the past? How today's worker can produce as much as 10 workers century ago? Did we become a super humans, supermen? What do we have they didn't?
A magic wand maybe? :shocked:

Well, we have machines, machines everywhere. Many more, faster and efficient machines than ancestors did one hindered years ago. Machines harvest, produce, dig, carry goods, lift loads, build cars, calculate, solve problems, wash, pump, cut. Generally they do work for 10 men. Today’s people are as efficient at work as our grandpas were long time ago, but the production progress, the GDP growth was achieved by our beautiful machines. Often undervalued, and working tirelessly behind the scenes, are taken for granted, and are forgotten how valuable they are. Surely people have to operate and maintain them, but the combination of workers and our powerful machines is awesome.

Yes, it's true that only 8 today’s workers pay dues for one retiree, but if one compares it to efficiency from hundred years ago, it's like 80 workers from old times paying for one man over 65 now.
Now, it doesn't sound that scary anymore, does it?

Let's go 100 years in the future. Let's assume nothing really bad happened, meteorite didn't wipe us out, and the WW3 was avoided. Even Greece is doing well again. :grin:
Thanks to science we created even better machines, and finally robots. GDP grew another 10 fold. It would mean that one worker from future can produce 100 times of what worker 200 years back could. It also means that one single worker will be able to support one retiree.......Scrap this.
All people will be retired, robots work for all people, robots operate machines,....scrap this. Machines operate and fix themselves; they even design new machines to produce even more for us. We all retire; nobody works, and still has a sweet life.

What I was trying to explain is that we look at numbers of how many works for retired people the wrong way. We are not comparing apples to apples.

Besides, in western world, 65+ seams to be the richest age group from them all.

Reinaert
10-06-11, 09:54
A video about the world aging population from everyones favourtie institution the IMF!

"The world's population is getting older. Countries need to think about how fewer young people can continue to support the elderly."

Watch video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ukNFMeZvcc&feature=feedu)


Well.. You say it... Fewer young people...
Why? Because in the capitalist mayhem of the last thirty years it isn't very wise to have a bunch of children.
Parents plan 2 or 3 children, simply because they can't afford more.
Education has skyrocketed in costs.
And then there are the companies moving their activities to China.
That has less jobs as a result.
I had a nice career in electronics and IT in the 80's and 90's, but my children saw the jobs disappear to the far east, so they weren't interested in a technical study anymore.
The governments also were good friends with the banking boys, and together they created the hot air bubble that collapsed a few years ago.
Now the citizens should pay, while the business jackals get away with extremely high bonuses? NO WAY!

edao
10-06-11, 09:59
Good point Lebrok, i do think people love to sensationalize global warming, obesity, old age.
We love to think about how doomed we all are!

I wonder though if we are becoming to automated, we now have auto check outs in the UK in supermarkets meaning they save money on staff, personally I prefer them as they are quicker and easier that queuing for small talk with some half wit. I have done work with an international printer who are moving their whole business model online, they are basically planning on closing their entire franchise net work over the net ten years. They make a bigger margin the customer get a lower price by cutting out the franchise who acts as a middle man. The internet has allowed them a sales outlet which used to be the high street. While you might argue this is win win, its just more jobs lost, I wonder how we match up a growing population with falling jobs?

julia90
27-03-12, 01:19
here in italy there was a scandal some decades ago:
basically the government allowed some of its public workers the so called "Baby Pensions".
Baby Pensions = In 1973 with the Rumor Government where approved pensions for statal workers as soon as they reached 14 yeras and sixth months of contributions for women married with children, or 20 yeras of contributions for men public workers or for women without children.
Thankfully these kind of injustices were eliminated in 1992.
In Italy in the past (more), but also nowdays, public workers are more protected (expecially on pensions, as they still go to pension earlier than private workers) than private workers; this is a huge injustice.. the wearing effect of time on men is the same for everybody public or private worker.. then why are they still threated differently??... i have a personal answer to this.. because they are votes for socialists... that so socialists and egualitarian aren't because they threat people differently...

The Alani Dragon
28-03-12, 23:55
There needs to be flexibility in the age of retirement as some people wish to carry on working, while others can't wait to retire. Should the age increase? I'm not too keen on an increase, but if there are finacial problems in a country then a small increase might be sensible, as long as medical research backs up the ability of the population to cope.

Brett142
03-06-12, 22:31
The thing is, if people wanted to, they could retire at 40 or 50. If people choose to be a 9-5 slave all their life then expect to work later, of course. It makes sense if our population is getting older and there's not enough working people to support them.

how yes no 3
04-06-12, 22:06
I found this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190-economy-gdp-per-capita-1900 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190-economy-gdp-per-capita-1900)
It shows GDP per capita in 1900 for many countries, in today’s dollars.

It means that GDP per person has risen roughly 10 fold, in last 110 years. It makes sense when we compare what life was like in our countries 100 years ago and now. We have bigger and nicer houses, fast shiny cars, phones, tv, more food, bigger bellies, clothes, travel, health care, fly around the world, you name it.
How is it possible?
Do we work harder? - No
Do we work longer? - No
So how can we produce 10 times as much as hard working people of the past? How today's worker can produce as much as 10 workers century ago? Did we become a super humans, supermen? What do we have they didn't?
A magic wand maybe? :shocked:

Well, we have machines, machines everywhere. Many more, faster and efficient machines than ancestors did one hindered years ago. Machines harvest, produce, dig, carry goods, lift loads, build cars, calculate, solve problems, wash, pump, cut. Generally they do work for 10 men. Today’s people are as efficient at work as our grandpas were long time ago, but the production progress, the GDP growth was achieved by our beautiful machines. Often undervalued, and working tirelessly behind the scenes, are taken for granted, and are forgotten how valuable they are. Surely people have to operate and maintain them, but the combination of workers and our powerful machines is awesome.


its not only usage of machines,,,
we have learned that merchandize is not just a real product, but anything one may wish to buy....
majority of products today are non touchable things like informations and services....
industry has turned into a matter of convincing people to buy what they do not really need...
and very process of convincing is another new industry with lot of money...
but with steadily growing population it is matter of time where real products like food and water (and maybe even air one day?) will become scarce resources and their price will rise...so we will again work just to feed ourselves...

and population needs to keep steady increase as otherwise there will be not enough money for retired people....
in mean time, nature is turning in fast pace into one big garbage can where we dispose of all products that we do not really need...

to conclude, this can not last forever....
economist should think of better models of aranging resource usage of a society...

there is illusion being created about carrying for environment by talks of CO2... but CO2 is not a problem, it is merely a consequence....when temperature rises CO2 rises as well....real problem is destroyed ozone layer due to immature techologies we use - e.g. for our refrigerators... real problems are piles of garbage that we produce increasingly more....we are civilization that destroys itself...

taking that into account i am not sure I need to worry about retirment.... life as we know it may ceaze to exist before that time...

Cimmerianbloke
07-06-12, 04:00
The pyramid of ages in Europe already started to inverse itself when I was a kid, we learned and studied that at school. The retirement scheme for public workers is not enough to assure the currently working population an income when they'll hit retirement age. By then, what those people paid all their life through taxes and contribution will barely be enough to cover their basic expenses, as some pensioners in Spain can confirm today. The whole current system should be scrapped, governments should encourage people to invest into private retirement schemes, but that would deprive these governments of a very big slice of cake. Keeping people in their job as long as possible has a double advantage. First, elderly active people contribute actively to the running of society and government expenses, and second, work keeps them away from hospitals and nursing homes. In the US, lots of people keep working beyond retirement in order to benefit from employer-financed healthcare cover. I think it would be a good option for Europe to implement that kind of healthcare cover, as universal healthcare is a major issue across the EU.
The bottom of the problem is to find a balance that would allow willing people to retire at their own chosen age without penalising the working population or keeping the youngsters away from much needed jobs... I am also in favour of a two to five years extra contribution to the workforce, to align the retirement age to the ever-expending life expectancy. Sadly, it means I will have to work until 70 to 72 years myself...

zanipolo
07-06-12, 04:26
the new french predident announced today he will drop the retirement age in france from 62 to 60.

LeBrok
07-06-12, 07:04
If I'm healthy I'll gladly work till I'm a 100. Find the job that you like or like the job that you have, and problem of retirement is solved. The retirement system should be substituted with "handicap compensation" only for people that can't work for health reason.
Find a job that you like, be creative, think positive, enjoy life (that includes your job), make smart choices (life is not a rocket science). Unless you're lazy, sick, hate your job and life in general, you shouldn't care for retirement age.

PS. This post is not directed at anyone of posters.

hope
07-06-12, 13:48
If I'm healthy I'll gladly work till I'm a 100. Find the job that you like or like the job that you have, and problem of retirement is solved. The retirement system should be substituted with "handicap compensation" only for people that can't work for health reason.
Find a job that you like, be creative, think positive, enjoy life (that includes your job), make smart choices (life is not a rocket science). Unless you're lazy, sick, hate your job and life in general, you shouldn't care for retirement age.

PS. This post is not directed at anyone of posters.


I agree with you to a point Le Brok. Most people think retiring will give them free time to do all the things they did`nt have the time to do
when working but the reality is often different. There are some who cannot mentally cope with so much available time on their hands and can become depressed. Many are still healthy and energetic but now with no real outlet for it.
Unless you have been able to sort out a good pension scheme you may also find you are not financially able to do the things you wanted to.
On another note however , if we did`nt get retired there would be even less work for the next generation and goodness knows even those armed with degrees are often having trouble finding work places to-day.

LeBrok
08-06-12, 03:16
I agree with you to a point Le Brok. Most people think retiring will give them free time to do all the things they did`nt have the time to do
when working but the reality is often different. There are some who cannot mentally cope with so much available time on their hands and can become depressed. Many are still healthy and energetic but now with no real outlet for it.
I know what you mean hope. From my observations, most of folks don't have defined interests, hobbies, or passion for anything, or will to do anything; except watching tv, sleeping, eating, drinking, and generally roaming around the house or yard - just to fill the day. They also work, but work is wherever life had lead them to. The job for them is either indifferent or just hated. No wonder they are looking forward to retirement, so they don't need to go there, but not because they have extensive plans for retirement. Just one less dreadful think to do, or fewer things they don't need to do.
I'm sorry to say that, but most of ordinary citizens are like children. They'd rather not do anything unless they are pushed by circumstances. If they do something, it usually is about money, sometimes a spouse. Most of them feel dislike to new or ongoing education, self improvement, career change or anything new and unknown.
The more I understand the more normal citizen scares me, lol.



Unless you have been able to sort out a good pension scheme you may also find you are not financially able to do the things you wanted to.
This, and what I said above gives me a realization that we are never going to get away with retirement program.



On another note however , if we did`nt get retired there would be even less work for the next generation and goodness knows even those armed with degrees are often having trouble finding work places to-day.
This is because are economies are messed up at the moment.
Well, actually not mine (Alberta, Canada), we need 20,000 workers right now. The economists painting even bleaker picture, because baby boomers are retiring en mass. We need them to stay working as long as they can. Isn't it something?
The key, to solving many social problems, is good economy.