Source: Composite by G_marius based on Born.to.be.mild's and Bob Jagendorf's images
Retirement age is becoming a heated debate. When is the best time to retire? Can governments afford current pension schemes? Is paid retirement in danger?
Retirement age debate
Most developed countries recognize the right to retirement with a pension. Retirement age differs across the world, generally between 50 and 70. Usually entrepreneurs and self-employed people tend to retire later than employees. The wealth of the country, average life expectancy and socio-economic paradigms also impact the age when people can retire and get a pension. In addition to the normal retirement age, usually government set an early retirement one. For instance, in the US early retirement age is 62 while that enabling full pension is 67, in the UK 65 and 68, in Italy 57 and 67, and in Sweden 61 and 65.
Raising retirement age
Most people don't feel comfortable with the notion of working longer. However, the recession and aging population has made more difficult the sustainability of system of state pensions and benefits in many countries and forced to reconsider the retirement age. Some analysts argue that if we would work longer we could ensure better standards of living during retirement period. Governments could be able to pay considerably higher benefits to those retired due to the longer contribution periods. Moreover, for many people retirement is actually a problem. Working allows them to feel useful. Writers, artists, academics, etc. tend to continue working even in their 70s. Life expectancy has increased in most countries and most jobs require less physical effort that they used to decades ago (when retirement ages were set in most developed countries).
Lowering retirement age
Working can be enjoyable, but most people prefer to devote time to their families and hobbies. Employees (and self-employed) working at a late ages are not as productive as they used to be. If retirement age was lowered, those jobs could be occupied by younger people who are likely going to be more productive. This could be a way to reduce unemployment rates which is another important side effect of the crisis. Justice is another argument. People that have worked in lower-paid tough jobs tend to die earlier than those conducting better paid jobs. Thus, raising retirement age would impact mostly working classes. Finally, in countries with aging population, immigrants could occupy the jobs and contribute to make pension systems sustainable.
If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.
New to netivist?
Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
You are viewing a filtered list of comments. Click the button above to view all comments.
426 xp
138 posts
You forget productivity. If we increase productivity, then the public pension system is totally sustainable. We often hear the fallacy of proportion of retired people vs working people. These people say: before there were 3 workers for each retired, now there are 1,5 and soon there will be only one: this is unsustainable!!! But really what happens is that we create more wealth with less workers. The problem is not if there are too many retired but how we share wealth. I suggest less taxes on wages and more control on transactions with tax havens, for example. Just making the big companies and very wealthy individual pay their fair share (I'm not talking of increasing taxes for them, just to make them pay their taxes, which they don't).
1360 xp
344 posts
Simply put, no society can afford to have a majority of its constituency as net consumers. Also, the pool of pensioners is getting bigger: in the 1960s, average life expectancy in the UK was 71.3 and retirement age 60 (11.3 years difference); in 1990: 75.88 vs 60 (15.88 years); 2010: 81.5 vs 65 (16.5); of course this does not take into account, that with more people studying degrees, the working life average has diminished as well. In my view, as age expectancy and health quality increase for those over 60's, we should seriously consider alternatives to full-on retirement. Otherwise we, (the post-Baby Boom generation) will end up more taxes to to make up for existing unfunded liabilities of public pensions of 40% of the population! Now of course, if workers were not forced to pay into the scam that is the public pension system, we would be able to grow our assets through our preferred level contributions and retire at a time of our choosing.
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
