![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jaceySo this morning on Radio4 I hear that the population of the UK is soon to be at its highest ever. They predict 70 million mainly due to increased lifespan, so we're not just expecting a larger population, we're expecting a higher proportion of elderly. (The number of people reaching 100 multiplying by 7, apparently!)
At the same time I hear that they are intending to raise retirement age even higher. (Currently 65, though its still in the transition stage of rising from 60 to 65 for women.)
So say they raise the retirement age to 70, what happens then?
1) Yes, the government saves on pension payouts for all those people who have paid into the national system expecting to be able to reap the rewards at age 65... but...
2) The job market is flooded with 'elderly' people. (Bear in mind folks are often turned down for jobs in their 50s because employers consider them to be too old).
3) Unemployment rises so those governmental pension savings are drained by people on unemployment benefits. (Unless they intend to cut that too, in which case we see a sharp rise in the number of beggars on street corners.)
4) For every 65+ person still in a job there's a young person not only unemployed, but also losing the habit and expectation of employment and therefore losing the work ethic.
5) Elderly people in physically strenuous jobs (builders, farmers, steelworkers, coalminers etc.) are much more likely to be less effective at what they do and probably end up on extended sick leave if they can't keep up with younger workmates - still further adding to the benefits bill.
Is there something wrong with my logic? Doesn't it make sense that if there are not enough jobs to go round, you let the young people have them in order to get a good start in life and let the people who have paid their dues take a rest if they want to? Or - lest their expertise be lost - put them in mentoring roles if appropriate. They may not be as fit or as fast, but they have a wealth of knowledge and commonsense.
You see, I'm not saying people should be forcibly retired at 65 or at any age, but I do think we all deserve a choice. Let people work for as long as they can and as long as they wish to and as long as they are doing a good job for their employers, but if they want to retire at 65, or even 60, then let them do it.
Don't force the problem of a geriatric and ailing workforce on employers - especially on small businesses who can't afford to cover the cost of having people on extended sick leave or paying full rate for people who have slowed down and don't give such good value for money any more. Many people are still fit and active at 70, but many are not. Even those who are physically fit slow down at that age. It's OK for those folks who sit behind a desk, but what about labourers - especially those working outdoors through a British winter? I have a builder friend - a fabulous stonemason - now 65 and rarely ill, but he says he doesn't want to be working on roofs any more or lifting such heavy blocks of stone. He's lucky, he's self-employed and can turn down a job if it's not within his present physical capabilities, but if he had a boss it would be understandable if that boss was pissed off at any employee who refused to do the full spectrum of work, yet couldn't be sacked in favour of employing a younger man.
Lest this sound like an ageist rant, let me say that I do believe people of all ages add value to our society and that the over 65s have just as much right to their lifestyle of choice as anyone. I'm staring my 60s in the face - or will be pretty soon - and I don't intend to retire, but then, I'm also self-employed and sit behind a desk in the comfort of my own home.
How about using the expertise, knowledge and enthusiasm of the over 60s in more appropriate ways? Have a staged retirement plan. Don't force them, but allow people to retire at 60 or 65 if they wish, but with a part-time mentoring job or an enhanced pension for doing volunteer work in the community (anything from managerial to manual). Surely that would enrich lives as well as enriching communities.
If that prediction of 70 million is accurate, then were going to have to start reassessing the way we approach employment, unemployment, underemployment and retirement in this country. Raising the retirement age is going to cause more problems than it solves.
At the same time I hear that they are intending to raise retirement age even higher. (Currently 65, though its still in the transition stage of rising from 60 to 65 for women.)
So say they raise the retirement age to 70, what happens then?
1) Yes, the government saves on pension payouts for all those people who have paid into the national system expecting to be able to reap the rewards at age 65... but...
2) The job market is flooded with 'elderly' people. (Bear in mind folks are often turned down for jobs in their 50s because employers consider them to be too old).
3) Unemployment rises so those governmental pension savings are drained by people on unemployment benefits. (Unless they intend to cut that too, in which case we see a sharp rise in the number of beggars on street corners.)
4) For every 65+ person still in a job there's a young person not only unemployed, but also losing the habit and expectation of employment and therefore losing the work ethic.
5) Elderly people in physically strenuous jobs (builders, farmers, steelworkers, coalminers etc.) are much more likely to be less effective at what they do and probably end up on extended sick leave if they can't keep up with younger workmates - still further adding to the benefits bill.
Is there something wrong with my logic? Doesn't it make sense that if there are not enough jobs to go round, you let the young people have them in order to get a good start in life and let the people who have paid their dues take a rest if they want to? Or - lest their expertise be lost - put them in mentoring roles if appropriate. They may not be as fit or as fast, but they have a wealth of knowledge and commonsense.
You see, I'm not saying people should be forcibly retired at 65 or at any age, but I do think we all deserve a choice. Let people work for as long as they can and as long as they wish to and as long as they are doing a good job for their employers, but if they want to retire at 65, or even 60, then let them do it.
Don't force the problem of a geriatric and ailing workforce on employers - especially on small businesses who can't afford to cover the cost of having people on extended sick leave or paying full rate for people who have slowed down and don't give such good value for money any more. Many people are still fit and active at 70, but many are not. Even those who are physically fit slow down at that age. It's OK for those folks who sit behind a desk, but what about labourers - especially those working outdoors through a British winter? I have a builder friend - a fabulous stonemason - now 65 and rarely ill, but he says he doesn't want to be working on roofs any more or lifting such heavy blocks of stone. He's lucky, he's self-employed and can turn down a job if it's not within his present physical capabilities, but if he had a boss it would be understandable if that boss was pissed off at any employee who refused to do the full spectrum of work, yet couldn't be sacked in favour of employing a younger man.
Lest this sound like an ageist rant, let me say that I do believe people of all ages add value to our society and that the over 65s have just as much right to their lifestyle of choice as anyone. I'm staring my 60s in the face - or will be pretty soon - and I don't intend to retire, but then, I'm also self-employed and sit behind a desk in the comfort of my own home.
How about using the expertise, knowledge and enthusiasm of the over 60s in more appropriate ways? Have a staged retirement plan. Don't force them, but allow people to retire at 60 or 65 if they wish, but with a part-time mentoring job or an enhanced pension for doing volunteer work in the community (anything from managerial to manual). Surely that would enrich lives as well as enriching communities.
If that prediction of 70 million is accurate, then were going to have to start reassessing the way we approach employment, unemployment, underemployment and retirement in this country. Raising the retirement age is going to cause more problems than it solves.
