Topic: Retirement Age for Workers - Does this Make Sense? - page 11. (Read 1570 times)

Yes, retirement age was always one of the lowest in France as far as I remember. Since average life expectancy in France is 80 years for male, I don't think that 64 years is that much for to retire. 62 years old male is really capable to work, still has power and definitely has the knowledge and experience, 64 is a normal and acceptable to my mind. But if French people burn their cities, then I'm afraid their retirement age will grow even higher.

High life expectancy doesn't mean that person will be capable to work till 70. Some people live until 90s but are physically very weak with low energy levels.

A very "thin" topic.
On the one hand, raising the retirement age indicates that the state wants to "save" on the pension maintenance of its citizens. This is a bad indicator, it indicates problems in the economy or a bias in priorities. In a word, this is not a good indicator.

On the other hand - if the life expectancy of the country's population is growing, people can live longer, and lead a full life longer, and can still earn - why not?
But certain conditions must be created for this, and such changes cannot be made in a couple of years ...

It seems to me that there should be some kind of compromise - a person PAYS TAXES FOR ALL LIFE. And there should be some kind of agreement where the conditions cannot be changed. If the state takes money from you in the form of taxes and uses it ineptly, which leads to distortions in the economy, then you should not violate the retirement period, but look for solutions, but not at the expense of those who have already paid, and counted on pension payments in a certain age. Then the taxpayer should also have a mechanism for reviewing relations. For example - you raised the retirement age by 10% - give me back 10% of all taxes I paid, plus the interest rate for using my money for this period, which I counted on but was deceived.

As a young person you can avoid by participating in the social insurance plan, people are participating in that scam plan because of conformity. If you ask them why are they paying huge money for it they will answer that they don't know or they will answer that the company required them to do so. It is the conformity that holding us to achieve freedom that they want, I'm now in my working stage of my life but I never decided to have or participate in that kind of social insurance plan. I don't like security, what I like is freedom. Freedom to buy all I want, it is the freedom to do all the things that I want to do.

I will never achieve that kind of freedom if I will follow the majority of the people or in short comformity. The normal people are participating it without knowing the pros and cons of it. If you want to become rich, do not follow what majority of the people are doing. Follow what the rich people did when they where still starting. They focus on buying assets that will keep their cash flows alive and not buying or participating in scam insurances.

This makes sense if there is a good plan for their retirement. The only sad thing is to use the retirement of retirement in the absence of things.

But early age, they often invest in their retirement fee in business and other properties, but at this time I will only receive a retirement fee for sure the 50% I will put in the Bitcoin investment here in the industry This is it.

I would vote on personal choice after the required service years are finished. For example, 60 should be your last year of service and anything that is later than this should be retirement period of your choice. The finish line can be kept at 64 years of age which seems to be max age to effectively work.

However, there is a catch in this as well. Many employees start feeling inadequate right after they cross their 55’s. Defending on the industry of work this feeling could differ. An IT or desk guy may not feel the pain of working hard if compared to the mechanics or manufacturing based companies.

This is why, it should be kept as personal choice. There should be amendments by the company itself. HR can simply finish this activity when someone hits 60 and could ask the employee if they wish to continue and if they do then what should be the payroll and other incentives. This will help both, the company and the employee without any confusion.

Allowing employees to continue working also needs to be strictly managed to avoid affecting the company's work performance. This requires empathy and consideration for older workers and the rest of the company. Therefore, I agree with the view that employees approaching retirement age should be given the option to continue working or retire after the appraisal to ensure their benefits. But this needs to be managed carefully to ensure that it doesn't affect the company's performance at the same time. This is of great significance to the protection of workers' rights. Allowing seniors to continue working or to retire depends on their choice and due diligence by the company. This helps to ensure that older workers are not left with no choice and no means of living.

Keep in mind that the increase in the retirement age will happen in every country if there's a public social insurance plan in which the government forces you to participate. The life expectancy is going up and the medical costs to keep things going for seniors is just going to rise, so they're forced to raise the age before benefits are paid out. It makes "sense" from the perspective of the government who are forced to meet the obligations of the citizens they forced to participate in the social insurance plan. Isn't so fair for the citizens.

Consider not relying on the government for your retirement. If you're young, there's no way to know when the benefits you pay into all your life will ever be returned to you.

Retirement age is usually depends on citizens' life expectancy and how productive are the old workers. I found if people life expectancy live in France is really high. I think 70 years old in France is still capable to work.


A middle class person will retire earlier if they're bored to work in the company and they have savings to fulfill his need until he die. But for lower class person, he will work until he die because he don't have enough saving and he can't survive if he not work.

You're making sense but are we forgetting who's getting more benefits in this new law, the workers now have a chance of been paid for some additional years and I think that's a good things because many works don't have means of earning immediately they retire so giving them some additional years is a good move by the government of france and other countries should increase theirs.

As we grow older, experience should become a major part of our jobs instead of just relying on physical strength, the older workers can also be shifted to positions that won't need much physical strength so they can work longer and earn enough money to help them in their days of retirement.

In my country, the retirement age is 65 however since everything is so expensive many people work much past that. And they even extended the retirement benefits of security from 65 till age 67 if I recall.

So this is happening everywhere and I am not surprised many other countries are doing this. Obviously seniors won’t like it because they are probably old and want to retire already but with the massive debt that these countries have they have no choice but to make these cuts.

and some people are still working even beyond 65. so this is only a matter of self preference. additional 2 years may not be that bad. at least for some people who are after for their benefits, can still work for another 2 years. they won't increase the retirement age if they are not seeing good reasons on such move. if it is already approved, then people should just look at the brighter side of this change.

I don’t think anybody should have to work past the age of 65, if they don’t want to. The situation in France has been wild but their current retirement age is 62, I really don’t think it is that bad that Macron is attempting to push it to 64. If it was 70 or something I would support the uproar but 64 really is not that old. It’s still younger than many other first world countries. The economy is obviously struggling, working until 64 does not seem too bad in my opinion.

The retirement of the workers is still based on the workers and their capacity to work at the old ages.In my country some people are working at the age of 70-80 years.It May be considered as the different one,but it was the fact.This happening in many countries and in some countries people with below 35 are not ready to work for their jobs and bill.They depend on their family members and brothers to survive in the hard situations.This is not a right way to survive in this world.Some people are ready to save for their life term in his 35 years.Most of them was in crypto trading and some in stock market.Earning money is the essential one.

In my country, the retirement age is okay because all things doing good I don't think I want to work after their retirement age. I will like to live my life to the fullest and not dragging to work more after the age

Once you are 60 years old people should retire and go and enjoy their life, people should not be forced to work into their later years. I know there are pros and Cons to this but it is important to consider a lot of issues. It is important to note that late retirement may not be feasible or desirable for everyone, as individual circumstances and preferences vary. Factors such as health, family obligations, job satisfaction, and personal financial situation should all be considered when making decisions about retirement and the Government shouldn't be in the position to make this for one, especially when you look at the history of Government when it comes to important issues like this

I always believed that relegating senior and experienced workers to advisory positions with less hours and decent pay is a good way to go. Giving them a choice to accept this role or quit working won't hurt any company that they're working on. Experience and knowledge is always respected and valued no matter the field is, and you can't pass it on to the young ones without a senior teaching them a thing or two about their industry.

The retirement age they have imposed is okay, though there should always be an option for these seniors to continue what they're doing albeit in a less physically-intensive work load and of course, reduced amount of pay, but I guess that's just me wanting these kinds of things to other people. I want to retire early, but I understand the void that it will leave me once I no longer do what I'm doing for years all of a sudden.

No one can discriminate senior workers in a workplace, remember they are the people who get in the work first, and others are like juniors to them.  In work ethics, it is often that seniors are getting the respect of their juniors.  If a person wanted to discriminate they will discriminate regardless of the age of person they wanted to discriminate.

Also, I don't think that underperformance will be the issue in this decree.  Since we cannot see any major changes in the performance of a person if ever the retirement age is increased by 2 years.  Other people are working even at the age of 70+.  I agree that it can bring both positive and negative emotional and psychological impacts to the worker but it is what it is, the government implementation of an increased age retirement bracket will not please everybody.

It makes sense. However, it is important to note that ageism in the workplace is a real issue, and older workers may face discrimination and be forced into retirement even if they are still capable and willing to work. In terms of the benefits and drawbacks of retaining older employees, it is essential to strike a balance between experience and productivity. While experience can be invaluable, it is also important to recognize that cognitive and physical decline can affect job performance. Employers should consider alternative arrangements such as part-time work, flexible hours, or job sharing to accommodate older workers and maximize their contributions while minimizing the negative impact on their health and well-being.

Usually the Government's decision to increase the retirement age depends on many factors, including life expectancy, labor requirements, economic conditions, and social policies. Several countries face the problem of labor shortages and increasing the retirement age can be one solution to overcome this. If I see that President Emmanuel Macron made the decision to increase retirement age from 62 to 64 it was wrong, so there were pros and cons because there was nothing urgent. After all In general, some people at the age of 64 are no longer able to work properly and productively, while others may experience a decline in their health and skills that affect their effectiveness at work.

Besides that, increasing the retirement age can also trigger several impacts, one of which is triggering negative reactions from certain groups, such as the news that you share with trade unions and social organizations. In this case, the French government should carefully consider these impacts before making a decision to increase the retirement age. Therefore, I do not agree with President Emmanuel Macron's decision.

Extension of retirement is of an advantage and also of disadvantage. One of the advantages is that the worker will enjoy more years of service when they appear to be young and able to work. One of the disadvantage is that the younger workforce would not have space to be accommodated in the work space.

But talking with respect to this topic, the increments of the retirement year from 62 to the 64 should be made in such a way that it would be the opinion of the worker to continue the next two years, if not they should retire with their whole benefits.