Topic: Retirement Age for Workers - Does this Make Sense? - page 3. (Read 1570 times)

Not many people can achieve the level of income that will allow them not to work when they want. Also, often the pension is not enough to provide themselves with everything they need and these people have to continue working.

Sometimes people continue to work even in retirement because they are bored of being retired without work, but this is also a very rare case, most often they keep going to the work because they need money. The retirement age is needed so that the government knows when to pay citizens a pension, but recently there is a tendency for governments to raise the retirement age, so people have to work until they are old.

Everything has a deadline.  Similarly human performance and mental skills also have a fixed term.  After a while, the human brain no longer works as before.  The human body is no longer functional as before.  Every man has to retire after the appointed time.  There are many more young candidates in the country who need to be given job opportunities.  How will the government and private institutions get new candidates if the senior citizens do not leave their seats?  Everything needs innovation.  Everything has a certain age limit and we have to accept it and move forward.

Well, there's mortality rate and that means that not all of the people working will be able to render until their retirement and there are a lot of people that have economic difficulties.

And that means that they're going to find better opportunities for which will open opportunities to the young ones. Honestly, there's always opportunity somewhere else for each of us.

But we have hard time finding them or because it doesn't fit the criteria that we set or the passion isn't just enough.

In this case it will really depend on each person and also the environment in which they live, you are right, if someone is alone and doesn't have a family to take care of them, of course they have to keep working no matter how old they are because if they don't have a job, of course no one will want to take care of them. except for themselves and for those who have families, there are even some who are under 60 years old. They no longer work because their families take care of all the things they need and they will spend more time with the families they have.

If the old man was living alone without the support of his family members and they left out by their sons means he had no option other then working.In other case,some people had the potential and brave to live with their own earning.Such old people doesn’t accept the money from their family members also,they try to take food by earnings.Such people was motivated people to the younger generations all the time.The life of each people was not the same one,some also work because of their family left out to avoid of care them at the old ages.


If the government increases the retirement age for the old people it doesn’t take the opportunity of the young people.Because the younger generation even get into the government job at the age of 30-35.But every one year after the 60 years will be very hard,because in many families they was not get respect because of the money support to their family.

In my opinion, it all depends on each person. because people's pleasures are different in nature, for example someone who is 60 years old and he does not have a family or only lives alone, in my opinion, a person like this will prefer to continue working because of his situation who does not have a family and the friends who are in his workplace are his family so maybe I he will continue to work even though he is 60 years old.
And there are those who choose to retire at the age of 60, because they have a family and realize that their old age must be spent with their family because their pleasure is in their family, and their family is the most valuable treasure in life.
So everything has its own portion.

With the numbers given those are the ages of the people who can receive as part of the elder people which we call senior people would like to retire at that early age if they can but it depends on the kind of life what they have, if you raise already a good amount of money during that times you can now leave as you want and retire but what if not? people in the lower-low status of society can't choose this kind of life because they don't have any options they need to keep working so they can serve food every day and keep working hard for the challenge of life. Not all the time government can sustain those seniors at the end of the day it's their path of their life that make them keep alive.

Well, let me first of all say that, I do not see a much difference between 62 and 64,  though I still understand that having to work for  2 more extra years can be really a lot and unbearable for the man or worker who have been waiting and looking forward to retiring for a long time. And this I believe is where the need for personal decision comes into play and very vital as well.

Workers own their body right? They themselves know how they feel in the inside, they know how weak they've become, they themselves know if they really need a rest or to keep going, workers are to be at liberty of choosing when to retire, a sick man 60 years old man can't possibly keep working all in the name of trying to reach the specified retirement age, he may as well possibly drop dead before he reaches the stipulated retirement age, and this totally makes no sense.

Well, honestly, I have relatives who are in government who have grown old, started working single or had no husbands until then, got married, and until they get old or retire, they are there in their service to the government.

And the benefit they got when they got their retirement fee is that they have a monthly pension of around $200, so it still makes sense the fatigue and hard work they did somehow because the money they got was given the lump sum of 50% of their pension and the other 50% is in pension every month.

This decision is of course pros and cons but of course, it has been through research and so on and this is also happening in my country, especially in civil servants and also the military, it is increasing but I don't know for sure whether it has been implemented and it is still several years faster than in France, and looking at the newspapers that the retirement age in France is still different compared to the average in other European countries at around 64-65 years, and because it has only been increased by two years, this should not be a problem because adjustments can be made quickly.

Retirement is the period of time someone that has been working his whole life uses to enjoy his years of active service and extending it means the person has to almost work with the whole of his active life and will have little or nothing left after retirement.

I know that it is just a difference of two years but for some, it means a whole lot . I think the suggestion you gave is very valid because the desire to continue in active service after the normal retirement age should be totally left for the person retiring to make .

one of the reason why we don't see much vacancy I recent is because most people have refused to retire and give way to the younger folks to piloting the affairs I firms and organisations. Increasing tye retirement age for workers won't do them any good, for crying out loud, you've worked for 40+ years and you are already in your 60s what do you still want in the service?

If you give most people the option of retiring or to continue working, they will comfortably choose not to retire because most of them don't even have an investment to run back to and they are not even sue that their pension would be paid to them at the end of their service year.

We're all allowed to choose whether we want to pursue working or not. But in most cases of government jobs and even in the corporate, there's a retirement age for most employees.
Whilst for executives, they don't have retirement age and they can just pass it on to anyone that think is qualified to work on the task for their position.
Otherwise, retirement is for everyone if they think that they're on that age.

In my opinion, in this case it depends on the health of the citizens, in essence in terms of physical and other things, of course the government also carries out research on the physical and performance of the people because sometimes each country always has different physical conditions, and in my opinion, aged 62 or more, are no longer strong. in physical terms but of course in this case there are definitely pros and cons and even in one country but sometimes physical conditions vary so I think in this case there must be awareness from individuals because in reality everyone has different physical conditions sometimes there are times when people who are old but still want to work because their physical condition is very good, but there are also those whose physical condition is no longer strong, even though for example they are less than 60 years old, so in my opinion, in this case we have to respond wisely.

People should be allowed to decide if they want to continue working or not because most people retire without any achievement  it has  resulted to different cases of forging ages just to sustain and last long on the job so government should allow workers to be optional on this because many retire and find it difficult to survive

Productivity at age is not always the same from one person to another and there are some people at the age of 50 who cannot even work anymore due to limited health. Every company or government has a different perception regarding productivity age, but I think it needs to be seen from a health perspective. In my country there is usually a young retirement term for people with health problems and they don't have to wait until retirement age to stop working.

So as long as they are still productive at work, I don't think it's a problem, but it's different if they don't have health that can encourage more productive work. Age 62 years should be enough for workers to retire and does not need to be added to 64 years for retirement.

This is a double standard. You are speaking in two voices supporting extension of retirement age and also pointing at unemployment rate for the young people. Of course if old people are retained in work force even when they are not contributing efficiently to the economy, they need to be replaced and this may not be done selectively. The best is to let them go for a replacement with the young people and you may open up space for the old active workforce on a contract or part time bases because of their expertise. I believe countries with long service age are those who lack young workforce for replacing the old. There are more advantage for introducing energetic minds in the workforce and these advantages are what we all know needless to mention.

It makes sense to raise the retirement age so that people can continue to contribute to the workforce and the economy. Many workers are physically unable to work past a certain age, and that raising the retirement age would unfairly penalize these individuals. There are also economic considerations to make into account. If the retirement age is raised, it could lead to decrease in unemployment rates as older workers remain in the workforce for longer. This could also lead to a decrease in job opportunities for younger workers who may struggle to find employment. Retirement age for workers should be based on efficiency of employees. It is important to balance the needs of older workers with the needs of the economy as a whole in order to ensure a fair and sustainable system for all.

It seems that the retirement age is around 60-65 years. And because they certainly think about the productive period of the workers while working. And if you are above that age, of course you have to think again about your productivity, about the risks at work, how big the impact is, not only for the company or institution but also for yourself. So I think, if it's time to retire and it's old enough, there's no need to extend it anymore. especially if they do get a pension fund, at least they can have enough rest in their old age. Even if they still want to work, maybe they at least choose work that is not heavy, not binding, and can be done optimally according to their conditions.

There are many things to take into consideration before we say that this is the right thing. Because with old age, people lose the edge both in mental and physical health. What business wants? More production and works. So if they keep those guy who are over their 60s and lost the edge, then that will be a loss. Experience is not everything when it comes to work. It is important, but in order to implement that to work, you need strength and mental capacity to keep working. New recruits will be less productive in terms of working benefits, but they will pick up the pace and gain those experience if they work hard.
Also, the population of this earth is not decreasing every day. Instead, it is increasing. So if you keep people over 60s, will that not take away the opportunity from the new generation? Working opportunity is getting less and less every day, and not to mention that the competition is so high these days. What to do in this situation? On the other hand, those who retire, they can create their own business or help the new gen to gain the experience that they have achieved over the years.
Or the companies can offer a service in where the veteran will teach the newbies what they know best. And in return, they will get paid for their service. Doesn't this make more sense than keeping them in the work and taking away opportunities from others? I don't know, man. This is what felt right to me.