Topic: Retirement Age for Workers - Does this Make Sense? - page 8. (Read 1422 times)

People lose their ability to work after a certain time. As a result, he has to go to retirement since it was a specific time. But the main thing is that when a man retires, he is not the one he becomes. However, many people may have a slight problem in the work and many can perform the task naturally. However, the government must give a specific limit here otherwise the discipline will not remain. However, if the government extended the time here to 2-4 years, it would have been more associated. Because some are able to work enough at that time.

I agree that it's people's right to decide whether to continue to work after retirement. It becomes their decision to make since they are no longer employed to anyone. If you are an employee, you must know that your employer is the one that will make decisions about your work, including when he feels that you are due for retirement. You don't have much choice when the employee wants to review salary or retirement age. So going further, I also agree that it is good that an employee that wants to continue work after retirement should have plan for a business that has no age limit, as you rightly mentioned.

Yes, workers should have the option to stay after the age of 50-60, in my opinion, because human abilities differ from one person to another. Some people weaken early at the age of 50, while others retain their strength until 70 years.

This is on the one hand, on the other hand, in developing countries, where government salaries are insignificant and not sufficient to cover living, forcing workers to work up to 60 years with these ridiculous salaries, so workers must have the right to stay or retire before reaching this age.

It was logical but at least the parents realized they were getting older and didn't force themselves to keep working and it was time to retire. If the government gives them more time to work, they can do it if they are still strong and can work well. But if not, they should choose to retire and enjoy their days well without thinking about work problems. After all, having worked for more than 10-20 years seems enough for them to provide the best for their office, company or business. It is time to give that responsibility to the young ones to continue and develop it so that it is even better.

Physical ageing is inevitable and their performance will not be as good as when they were young. In addition, companies may incur more costs for them, especially for health checks, because the elderly are prone to health problems. And it would be better to realize that it was enough for them to create and now is the time to enjoy the results. But people who still want to enjoy all the facilities of the office or company will not let go easily and will continue to try to keep working despite their limitations.

Retirement for workers shouldn't only to rely on the social insurance funds that all countries provide to their citizens. In my country, for example, every person pays insurance expenses at least once a year, or deductions are made from the wages of employees once every three months, so that they get a fixed wage upon reaching the retirement age, which ranges on average between 60 and 65 years. Determining the retirement age is subject to many factors, the most important of which is the economic conditions of the state and its compatibility with the age structure of the population.
The good thing about this plan is that you can pay as much as you want, and according to those payments, the retirement age wage will be determined ; I mean, if your current circumstances are good, you can pay a large amount, and if the circumstances do not allow, then the little amount available can be satisfied.

It is logical. In spite of the fact that older people may still be capable and ready to work, ageism in the workplace is a serious problem that can lead to forced retirement. It's crucial to balance experience and productivity when weighing the advantages and disadvantages of keeping older workers on staff. While experience can be extremely helpful, it's also critical to understand how physical and cognitive aging might impact work effectiveness. To accommodate older workers and maximize their contributions while minimizing the detrimental effects on their health and well-being, employers should take into account alternative arrangements like part-time work, flexible hours, or job sharing.

I strongly agree with this, everyone reaching retirement age should have choice: either its time for retirement, or he or she has some energy to stay in job. The real problem lying beneath issues with retirement age is overall income difference: a janitor with a bunch of chronic diseases and with no savings must be free after years of so unpleasant work. And if it's a CEO or entrepreneur, or high rank civil servant with millions of dollars lying under his/her bed, doing nothing but creating schemes to deceive employees and rivals... Then its totally a different age-related retirement case...

The majority of the Unions don't want it
In a country like ours, our senior workers hate the word retirement because their pension can not keep up with the standard of living, it may be different from France because they don't want it, and it being unpopular in France makes us conclude that senior citizen in that country wants to enjoy the fruit of their labor by retiring early than what was proposed by their leader.

For a rich country where a senior retiree has a lot of benefits, they want to enjoy it as early as possible but for a third-world country a $100 to $200 worth of pension will not be enough.

They should be given that option and they deserve that because they contributed to the company's growth, the company should assess the employer if he is still fit to work and what work in the department he is convenient at his age.
We all hate the word retirement when we are workaholics and we treat our job as something part of our existence, there are senior people who have a good memory and can still keep up they have become very organized through the years and developed an insight on their work through the years.

Such is the case in my country as well. The main thing to discuss here is; Is the pension sufficient to sustain one's life? What is the difference between the salary that a person receives while working and the salary he will receive when he retires? This is the main determining factor. Therefore, rather than asking the person's opinion, the main issue is the difference between the pension and the salary he receives while working.

The retirement age in our nation is 60 years old, but it has been discussed raising it to 65 years old, which is a good thing because there are still elderly people who wish to work to support themselves. Since the majority of them want to have successful careers before retiring, I don't see any issues with it. For us to be able to continue to enjoy life as we age, we must lay a strong foundation for our careers while we are still young. We should constantly consider saving and planning for the future as long as we are strong and capable of working.

There’s a lot of ups and downs in your perception on what need to be done about retirement age. Some people after retirement always end up miserable because they didn’t plan well for their retirement or maybe government policy that is not favoring retirees.

Another disadvantage of leaving worker to decide when to retire is the fact that some countries doesn’t have the capacity to accommodate more workers without retiring the old ones and hence can lead to low productivity in economy of the country entirely. The idea of which to go for, whether to retire workers when they reach the age limit set by the government or they retire at their own will depends on how it’ll favour the overall economy and wellbeing of the people.

I'm not sure if this is the situation in all countries, but in my country for many years there was a policy that people received approximately the same pension. One has been working for 25 years and the other for 35 years, but people's pensions did not differ much. If you want to get a big pension today, then you or your employer must pay a lot of taxes. The retirement age is constantly rising, and not many people live to this age. But you have to trust the state in this difficult time, or think about your pension on your own.

Governments like always were shortsighted when they designed the retirement system or maybe they never had the intention of paying up, as such a model could work when the population pyramid consisted of a lot of young people as the base of the pyramid and very few old people at the top, however now we are living longer due to a combination of better medical attention and a change on the habits of the people, while at the same time a global campaign to reduce the number of kids born out of each couple was implemented, this changed the nature of the population pyramid and now governments do not know how to square that circle.

Well, it might also be because they want their senior employees to serve a bit longer in their duties since we know knowledge and experience plays a great role at any job, so if senior retires and is replaced by a young worker, he probably won't bring the same expertise and professionalism which the senior had within himself.

I don't say that the younger generation is not talented and can't cop with responsibilities and carry the burden of their seniors, but they will obviously take their time until they become able to fit in the shoes of their seniors who retired.

I have thoughts about the imbalance of working age, when the aging population in the EU or Japan and the US is growing, and the level of young workers is decreasing and many people are not interested in serving. service with local jobs they only benefit from preferential policies from unemployment benefits.
I'm not sure about the appropriate level of retirement in their country, but where I live, people usually retire before age 60, perhaps because of their poor health, they need to be replaced by a class are younger and we really feel that retirement is not a concern with the current workforce. Sometimes I see people in some countries claiming their own interests, but they are not under a good obligation to build a developed country in a balanced way, benefiting from many years of policies in terms of finance makes people less conscious of labor responsibility, it is not natural for the government to decide that, accept it as a contribution and bring balance rather than demanding personal interests when there is no obligation to perform well.

Well, I have only one question here. Why this retirement age is not applicable in politics? Joe Biden will be 86 years old when his second term ends in 2028 (in case he gets elected during the 2024 POTUS elections). My question here is, if someone at 86 years of age is capable enough of running the country, then how can you prevent (or impose a blanket ban on) someone who is 66 years of age from working in some other domain? IMO, it should be left to the employee and the employer. If both the parties are satisfied with their current arrangement, then the government doesn't have any role to play.

This relates to the culture of every country. You can't just tell them to retire base on their merits and achievements in the past as opportunity of each person is different. One person comes from a rich family and able to graduate Law. The other one worked  a hard labor being a plumber.

Not sure if they have 401 in France but 401 as well is dependent to how much you have saved for yourself.

Retirement age should not be a thing of much concern.  The government knows the input of every staff and it  Should not be a thing of concern to separate the seeds from the shaft. The out put of every staff should determine if they should be retained at some certain age which is a legal age of compulsory retirement.

Those staff who contributed immensely during their vibrant age Should be retained so as to share their wealth of experience to the junior staff.

I know of a man who served and achieved so many milestones while in active Service. He was well known be the state government and to federal. Due to his vast experience and knowledge on the job, his year of retirement was extended to 5 years and even after retirement, he is still sort after by the government for consultation and technical input uptill date, he is called upon when ever there is a difficult situation at hand.

What I am trying to say here is that the government or organization knows their workers very well. They know their inputs and that is a factor to guide them through making decisions after retirement of workers. Age should not be a concern as their are lots to learn from older generation that has been on the job. I think this is another topic of discussion because the new generation gets things wrong in line of duty most times and would need the advice or guidance of the older to get things going.

It should be based on performance really, if you are rich, then you can retire at whatever age you want, like Mark Zuckerberg had the IPO and had billions of dollars at that point, he was less than 30 years old, he could have retired easily and just had fun, that's a type of retirement too. And some person may retire at 70 and still have huge debts and not survive and have financial trouble, that guy retired as well. Are those two the same? Obviously not, they are nowhere near the same.

This is why the 62 or 64 discussion worths nothing, it all depends on the performance, governments job is to make sure that elderly could live a life where they do not have to worry about shelter, food, clothes, health and so forth, basic needs, after that, whatever their age, if you can provide that, then rest should be up to them.