In my country, 56yo is the set retirement age, while in the US it is an average of 63 to 65. In conclusion, individually the productive age of each employee can be different and sometimes some aren;t ready for their retirement, so 2 years imo isn't too much addition to make lots of protests here and there.
But I agree that this policy shouldn't be implemented all at once. Actually there is a more subtle way that isn't provocative for the majority of workers, like op's last suggestion.
Topic: Retirement Age for Workers - Does this Make Sense? - page 9. (Read 1422 times)
Workers who are approaching retirement age should be given a choice after appraisal to keep working or retire.
What sense does this make? Would you agree or disagree?
People age differently, and while some other people in growing old may become both weak in body and mind, some others may just become weak in body but their minds more better with time. For that reason I feel workers should not just be given a choice but some sort of test to determine is they will be fit to continue working or retire. What sense does this make? Would you agree or disagree?
If only a choice is given without any form of test to really know the answer, some workers may want to lie about their fitness to continue working productively, just so they can still get the benefits of working in the company.
Retirement is a math game.
Every government that allows and pays some funds to your retirement has skin in the game.
Every government in the world wants the following thing to not happen.
My stepfather worked for the Long Island Railroad in New York.
He got the job in the 1950s when he came back from Korean War.
He was born in 1932
he got the job in 1954
he had a boy in 1960
his boy joined the Long Island Railroad in 1982
he retired in 1987 got his government funded pension. retirement age was 55
his son had a boy in 1990
that grandson got a Long Island Railroad job in 2010
his son retired in 2022 retirement age was raised to 62.
So right now.
My stepdad will be 91 this july and he is on pension since 1987
My stepbrother is 63 this april and he is on pension since 2022
My stepbrothers kid has had his job since 2010 and can retire in 2052
So one worker getting paid
and two workers getting pensions
This is not an affordable thing to do.
So pension age gets raised.
but this fucks kids coming out of college since the older worker has to wait to retire.
The swing is still towards pushing workers to older pensions and fucking college kids.
Maybe it swings back.
Every government that allows and pays some funds to your retirement has skin in the game.
Every government in the world wants the following thing to not happen.
My stepfather worked for the Long Island Railroad in New York.
He got the job in the 1950s when he came back from Korean War.
He was born in 1932
he got the job in 1954
he had a boy in 1960
his boy joined the Long Island Railroad in 1982
he retired in 1987 got his government funded pension. retirement age was 55
his son had a boy in 1990
that grandson got a Long Island Railroad job in 2010
his son retired in 2022 retirement age was raised to 62.
So right now.
My stepdad will be 91 this july and he is on pension since 1987
My stepbrother is 63 this april and he is on pension since 2022
My stepbrothers kid has had his job since 2010 and can retire in 2052
So one worker getting paid
and two workers getting pensions
This is not an affordable thing to do.
So pension age gets raised.
but this fucks kids coming out of college since the older worker has to wait to retire.
The swing is still towards pushing workers to older pensions and fucking college kids.
Maybe it swings back.
In government jobs it's definite that you are going to retire after 60 or 65 years of age and after that you'll get pensions to support you in later years. But in business you have no retirement and no definite working hours which is tiring as everyone wants to relax at some point in thier lives .
The state-owned pension/retirement system is the biggest ponzi scheme in history. Few young people enter the labor market, while many old people leave the labor market and start getting pensions. The only two ways to maintain the system are:
1.Import more workers from somewhere else-Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc.
2.Raise the retirement age gradually or at once.
Raising the retirement age with 2 years at once, was a radical decision by Macron. I don't know why he decided to do such thing.
A way better solution would be to raise the retirement age with 3 months every year for several years.
Anyway, I'm not a big fan of the "Bismarck" pension system.
1.Import more workers from somewhere else-Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc.
2.Raise the retirement age gradually or at once.
Raising the retirement age with 2 years at once, was a radical decision by Macron. I don't know why he decided to do such thing.
A way better solution would be to raise the retirement age with 3 months every year for several years.
Anyway, I'm not a big fan of the "Bismarck" pension system.
It is quite understanding that every individual get older day by day and as we get older our power and strength and ability also reduce, which natural affected our output. Due to this poor output is what brought about retirement age, generally there is a particular age that we are weak as humans and cannot do some certain work.
Retirement age also in need and useful to implement in every organization so that the weak ones can give ways and opportunities for the young ones and youths to be replaced. It is a chance given previlage for the young ones, I think retirement age for workers makes sense in my own view and little understanding.
Retirement age also in need and useful to implement in every organization so that the weak ones can give ways and opportunities for the young ones and youths to be replaced. It is a chance given previlage for the young ones, I think retirement age for workers makes sense in my own view and little understanding.
Raising the retirement age is not a panacea. It simply means that state leadership is incompetent. There are many other ways to support the state's economy. It's not worth hitting the most vulnerable people. I hope that reason will prevail and that the retirement age increase will eventually be repealed.
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.
Maybe indeed at that age people can still work but the work done at that age in my opinion will not go well, therefore people who work at that age must be rewarded for their dedication to an institution
The French government is trying to reduce the cost of paying salaries and other employment benefits. When workers retire they have to receive gratuity and pension which affects the finance of the government. The government also needs to employ new staff to fill the position of these retirees which is also capital intensive. So to save money, they have to increase the age of retirees to make them work more years, which will also help the government to save the cost of employing new staff for an extra two years.
This policy will also help in reducing the number of foreign professionals that will be attracted to France. But the government fails to understand that forcing people to work against their will may lead to low productivity. Although some people might like the policy because they still want to be active for more years, I think a high number of French workers are against this policy and we might be more protests today.
This is the gist of it, this is about money and nothing else, the French government likes most governments around the world is heavily indebted and they need to find ways to reduce their expenses, and one way to do it is to increase the age at which people can retire as they can avoid paying those people the money they are owed for a few extra years, but this is nothing more than a temporary solution as eventually people will work for that extra period of time and retire anyway, so unless the French government finds a way to increase its tax revenue they may begin to consider more extreme options, like raising the retirement age for workers again or simply stop paying their obligations to them. This policy will also help in reducing the number of foreign professionals that will be attracted to France. But the government fails to understand that forcing people to work against their will may lead to low productivity. Although some people might like the policy because they still want to be active for more years, I think a high number of French workers are against this policy and we might be more protests today.
I am not so well informed on the French politics, but I'm my personal opinion and raise in the age of retirement is viewed as a cut in the governments plan for those desire to retire and spend the rest of their life in a calm situation, enjoying the money they have managed to accumulate during their professional career.
I am not sure why Macron needed to do this, are there not enough experienced workers in France ? Why not start a goverment program to recruit professionals adroad?
Even thought it is only a difference of two years I can perfectly see why anyone would not feel happy with that.
The French government is trying to reduce the cost of paying salaries and other employment benefits. When workers retire they have to receive gratuity and pension which affects the finance of the government. The government also needs to employ new staff to fill the position of these retirees which is also capital intensive. So to save money, they have to increase the age of retirees to make them work more years, which will also help the government to save the cost of employing new staff for an extra two years. I am not sure why Macron needed to do this, are there not enough experienced workers in France ? Why not start a goverment program to recruit professionals adroad?
Even thought it is only a difference of two years I can perfectly see why anyone would not feel happy with that.
This policy will also help in reducing the number of foreign professionals that will be attracted to France. But the government fails to understand that forcing people to work against their will may lead to low productivity. Although some people might like the policy because they still want to be active for more years, I think a high number of French workers are against this policy and we might be more protests today.
I am not so well informed on the French politics, but I'm my personal opinion and raise in the age of retirement is viewed as a cut in the governments plan for those desire to retire and spend the rest of their life in a calm situation, enjoying the money they have managed to accumulate during their professional career.
I am not sure why Macron needed to do this, are there not enough experienced workers in France ? Why not start a goverment program to recruit professionals adroad?
Even thought it is only a difference of two years I can perfectly see why anyone would not feel happy with that.
I am not sure why Macron needed to do this, are there not enough experienced workers in France ? Why not start a goverment program to recruit professionals adroad?
Even thought it is only a difference of two years I can perfectly see why anyone would not feel happy with that.
In my opinion retirement age should be around the 50's of someone's age, despite them being men or women. And the age should be also the same for both genders. After all, is all this talk about equality for real or not?
I say that about the age, because from my experience, always I talk to people who are on their 52-58 years old, they show a lot of disinterest for working. They complain about it, they say it's time to stop and take easy with daily life, and when they are forced into something they aren't willing to do (regards work, in special), they become angry, annoyed, upset, depressed. So once they reach the 60's, they have a lot of negative sequels on their behavior, that potentially prejudice the after-retirement life considerably.
Even if I agree in principle that those which have worked for so long should enjoy a period of rest once they are old, we must remember that not long ago people literally worked until a few days before their death, and the longer people live and the more time they spend not working then the more expensive they become for governments all around the world, and this will eventually cause governments to simply stop paying pensions all around the world, so if anyone wants to retire early and avoid this scenario then they have no other option but to save and invest their money on their own. I say that about the age, because from my experience, always I talk to people who are on their 52-58 years old, they show a lot of disinterest for working. They complain about it, they say it's time to stop and take easy with daily life, and when they are forced into something they aren't willing to do (regards work, in special), they become angry, annoyed, upset, depressed. So once they reach the 60's, they have a lot of negative sequels on their behavior, that potentially prejudice the after-retirement life considerably.
Increasing the age for retirement is like delaying their benefits for the sake of the government interest and I don’t agree with this one. In my country 60 years old is the retirement age and that is the only time you can get benefits from government, this could be an ideal age after working for so many years, i don’t know the culture in France but I don’t think this is a good idea, having an old employee can affect the company on many cases.
If I'm not wrong you're from India. Earlier retirement needs to be followed, maybe something around 55 is good in my understanding. After 60 even the fittest will feel tired and they doesn't have the time to enjoy. If the retirement age is 55 years of age, atleast they'll enjoy life for the next five years and then take rest. In my country it is like they spend 60 years working and spend the retirement fund on their children's education and marriage. With what they receive as pension they run the daily life. In that a major portion goes to medical expense. 
In my opinion retirement age should be around the 50's of someone's age, despite them being men or women. And the age should be also the same for both genders. After all, is all this talk about equality for real or not?
I say that about the age, because from my experience, always I talk to people who are on their 52-58 years old, they show a lot of disinterest for working. They complain about it, they say it's time to stop and take easy with daily life, and when they are forced into something they aren't willing to do (regards work, in special), they become angry, annoyed, upset, depressed. So once they reach the 60's, they have a lot of negative sequels on their behavior, that potentially prejudice the after-retirement life considerably.
I say that about the age, because from my experience, always I talk to people who are on their 52-58 years old, they show a lot of disinterest for working. They complain about it, they say it's time to stop and take easy with daily life, and when they are forced into something they aren't willing to do (regards work, in special), they become angry, annoyed, upset, depressed. So once they reach the 60's, they have a lot of negative sequels on their behavior, that potentially prejudice the after-retirement life considerably.
Increasing the age for retirement is like delaying their benefits for the sake of the government interest and I don’t agree with this one. In my country 60 years old is the retirement age and that is the only time you can get benefits from government, this could be an ideal age after working for so many years, i don’t know the culture in France but I don’t think this is a good idea, having an old employee can affect the company on many cases.
...
What sense does this make? Would you agree or disagree?
What sense does this make? Would you agree or disagree?
"Full retirement" in Serbia is at 65 years and 40 years in service, for men. If you have only one of those conditions met you can go to pension, but it will be reduced by some %! Before in "communism and socialism" it was different, but now we have capitalism. And as I read from the news we will go to 67.5 soon, but nobody will raise their voice about that... So I have respect for French workers, they fight for their rights. I hope they will endure... but it will be tricky.
I am not sure if that makes or doesn't make any sense, I guess it all depends on where you live... in which part of the world you belong. The conditions are different when you move a bit on any side. The point should be on people who fight for their rights, if we do not fight for our rights we can't expect some changes.
Quote
France's Constitutional Council on Friday approved an unpopular plan to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64, in a victory for President Emmanuel Macron after three months of mass protests over the legislation that have damaged his leadership.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/france-retirement-age-raise-64-approved-constitutional-council/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/france-retirement-age-raise-64-approved-constitutional-council/
This so-called measure has several benefits and drawbacks. The elder employees can benefit from their years of experience if they are retained on the job for longer, which is one advantage. The drawback of this is that many workplaces will report low performance because there is an inverse relationship between a person's success at work and their deterioration in cognitive and physical capacities.
Regardless, what I think is that the government shouldn't shove it down the throat of people. Workers who are approaching retirement age should be given a choice after appraisal to keep working or retire.
What sense does this make? Would you agree or disagree?
Quote
France's Constitutional Council on Friday approved an unpopular plan to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64, in a victory for President Emmanuel Macron after three months of mass protests over the legislation that have damaged his leadership.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/france-retirement-age-raise-64-approved-constitutional-council/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/france-retirement-age-raise-64-approved-constitutional-council/
This so-called measure has several benefits and drawbacks. The elder employees can benefit from their years of experience if they are retained on the job for longer, which is one advantage. The drawback of this is that many workplaces will report low performance because there is an inverse relationship between a person's success at work and their deterioration in cognitive and physical capacities.
Regardless, what I think is that the government shouldn't shove it down the throat of people. Workers who are approaching retirement age should be given a choice after appraisal to keep working or retire.
What sense does this make? Would you agree or disagree?
I think it's still depends, there's a lot of workers in a retirement age and still contributing a lot in a company which makes them the foundation. By that it you can't just simply change their role or else it would impact the company's economy. It's the retiring people's choice if they'd still want to contribute or not, some of them doesn't really afford to lose the job as their source of money for their needs, maybe if they have the savings or investment that could help them to retire without worrying about the financial needs.
We also need to think of new graduates for youngster. They also have the potential and skills that suit for some jobs. But due to low hiring rate they can't apply to jobs. In the end it's still up to them. If the company doesn't approve retiring age then they can't do anything about it as the company principle.
We also need to think of new graduates for youngster. They also have the potential and skills that suit for some jobs. But due to low hiring rate they can't apply to jobs. In the end it's still up to them. If the company doesn't approve retiring age then they can't do anything about it as the company principle.
Quote
France's Constitutional Council on Friday approved an unpopular plan to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64, in a victory for President Emmanuel Macron after three months of mass protests over the legislation that have damaged his leadership.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/france-retirement-age-raise-64-approved-constitutional-council/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/france-retirement-age-raise-64-approved-constitutional-council/
This so-called measure has several benefits and drawbacks. The elder employees can benefit from their years of experience if they are retained on the job for longer, which is one advantage. The drawback of this is that many workplaces will report low performance because there is an inverse relationship between a person's success at work and their deterioration in cognitive and physical capacities.
Regardless, what I think is that the government shouldn't shove it down the throat of people. Workers who are approaching retirement age should be given a choice after appraisal to keep working or retire.
What sense does this make? Would you agree or disagree?
I would say just give them the salary and get them retire as early as possible because the youngster can be more helpful in many ways but to the core experience matters too.
Jump to: