Topic: Retirement Age for Workers - Does this Make Sense? - page 9. (Read 1570 times)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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