Retirement age.
- Thread starter 4p
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 8,876
- Location
- Hoddesdon, London, UK
By the time my retirement time rolls about it will have changed to 'until death do us part'..
What sort of job would you be aiming for that you believe is currently going to be occupied by someone aged between 65-68? Career at B&Q?
Or do you fancy just going straight into some senior management role and skipping the 40+ years experience?
I'm not sure that raising the retirement age from 65 to 68 is going to be too detrimental for entry level roles - it is however going to reduce some burden on tax payers - less to pay out on pensions and (hopefully) more tax revenue coming in... this sort of thing helps the economy to grow and creates more jobs...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
There will only ever be less jobs. It takes less people to make cars than it used to, it takes less farmers to create the same amount of food as it used to... rinse repeat everywhere.
We've been creating "fake" jobs to replace real ones for decades. The current system can't work forever, its a joke, when and how it fails is anyones guess and likely won't be for a long time yet. One good worldwide plague and we can start a fresh anyway.
THeres only so long a system can continue creating paperwork jobs out of thin air to occupy the masses, a huge number of which are paid by taxes, as tax income(compared to the population, adjusted for inflation) goes down every year.
There are less jobs, there will always be less jobs. 1000 people would work in a factory producing items slowly, now 10 people and 100 robots created the same items at a hugely increased rate. There are thousands less jobs and things being made faster than ever.
Retirement age is a consequence of bigger population and less effective tax income, you need to work longer to pay for pensions, and pension schemes only pay out effectively based on nothing more than a pyramid scheme. The 20 million workers tax contributions now pay for the 5 million pensioners, in 30 years it NEEDS to be 35million workers tax contributions paying for the at that time, 15million pensioners, etc, etc. Problem is, population won't grow that fast, shrinking economy(effectively), decreasing jobs required/available, decreasing tax generating jobs mean the ponzi scheme can't continue.
For the moment we need higher retirement age because it puts more people in the work bracket than pensioner, AND people will be on pensions for a shorter amount of time dramatically scaling back the amount paid out in pensions(or keeping it in check more realistically now 5million pensioners living on average say 20 years after retirement, or in 30 years, 15 million pensioners living on average 10 years after retirement.
One way to offset loss of jobs is what Labour had been trying to do for the past decade, get every single last person they can into Uni, gap year, 4 years in uni, as many as possible into masters/phd's, to offset as many people as possible. So instead of working 18 to 60, more people work from 22 to 65. It keeps a large number of people out of the job market if they are in education, Labour failed to understand massive growth in numbers of students at uni meant massive extra education spending, making any savings a wash.
We've been creating "fake" jobs to replace real ones for decades. The current system can't work forever, its a joke, when and how it fails is anyones guess and likely won't be for a long time yet. One good worldwide plague and we can start a fresh anyway.
THeres only so long a system can continue creating paperwork jobs out of thin air to occupy the masses, a huge number of which are paid by taxes, as tax income(compared to the population, adjusted for inflation) goes down every year.
There are less jobs, there will always be less jobs. 1000 people would work in a factory producing items slowly, now 10 people and 100 robots created the same items at a hugely increased rate. There are thousands less jobs and things being made faster than ever.
Retirement age is a consequence of bigger population and less effective tax income, you need to work longer to pay for pensions, and pension schemes only pay out effectively based on nothing more than a pyramid scheme. The 20 million workers tax contributions now pay for the 5 million pensioners, in 30 years it NEEDS to be 35million workers tax contributions paying for the at that time, 15million pensioners, etc, etc. Problem is, population won't grow that fast, shrinking economy(effectively), decreasing jobs required/available, decreasing tax generating jobs mean the ponzi scheme can't continue.
For the moment we need higher retirement age because it puts more people in the work bracket than pensioner, AND people will be on pensions for a shorter amount of time dramatically scaling back the amount paid out in pensions(or keeping it in check more realistically now 5million pensioners living on average say 20 years after retirement, or in 30 years, 15 million pensioners living on average 10 years after retirement.
One way to offset loss of jobs is what Labour had been trying to do for the past decade, get every single last person they can into Uni, gap year, 4 years in uni, as many as possible into masters/phd's, to offset as many people as possible. So instead of working 18 to 60, more people work from 22 to 65. It keeps a large number of people out of the job market if they are in education, Labour failed to understand massive growth in numbers of students at uni meant massive extra education spending, making any savings a wash.
read something a couple of days ago that said theres around 1.5 MILLION oap's in work now, so theres no need to wait and see what will happen we already know.
Hard grafters like me won't reach retirement age
im already there spook, im only 34 and my knees are about done, thanks to working physical jobs (the majority for min wage via agencies) im screwed to carry on. and what do i get for my trouble ??? sod all help from the jobcenter or government for working myself in to the state i am now.
and because im not actually crippled fully but only bad enough to stop doing the jobs i have been doing im not classed as disabled or anything so im expected to sign on and find work myself with no assistance from the jobcenter and now this work programme iv been lumped on, at least at this work programme they admit il find it pritty hard to get anything due to my medical problems
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 6,836
Not sure il make it to 68 anyways 
But the way its going,I think eventually we will all end up working until we die of old age. :/
But the way its going,I think eventually we will all end up working until we die of old age. :/
Make yourself depressed:
http://pensions-service.direct.gov.uk/en/state-pension-age-calculator/home.asp
http://pensions-service.direct.gov.uk/en/state-pension-age-calculator/home.asp
just also to throw into the mix the fact that there is no compulsory retirement age anymore. You can retire when you reach your pension age, but you don't have to and companies can't force you to retire.
Will be challenging for companies to do the staff planning and deal with the implications if you have a lot of employees in physical demanding jobs like service engineers approaching +65 years and intending to work on because their pension is not sufficient.
Certainly not increasing the job availability for youngsters.
Will be challenging for companies to do the staff planning and deal with the implications if you have a lot of employees in physical demanding jobs like service engineers approaching +65 years and intending to work on because their pension is not sufficient.
Certainly not increasing the job availability for youngsters.
The system cannot work undefinetly, because the life expectancy has increased and is increasing a lot. Before, when you retired at say 65 you had more or less 10 years to live. Now you can live very well into your late 80's. However, delaying the age of retirement is not a solution because you can't do the same type of work at 50 and at 60, not to say 70 !
Maybe we need to rethink the whole system, which is globally unfair because it puts the same ages of retirement whether you are working in an office or whether you are working on a construction site.
Maybe we need to rethink the whole system, which is globally unfair because it puts the same ages of retirement whether you are working in an office or whether you are working on a construction site.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,638
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I think I'm still on a 65 retirement because of my age.
Perhaps somebody knows better.
Perhaps somebody knows better.
Yes and no. They can't just because you've reached that age, but they can on grounds like efficiency. Any half-way competent HR department (yes, I'm aware how rare those are) could find a dozen reasons to get rid of you without mentioning your age.
And the OP can safely assume that retirement will be at least 70 by the time they reach that age, and probably rather higher. All the fuss about the government pension system has moved attention away from a massive ticking demographic time-bomb: within thirty years there will almost certainly be no-where near enough tax revenue to support the aging population without drastic measures, including much higher taxes and much later retirement.
M
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
Reckon I'll be dead or invalid by 55, tbh. Thinking about it, I should maybe just stop paying into my pension and put the money in the savings account instead. I honestly do doubt that I'll make it long enough to withdraw any of it!
In case, too, I've missed my mid-life crisis!!!
I need to get thinking...
In case, too, I've missed my mid-life crisis!!!
I need to get thinking...