BoJo and I agree on a lot of things (Crossrail, cycling, recycling etc.) but, I draw the line at his plans for the elderly.
Speaking at the Older People’s Assembly today, Johnson argued with the government that pensioners should no longer be forced to retire at 65. But, in the midst of an unemployment crisis, keeping the elderly in jobs is just ludicrous. Instead of pandering to the silver-streaked generation the government should be concentrating on opening up jobs for the hundreds of thousands of impoverished graduates.
Boris admirably argued that: “There is no sound reason for people to be unable to work or participate in the life of the capital simply because they are older. People in their sixties, seventies and older bring a wealth of experience, insight and talent.”
Boris is wrong.
The majority of those in their sixties and seventies have built their lives and reaped the benefits: they have houses, pensions and savings. Plus no-one remembers that they had: free education (bye bye student loans!), healthcare, full employment (in the sixties at least), and the expectation that if they gained a degree they’d be on the gravy train.
In contrast, just two weeks ago Labour MP Rachel Reeves expressed concern that, with the cutting of the future jobs fund, young people are facing a bleak present and future: 150,000 students will not find university places, graduates cannot find jobs and there are not enough apprenticeship schemes to take up the slack. These are the people who the government needs to support so that they can cultivate their own “experience, insight and talent”.
Of course, no-one in politics is saying this because the baby-boomer generation’s vote can win or lose an election.
Francis Beckett, in his insightful book, What did the baby boomers ever do for us? , summarises the problem: ‘[The baby boomers] risk trampling on the impoverished generations that come after, and there is plenty of evidence that those generations resent it.’
Graduates need jobs. If the elderly retire later how are graduates going to get them? And, if they do, how will they move up the career ladder if an 80 year old is still squatting on the top spot?
Wake up BoJo. We need to safeguard the future instead of appeasing the electorate.
You clearly do not understand the premise of an ageing population.
Whilst I agree with most of this, if they stop working they stop paying taxes – and we will be stuck paying even more to support them. At least if they continue working they are contributing, and that contribution could possibly fund something like the future job’s fund, or more apprenticeship places.
The problem for the graduates is not that they have to battle the elderly, but that they have to battle each other. The market is completely oversaturated with graduates waving their piece of paper and competing with each other for limited jobs. Labour were very wrong to set the university targets so high.
But yes, the babyboomers did screw us over, good luck to us trying to buy a house.
Let the elderly rely on their pensions and savings while the young get a chance. It only needs to be implemented until we have a full recovery. You risk a lost generation if the elderly don’t create jobs. In fact, a lot of big businesses have agreed.
Graduates have to battle each other in a time when there are no spaces being freed up. Create those spaces through retirement and you’ll have less unemployed graduates.
Sorry, this is mental.
Graduates don’t just deserve jobs because they’re graduates and younger.
Saying, “Right, you’re old: retire” is pretty Draconian to say the least.
If a 65 year old is fully able to work and is amazing at their job in a company, why on earth would that company want to spend the time, energy and money recruiting, training and developing a graduate who has more than likely never had a job? Especially during a recession when a company’s main priority has to be the bottom line. When there’s money for development, great. But most company’s don’t have that sort of flexibility right now.
There is a culture amongst graduates over the last decade or so that they have the right to a job. Sadly, that is never the case in a market economy. Or in a jobs market where public sector employment borrows some market principles.
Either way it’s not great. We have the global markets to thank for that. As well as the government’s reluctance to recoup any of the money lost because of the banks from the banks themselves.
But forcing people into retirement when they still have a lot more to offer society is not the answer.
Graduates need to step up and drop the attitude that they have a right to a job just because they’ve got a degree from an ex-polytechnic.
There’s no right to work I agree. But qualified graduates have little chance to even prove themselves.
David Yeandle, the EEF’s head of employment policy, said: “Manufacturers also need an explanation of what they feel are contradictory messages from the Government. On the one hand, employers are being encouraged to take on more young people to reduce youth unemployment but, on the other, the Government is making it more difficult for employers to plan for changes in their workforce by phasing out the default retirement age.”
AND Graeme Leach, director of policy at the Institute of Directors, said: “We greatly regret the Government’s decision to abolish the DRA. We do not see how the removal of a mechanism that gives employers flexibility in managing their workforce is compatible with the Government’s stated desire to boost enterprise and deregulate the employment arena.”
It’s fair to expect everyone to slog a bit harder but the trouble is that there are just too few jobs. While you may talk about the rights of the elderly think about those young people who’ve spent years building CVs, getting firsts and doing extra curricular work to come out and not even be able to work in B&Q.
It’s a controversial issue and everyone will always take pity on the over 60s. We need to think again on that.
I do think about those young people. We’ve all been there.
But it doesn’t make sense. And quoting economic experts is pointless and we all know it is. We use it in party politics in General Election campaigns when they support our party’s policy but for every one who says “this is right”, there’s one who says “this is wrong”. It’s just yadayadayada….
Think about it. Companies need to return profits at times like this. That is all that matters. Or at least keeping the red number at the bottom of their sheet as low as possible. An experienced workforce provides security that the company can at least keep producing at the same level that it has been. Getting rid of a 30-year employee to bring in a fresh graduate is total lunacy. The employee who had been there for 30 years will keep producing at a consistent rate. The grad needs training and years to bed in properly and they may not even be any good. You might not make a profit of the grad for 5, maybe ten years.
And what happens to the older person when you force them to retire? Welfare payments go up. Sure, they do when a graduate is out of work too. But then we go back to the argument about companies needing to make money and how companies making money benefits the economy as a whole.
Nothing is ideal. There’s always losers during these sorts of economic times. But what your saying is wrong.
And “…everyone will always take pity on the over 60s”. Hmmm. Or, does everyone respect the fact that an over-60 who has been working for decades has a high chance of being more valuable to a company or organisation than a graduate with no work experience? If you think people only value over-6os because of pity, it’s definitely you that needs to “think again”.
Either that, or let’s kick Vince Cable out of office and get my mate that did Economics at Uni in as the new Business Secretary. Plan?
Yes. Tell this to a Equitable Life members who just can’t afford to retire at 65? Or at any time in the foreseeable future.
Yes but why aren’t you ranting about the young people who don’t have a pension pot or accomodation. Nor have they had the chance to gain these things. Labour was wrong to support 50% HE but now what do you do?
My thoughts on the point are simple. First is if someone is qualified and able to do a job, firing them for a something outside the scope of the work place is discriminatory.
Just because a person is young doesn’t make them better, and a job for a graduate isn’t a right. They have to work for it and earn it like everyone else. Firing old people won’t create jobs for the young either, as the majority jobs occupied by the elderly require far more experience then a graduate would have or would require far less then a graduate would consider.
On a more pragmatic note, the younger generations simply can’t afford to pay for the older generation anymore. So keeping some in the work force and taxes coming in helps lessen this some what.
You say the elderly should rely on pensions but with the horrible lack of a pensions fund how do you solve this?
Surely you yourself will agree that university culture is churning out more and more incapable graduates. People now go to university for the lifestyle not the education and these 150000 that you speak of aren’t the over achieving students finding themselves without places but the boarder line C students. I would rather have elderly, and more importantly, qualified people doing a job rather than people who only have their 3rd class degree for a few years of drinking.
Surely reducing University places is just as much of a solution to, what I gather is, your issue.
Hear, hear.
Reform the old polytechnics and make them places for vocational training and study again. You will in turn rejuvenate manufacturing and trades and stop churning out pointless “academics” who only went to Uni because they felt they had to.
The higher education culture went wrong under Labour.
As an employer, I’ll just comment on this…
“And, if they do, how will they move up the career ladder if an 80 year old is still squatting on the top spot?”
By being more nimble, better informed about technology, working harder and being cheaper. Oh yes, and by bringing new ideas to the company, rather than simply turning up for work.
It really won’t be a problem unless it is very difficult to sack older workers, c.f. France.
DK
But there you have the point precisely. How can you realistically sack older employers without discriminating if there’s no retirement cap? Aren’t you going to be opening businesses up to more and more law suits?
You’ve answered moving up the career ladder – how do they get on it? I’ll wager that a lot more young people are willing to work tooth and nail and for little money. I’m not speaking as a bitter young person – I have a job. But I do understand their perspective. The trouble is that it seems to be too popular to prioritise the elderly over the young. It’s even something which I feel awful to voice. I exaggerate but only to demonstrate that young people need to be given the same amount of time by politicians as the elderly. Sympathetic time. Not another tax.
I have nothing constructive to say currently (It’s late, I had a long interview today and I am tired). However, this is awful. This was clearly written to provoke a response no educated person could think this.
There is of course some exaggeration here. But the point stands.
I’d rather not stand on a fence but I can see both sides to the argument. You should read the comments if you want a fair view. And, for that matter, writing a personal insult isn’t the mark of good debate. Nor does it prove that I’m uneducated. It’s a fair argument which you are free to disagree with but it is not misinformed. If you’d like some ‘more educated’ opinions then a group of London economists have agreed [I quote a couple below].
I think it might be considered a weaker argument if you have to traipse through comments to find the ‘fair view’. Instead of writing sensationalist viewpoints for, I can only assume, attention why not write something well-reasoned from the offset?
Interesting read though.
I don’t think it’s unreasoned. There’s a case there and a point to be made. It may not be popular but it’s the flipside of the coin. You also don’t have to trawl. I made my case but, as you can see from the comments, I am not unreasonable. I can see both sides of an argument. I just happen to agree with my own.
I’ll happily write a more ‘educated’ response tomorrow. You can look forward to it!