Now, my last post seems to have caused quite a bit of controversy: “This is mental”, “ignorant, nieve [sic] and, if not, just stupid”, “disagree”.
However, I am not a lone wolf howling for the retirement age to stick. In fact, Matthew Parris seems to have read my piece or, what is much more likely, we are in one mind (dramatic pause). Either way it’s always nice to know wizened politicos support you.
As it’s behind a pay wall I shall quote a few of his eloquent words from his Saturday Times column:
“Compulsory retirement may sound unfair, but it carries one huge benefit for employers, for younger jobseekers, and for the health of the economy.”
He continues: “There are millions like me in Britain, fading slowly, and there always will be. The means must be available to dislodge us without a bloody ruinous court battle.”
And here’s the best bit:
“There’s a whole generation out there waiting for some of us to move. They should have rights, too.”
Well said, Matthew. Well said.
There is no vindication. Your view is selfish and misinformed.
How is it selfish? And how is it misinformed? You need to give me a bit more than a personal insult to validate your argument.
Read the piece.
I’ve always wondered how theoretically and empirically right the assertion that older people working longer increases unemployment. There are many reasons to think that (which you outlined), but there are many that would suggest others. Just off the top of my head:
-older people earning more money stimulates demand (if they spend it)
-unsustainable pension bills increase public spending, and either tax or the deficit goes up, both of which through various means (mainly higher taxes on employment) increase unemployment
-these jobs are not open to the unemployed, only through a long, long chain of promotions do you get down to unemployed graduates
Not saying you’re wrong but you may be!
And as a liberal, shouldn’t you support the right to choose when you retire?
I’m liberal and I do support it ideologically. However, right now it seems that young people are sidelined. There’s a greater crisis in protecting those who have no savings. no future and large debts.
Yes but how do people go up the career ladder if people aren’t moving at the top?
Job seeker’s allowance is also very costly.
I may have said it rather strongly to emphasise my point but just look at the amount of 16-25 year old NEETs. No-one’s addressing it. Yet, people are speaking up for the elderly…
I don’t know why if Matthew Paris says it, it’s right?
I wouldn’t say you are “selfish”, it’s just a wrong idea. And it’s not the best idea for businesses during a recession trying to maximise their income.
Bearing in mind this is the same man who wants to harm people who cycle I am suspect to his opinion. I’m also curious to see if when the time comes he sacrifices any position that might bring him earnings and live solely on his pension. Just because this politician has lost the plot and uses the Thames as a swimming pool doesn’t vindicate your argument. I’m happy to have a decent standing politician in my corner with Mr Johnson.
Correct me if I’m wrong but in his article not entitled “Raise the retirement age to 70? No. Make it 30″? Well done Matthew, helps the economy no end that. Hell, lets not have anyone work and join you in the Thames.
Please explain how throwing experience from our companies and services helps them perform? Tell me why expanding these companies and services to create room for younger workers is a worse idea? Finally tell me how you would pay for the pensions with an already strained pensions fund?
Keir agrees with Rob.
It’s economic lunacy.
Parris puts it more eloquently than I ever could. Hence, quoting him. Plus, why listen to me? Parris is a much more respected journalist and politician. I’m trying to show that it’s not just me, a young person who thankfully has a job, who feels this way. We all use people to support our arguments. You said it yourself.
If you read Parris’ argument he isn’t saying reduce it to age 30. He was using a journalistic skill called exaggerating.
Parris: It’ll make it a lot harder for companies to encourage retirement for a worker who is not performing. Sometimes these things are hard to prove and judge and so it opens companies up to a lot more law suits and unable to sack those who are not performing as well as a youngster might.
Expansion isn’t a worse idea. The trouble is it just isn’t happening right now. Tell me, how it is fair for a young person with: a student loan, no rent money, no job or chance of job (or perhaps they’re interning for free where you get no dole) to have a smaller chance at getting employed because there are no openings?
The government is protecting the elderly but young people are just being left behind. That’s an awful policy too.
Companies also need fresh blood for longevity. Something which isn’t being invested in right now.
There are a lot of problems with the pension system but we also have a strained job seeker’s allowance.
Hi
I have read both pieces and I have to agree with Boris and disagree with both you and Mr Parris.
The age of 65, the date of forced retirement is just a number and that is the problem. And that is why forced retirement should be stopped. It is not about ability. It is not about desire. It is not about employment economic. It is just a number. And it is the wrong number.
Being forced to retire at 65 has a number of detrimental effects. Going from full-time employment and busy on day (64 years old and 364 days) to being told the next day that you are told old to work is a shocking proposition in a civilised society. It has a devastating effect on people as well.
Suddenly many social contacts are lost as is the opportunity to make new contacts. The brain, used to being active very quickly begins to lose some of its capabilities.
Economically it can be devastating as well. Many women in the late 50s early 60s only started working 20 odd years ago after raising a family so have only the meagre pensions available to them. Their independence, hard won by them and their forebears in the feminist movement is cruelly removed from them and again they are forced to rely on their husbands pension/income. Not because they want to, not because illness or injury has forced them. Instead, just a number says they can no longer work.
Employers need to consider their workforces more dynamically. The ‘old out, the young in’ model will does not work even now and wont work in the future as the population gets older and older. In many firms we see EU workers replacing older people who are retiring. The is currently more prevalent in many lower paid jobs (why is a 19 year older EU worker happy to pluck chickens but not 19 year British person anyway?) but the situation will get worse. Employers need to ensure that their employees are fit for the jobs that they are doing but that is about proper employment practices (regular appraisals and work performance measures) rather then saying 65=useless. If companies were clever they would start offering phased retirement over a few years, thus keeping skills available and, even better, having flexible workers (how many 60 year olds phone-in sick due to childcare issues?) who can cover for problems. I note that even the business representative organisations have differing points of view. The FSB are against the retirement age but the CBI are. Given that most people are employed by small business I would tend towards the FSB.
Even now, there are more retired people than teenagers and soon the number of people of working age (18-65) may well be overtaken by the number or retired people (65+). That is an unsustainable economic model. NI has been a pyramid scheme with current and future workers at the bottom of it. Someone who retires today is going to get at least £100k (very basic calculation) of pension payments taken from current taxation before they die. If more people are forced to retire that figure goes up. And there are fewer people (even if there was full employment there would still be fewer people and the problem would be just as bad) pay taxes to pay for pensions – never mind care costs and end-of-life care. So from a simple economic point of view, there needs to be changes that remove people from economic activity at 65.
You talk about things being fair on younger people. It is true that things are very difficult at the moment but these things are cyclical and they will have opportunities in the future. Punishing people because they have reached an arbitrary number is nowhere near fair either. And when you are dumped and abandon at 65, the chances of any positive opportunities in the future and next to nil.