State retirement age is too old for working class people

[Spiceup]

An observation from some things I've seen lately. I'll explain.

I work in a public sector organisation that employees highly qualified and very well paid professionals alongside support staff on not much more than minimum wage and those in between.

Part of my role is managing sickness absence. What I am seeing lately is that the professional types, despite doing what are generally accepted to be stressful jobs, on the whole, stay well until well into their sixties, although many do retire earlier simply because they have the kind of pensions that make that possible.

People in the more lowly jobs are often genuinely finished by their mid-late 50s. Just worn out and suffering from multiple health problems. Perhaps because of their lifestyles or maybe from just having harder lives (not necessarily harder work lives, but getting by is just generally harder for them). To have to go on to 67 is just absurd and very few do, with ill health retirement common (so the state is paying anyway).

I can't begin to imagine how similar people manage in genuinely physical jobs, in construction for example.

Is it more common for working class people in their 50s to be worn out, or perhaps more comfortably off professionals retire before they get to that point so I don't see it?

I always knew the fear of paying more tax would override the fear of Covid.

@MrsSkylerWhite

Given life expectancy even in the poor areas is still high 70s,“

Sorry, this is just wrong (and way out). Following from Lancashire County Council website:

“The figures below refer to the 2017-19 period unless stated.

Healthy life expectancy (HLE) at birth for males (all ages) in the Lancashire-12 area (60.6 years) is significantly worse than England (63.2 years).
Blackpool (53.7 years) has the lowest male HLE expectancy in England; Blackburn with Darwen (59.6 years) is also one of the lowest. Both are significantly worse than England (63.2 years).
For females, HLE in Lancashire-12 (62.0 years) is significantly worse than England (63.5 years), Blackpool (55.3 years) and Blackburn with Darwen (59.7 years) are also significantly worse”.

Perhaps you don’t live in one of “the poor areas”.

Healthy life expectancy is not life expectancy.

HLE is how long people remain healthy, life expectancy is how long people live before dying.

The life expectancy in Blackpool is 74.4 for men and 79.5 for women, the national average is 79.3 for men and 81.0 for women.

Grenlei,

Maybe you had an unusually luck and healthy family. I’m 57, lots of my peers or older are really struggling. I was a teacher, but had so many pain problems l couldn’t cope with being on my feet 10 hours a day. Most teachers have gone by 55. Nearly all have gone by 60. They are too worn out.

Dh is 62. He finds commuting really hard now. I know lots of people in late 50’s/early 60’s who just can’t do it any more. And a lot of this is professional work.

I wouldn't say my family are particularly healthy, stoic maybe. My father worked in a physical job, on his feet all day despite various health issues until 2-3 weeks before he died aged 74. But again retirement wasn't an option for him so he had to keep going.

@Grenlei

I wouldn't say my family are particularly healthy, stoic maybe. My father worked in a physical job, on his feet all day despite various health issues until 2-3 weeks before he died aged 74. But again retirement wasn't an option for him so he had to keep going.

Did your dad not get a state pension?

@Kitkat151 no, its a long story but in brief years before he'd ceded any right to claim state pension or other benefits.

I'm in a similar environment and also deal with sickness absence and completely agree. Retirement at 66/67 is tough for all but those in lower pain jobs, whose pensions tend to be much smaller also tend to have physically harder jobs. They just can't work those jobs past their early 60's at best.

I said ten years ago that we will just have more people going on ill health.

[quote Grenlei]@Kitkat151 no, its a long story but in brief years before he'd ceded any right to claim state pension or other benefits.[/quote]
Ah ok...thats a shame he didn’t get to enjoy a retirement .
I’m 56 ....I’m looking into taking tier 2 nhs Ill health retirement next year.... I feel like I’m done with work..... there’s so many things I want to do before I’m too knackered to do them.....I don’t want any regrets..... I have an ok nhs pension ....but I will still have to ‘cut my cloth’ before I get my state pension in 10 years time

There's no way I'm working past 60 and I'm busy saving in investments. I have got a pension which will pay something at 60

I will be working till 67. Most of my pension doesn't pay out until state pension age.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

Life expectancy overall has dropped now due to Covid.

Yes I read that too, I also read that it will likely stabilise and then likely go back to an upward trajectory when the pandemic is over. And regardless of the fact many, many elderly died from contracting covid, and therefore numbers reduced, there are still reports of social care facing a staffing crisis because demand is still exceeding supply.

Statistician’s comment
"Life expectancy has increased in the UK over the last 40 years, albeit at a slower pace in the last decade.

“However, the coronavirus pandemic led to a greater number of deaths than normal in 2020. Consequently, in the latest estimates, we see virtually no improvement in life expectancy for females compared to 2015 to 2017 at 82.9 years, while for males life expectancy has fallen back to levels reported for 2012 to 2014, at 79 years. This is the first time we have seen a decline when comparing non-overlapping time periods since the series began in the early 1980s.

“These estimates rely on the assumption that current levels of mortality, which are unusually high, will continue for the rest of someone’s life. Once the coronavirus pandemic has ended and its consequences for future mortality are known, it is possible that life expectancy will return to an improving trend in the future.”

Pamela Cobb, Centre for Ageing and Demography, Office for National Statistics

And thanks @MercyBooth, it's so blinkered and strikes me as narrow minded, wilfully ignorant and complacent about services that are provided to society, to insist that the people providing that service and playing their part in supporting society (basically subsidising it by earning a wage that doesn't reflect their worth to society) are the problem because they can't be bothered to save for their own retirement.
Can't have it both ways, either pay the true cost of these services or accept that cut price services come at a cost somewhere else and those bearing that cost are not going to have the resources to save for a comfortable retirement, and therefore need and deserve support. I mean chances are I won't live long into my pension years, nor will my peers because of the demands of the job and the toll of living a low income life, so you're still getting a pretty good out of someone like me.

YY @Maverickess And society also needs to accept that people in those jobs need somewhere decent to live. You should see the way social housing tenants are talked about on here.

@MercyBooth

YY *@Maverickess* And society also needs to accept that people in those jobs need somewhere decent to live. You should see the way social housing tenants are talked about on here.

Oh I've seen it, I am a social housing tenant, and I really wish that someone would actually point me in the direction of this 'free' housing they bang on about, because I pay rent, out of my earned income 🙄. There's a recent thread about it and as usual someone came on spouting a load of nonsense about social/council housing and what it is and isn't. Too much watching channel 5 'benefits Britain' rubbish and reading the Daily Mail.

We desperately need more social housing and to heavily tax landlords to make it less attractive for people who are well off to buy and rent out one or two houses.

The actuaries and most pensions professionals (and I was one) will tell you it should be 70 or even 72. When age 65/60 was set as the State Pension Age, , the average State pension would probably be paid for just over 10 years. Today, even with State Pension Age at 66, it's likely to be paid for 20. The system cannot be afforded, but no government has the political courage to do anything other than tinker about around the edges making minor changes.

And yes, I consider introducing a common State Pension Age of 66 to be a minor change.

The problem is that politicians aren't as callous about these things as people like to think.

1960 UK government expenditure as a % of GDP.
Social security: 5.7
NHS: 3.1
Defence: 6.0

1980 (respectively): 10.6, 4.6, 4.9

2000 (respectively) 11.1, 5.3, 4.6

2020 (respectively) 11.0 10.4, 2.2.

(Source, statistica.com and this Guardian article

So spending on health and social security has increased inexorably over the last half a century. But there are more people to make provision for, and successive governments have cut other expensive things (e.g. defence) to pay for it.

There are simply far more elderly people who need healthcare and other state support. What people have come to expect from state pensions doesn't have a precedent.

For example, the comments above about how life expectancy in some parts of the UK is lower than the pension age. Back in 1960 it would have been expected that lots of people would have died before becoming entitled to a pension.

1960: UK pension age for men 65, women 60. Life expectancy: men 67 women 74. So a man could, on average, expect to have two years of pension before death, and to have reached the end of his healthy life before he was entitled to anything. Women had longer but little.

I'm not suggesting that we should return to that, but the truth is that there's never been a greater public expectation of a long holiday from paid work before death.

All developed countries are facing this and have increased their tax takes (as a proportion of GDP and mostly though indirect taxation like VAT) to pay for it.

Also elderly people get more operations these days rather than just being sent to the gerontologist.

@DerAlteMann

The actuaries and most pensions professionals (and I was one) will tell you it should be 70 or even 72. When age 65/60 was set as the State Pension Age, , the average State pension would probably be paid for just over 10 years. Today, even with State Pension Age at 66, it's likely to be paid for 20. The system cannot be afforded, but no government has the political courage to do anything other than tinker about around the edges making minor changes.

It’s not up to actuaries to tell us what the state pension age should be, since when were they responsible for political decisions around tax and spending.

It’s a political/policy choice how much people are prepared to pay for state pensions.

Most things are affordable if the will to pay for it is there. Just that few people will vote to pay more tax.

Useful pie chart on public spending from this year’s Budget. £108 billion of the social protection spending is state pensions.

So yes we spend a lot on state pensions but I also doubt it’s realistic for a lot of people to keep working to 67. And that’s if anyone will employ us that long anyway.

Realistically either at an individual or societal level we’d need to save/pay a lot more to retire any earlier.

I’m working with a few people in the NHS currently like this now. The ones on practically minimum wage so HCA, Domestics, housekeepers, catering etc. You can see the change as they hit 60 and beyond. The tiredness, worn out, health issues etc. Working on a ward is often Physical, busy and long hours. I’m in my early 40s. I don’t want to be doing that.

Most have no choice but to keep working, they need the money, they aren’t promoted into easier roles they don’t exist. They can’t go part time because they need the money.

@Sprostongreen21

I’m working with a few people in the NHS currently like this now. The ones on practically minimum wage so HCA, Domestics, housekeepers, catering etc. You can see the change as they hit 60 and beyond. The tiredness, worn out, health issues etc. Working on a ward is often Physical, busy and long hours. I’m in my early 40s. I don’t want to be doing that.

Most have no choice but to keep working, they need the money, they aren’t promoted into easier roles they don’t exist. They can’t go part time because they need the money.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, but If suspect a working life has always looked like this for many people.

I worked in a part of Glasgow with v low life expectancy and remember how sad it was to see people dying in their 50s and 60s. They lost out on so much just from poverty.

@TomPinch
Life expectancy overall was 71.3, it is now 79 years of age. A rise, but not massive. You still had in 1960 men dying younger because of the impact of the second world war as well as very unsafe working practices in some heavy industry. As you point out women could expect to live 14 years after retirement at 60.
My childhood was partly shaped by retired women who ran loads of the voluntary groups such as playschemes, and often provided childcare for their grandchildren. Now we have to pay for a lot of things that used to be free or very cheap.

@TomPinch you are wrong. My family have nearly all been poor. The women all retired from work at 60 and were physically ready to. My mum says there is no way she could have managed till 67. Her health improved a lot once she retired.