Retirement for those born after 1970 is likely to rise to 71 in the future

[Tiddlywinkly]

This Guardian article was a tad depressing to read:https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2024/feb/05/uk-state-pension-age-will-soon-need-to-rise-to-71-say-experts

I fully acknowledge that we are living longer, are having less children etc, but for many, our health might not be up to working for that long. There'll also be a knock on effect as to how much we'll be available for helping with grandkids/ very elderly parents.

I just wondered what other people thought?

So the government would need a plan for all the people who work but can't do the same physical level that job has at that age - what happens then?

Can you start to plan a shift into something more sustainable?

I'm not sure 30yr retirements were ever the norm. My df, born 1908, retired 1974, died 1990. So 16 years not 30.

My dm, born 1921, retired 1984, died 2007. So 23 years retirement, but still not 30.

Both lived longer than their siblings, so they were on the upper edge of lifespan for the period.

A hyes, but when someone pointed this out to a Tory politician some years ago when this was last discussed he said that the idea of a career for life was passé and the old people could go and work in B&Q. I'm not sure b&q have jobs for every (non) pensioner but that was his proposal.

Most of us will be dead before we retire. I have worked all my life from the age of 16. I am 55 now and very tired. Already find the thought of working another 12/13 years too depressing to contemplate. Having to work until 70 and above is unimaginable.

Your thread title is misleading. It's not "likely" to rise to 71. The article is about research into maintaining the current ratio of workers to pensioners, which indicates the age would need to be 71. But it's not a realistic policy option.

The article is interesting though, as it acknowledges that not everyone would be fit enough to work until early 70s, so there would need to be provision for those people on ill health grounds. Which presumably would be 'pension' in a different name.

Also that younger people don't have the financial assets that older generations had.

My parents who were both born in the early 40s died late 60s and early 70s. So both of them had a retirement of under ten years and in my dad's case it was about a year or two. Plus both were chronically ill for the last 2-3 years of their life, like unable to work, needed carers type ill.

@Plexie my apologies for misinterpreting the article.

If only life were like a choose anything all woth guaranteed financial security buffet. I wanted to be an astronaut and then earn £20k/hr going round giving talks about being in space.

Sadly, we often end up having no, one or a very few choices. Choices that often barely keep us treading water.

I agree with this. Where were you all when us 50/60 somethings with no maternity leave, low pay, and hardley any warning were pushed from 60 to 67?

Although I wouldn't have been brave enough to actually say it 😀

My parents are in their early 70s and realistically, neither of them could still have been working for a living at 70. One is affected quite badly by arthritis and the other has memory issues. And both have much less energy than they used to.

Plenty of careers change over time. Most engineering & construction jobs, the early years are spent working on site, outside because they are fit/strong enough to cope. By age 50 people have moved to less physically demanding roles because of the ageing process.

That's normal and something lots of people plan for. In my 20s & 30s I had an international job, plane hopping, constant jet lag. Now I'm 60, I work a uk job, much less travel, more routine. I make it work.

I’m going to look for the statistic but last week I read that we have something like 330 people retired for every 1000 workers. Previously it had been something like 200.

Sorry for being so vague on the numbers but the point is that it is getting harder to afford it.

i suppose we have to hope that now employer pensions are compulsory that will people will pay in from 18 and by the time they hit 65 compound interest will mean they can afford to retire on their own pension and then get the state pension a few years later.

unfortunately I’m sure there will be a group of people who miss out because they’ve not got high private pensions - probably women who did more childcare than their husbands / partners.

You can retire at whatever age you like if you are happy to fund it yourself , if the country cannot afford to fund it at lower than 71 then there is not much that they can do . I’d rather it was properly funded at an older age than poorly funded from a lower age .

My dad is nearly 70 and had bad health for years, angina, diabetes, arthritis and now Alzheimer's, he's very frail and unsteady and can't see very well.
I often think of the fact I will likely be working at his age.
He shuffles along with a stick, who's going to take someone like him seriously in a professional environment?
My mum can't look after him because she's at work.

Well, given that changes to women’s pension age were set out in the pensions act 1995 I would say that those looking at a pension age of 71 were, y’know, children.

FIL was a teacher. He started working at age 24. He retired at 52. He's been on a final salary public sector pension ever since and is now 92..

@stealthninjamum I think you are right. I've paid into a private pension since I was 22. Not huge amounts, an average of 5%. Carried on working full time as a mum. Now 60, that pension will allow me to go part time until the state pension kicks in. Not retirement exactly, but a gradual slowdown.

Healthy life expectancy has stopped increasing & I think with later retirement ages & less money, eg less people owning homes & smaller private pensions it will get worse.

Just means people need to be more smart with their choices from careers to spending habits.

Genius!

Current divisions between the haves and the have nots will only widen
I'm not so sure, in order to stay wealthy those at the top need lots of people underneath them doing all the work, don't we already have a shortage of workers?

Of course this is an alarming situation, I'm not trying to argue against that, I just feel it's difficult to predict how things will pan out 🤷🏼‍♀️

Employers are reluctant to employ anyone over 40, who's going to be employing these septuagenarians? And given that successive governments (Tories and New Labour) have fucked up education and housing making retraining and relocating financially impossible for those of us who'll be compelled to work until we drop, how are we going to have the relevant skills and mobility to stay employed? At this rate we might have to start properly taxing big businesses, investment trusts, unearned/inherited income ...

I sense a business opportunity. Corporate corpse lockers. Where are the Dragons ?

This just isn't possible in so many physically demanding jobs

This article is reporting on a recommendation from a report by an academic. Not what will actually happen.