to think some occupations should have a lower retirement age then others?

[agedknees]

Thinking of jobs that are more physical, or people have to stand on their feet all day?

67 is quite old to be working 12 hours paid (13 hours including the unpaid break) and be on your feet all day.

What do others think? Maybe people who work in occupations that involve standing on your feet all day could be moved to more sit down jobs as they got older?

Some already do. For example, the Armed Forces.

YANBU. You would think that it's just common sense really wouldn't you?

But sadly not.

No. I think all footballers should be made to play until they're 67.

Yanbu and I think my profession should be included in that but then don't we all

It depends on the individual too - some people are fit into their 70s, others are knackered at 40.

Some do - police do 30yrs - so join at 20 retire at 50.

You then get another job and keep going for another 20 yrs !

YABU.

What should happen is a paradigm shift in which it is far easier to re-train and or switch professions in your 50s and 60s to suit your needs, or, as you say, they get switched to less physical jobs.

This idea of retirement as we know it is over. There's no society that can support larger and larger segments of an ageing population being economically inactive, drawing more and more of what will be taxpayer monies and getting health problems.

Get over it.

Thigns are going to change because they have to.

Start planning for it now. Moaning won't help, our children's generation is going to be way way more unsympathetic than you think I'm being now.

I'm a nurse and most of the nurses that I work with are struggling to work once they get to their mid fifties. Most have dropped to part time. The HCAs have a physically harder job than we do, and most of them that I work with are struggling to cope with a variety of chronic illnesses including: diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, anxiety and depression and most have bad backs

It is cruel and unreasonable to expect manual workers to continue until almost 70.

Some of the people that we care for are in their early 70s and if they do spot that you're taking your break they object strongly. I was working 13.5 hour shifts up until a few months ago when I found I couldn't cope with it and I'm only 41

People are literally going to be dropping dead on the job

Teachers: There is only one teacher I know (and I know a lot!) who I feel will still working at the top of their game by the time they reach retirement. She went into teaching after the age of 40 so will "only" have been teaching for 20 years when she retires. I can't begin to imagine how jaded someone would feel if they had been teaching for 45 years. Done well, it is simply an exhausting job.

I'm a teacher and I can't begin to imagine having the energy and enthusiasm necessary to teach reception age children at the age of 67 .

Time to retrain and/or get another job, hidden.

Unless one is very rich or lucky, it's very unrealistic to expect to be economically inactive starting in one's 40s and be supported more and more by the state.

I agree with expat, sad but true fact of life today.

Again, time to shift your way of thinking that people only have one career their entire working lives and start planning for another one.

Retiring isn't the solution because it's only going to become more and more unaffordable for the next generation to sustain.

It's an unconvenient truth, but one nonetheless.

Failing that, save in your own personal pension plan so that there is a bit of money that you can elect to take sooner.

I have been putting money into a pension since I was 25. It's been a big sacrifice at times. But it means I'm not so beholden to the state for my retirement benefits.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who are in manual/physical jobs and whoever it was who said we need to start transferring them over into less demanding roles is quite right. But we can't push all this financial liability onto our children. It's not fair. At the moment many of them don't get jobs when they leave university. Or only very poorly paid ones. They can't afford houses or to get married and have families themselves. Many people my age (47) have done very well from the welfare state (I had grammar school, free dentistry for a long time, the NHS, benefits once when I wasn't working) and it's only fair we take a bit of a hit now.

'But we can't push all this financial liability onto our children. It's not fair.'

And they won't have it, because they can't. They won't be able to afford it.

Deal with this now. Because this is how it is.

Most of the people that I work with would be unable to retrain for something new.

And where are all these jobs for older people going to come from? The youth unemployment rate is high enough without expecting full employment for older people too There simply aren't going to be enough jobs.

'Most of the people that I work with would be unable to retrain for something new.

And where are all these jobs for older people going to come from? The youth unemployment rate is high enough without expecting full employment for older people too There simply aren't going to be enough jobs.'

And there's simply not enough money for people to be economically inactive drawing more and more state monies for decades.

The solution is for greater job creation, tougher laws on age discrimination, laws for more flexible working, etc.

Not lower retirement age.

That's not going to work. Our childrens' generation will not be able to afford it.

I agree with the OP, Its fine and dandy for Expat to say just retrain. Who will be hiring the 50+ workforce? Employers don't want to hire older people unfortunate but that is a fact.

Actually having watched my parents in retirement I'm not convinced of the benefits of full retirement.

However I'll be surprised if expats proposed solution is implemented, that would be too easy and sensible.

No, that vision of nurses doing the drugs round on a zimmer frame is looking more likely.

Expat, women coming back to work after having a ten year break for kids after having been trained etc can't get work. No one will accept a 60 year old who is a novice in their proffesion.

You are right lola but the country is fucked tbh. There are no jobs and there is no money to pay pensions. My retirement plan may be the only option for many.

No I know the country is fucked and I agree in a perfect world anyone qualified could get a job but I can't ever imagine a 60 year old being given the time of a day for a job that didn't involve greeting people outside ASDA

'Expat, women coming back to work after having a ten year break for kids after having been trained etc can't get work. No one will accept a 60 year old who is a novice in their proffesion.'

Then we need to put pressure on government to make and enforce much stricter age discrimination laws, not expect lower retirement ages.

That's just not a workable paradigm any more.

In fact, I'd be surprised if people who are in their mid-50s-to early 60s right now aren't bitten in the arse by all this, too.

lola I am 33 and can't get a job because I am too old/ not experienced enough in xyz. Delete which is appropriate. Which is why I suspect my current plan may be the only one.

I wouldn't worry about it if you are in a public sector scheme as you ca be retired early on ill health grounds if really unable to do the job. The poor buggers working in the private sector with no provision at all will be fucked though.

You think trixy? The nhs trusts are cost cutting left right and centre. I suspect it will be adjustments to the role. Ill health pensions are expensive.

The poor buggers doing manual jobs in the private sector are already fucked.