To wonder how people will find jobs in their late 60s?

[Notcontent]

i was just thinking about pension ages, prompted by the Waspi thread and also fact that I spend a lot of time worrying about my own retirement.

i know the pension age has to rise but at the same time I think it will create even more inequality. There will be people with private pensions who can retire at 55 and then those who can’t - and are likely to struggle to stay employed until they can get the state pension - which is likely to be 70 soon.

i my professional job there is an expectation that people retire at around 55. There are no people in their 60s. When I look at people employed in retail, etc I also only see people in their early 60s maximum.

how is someone aged 65 supposed to find a new job?

if anything, I feel like there is more ageism now than ever before. Particularly in relation to older women.

Cliff edges are never a good idea in any system, tax or pensions etc. This sounds far more sensible. Is this Australia you're referring to? They fixed their oublic sector pensions scheme issues ages ago as well by moving them to DC schemes so they didn't end up with the £5trn off-balance sheet liability the UK now has!

No, I'm in NZ.

Thank you. That's interesting. I don't know much about the NZ system. Will read up!

What manual work is this?

I agree with pp re that @Meemeows agenda. It's easy and scornful to say 'oh what were you planning on living off in retirement then', but things have really changed. As stated, not till 2012 were pensions so enforceable, that's only 12 years, nothing in the grand scheme of things, and many shop floor staff wouldn't have previously been eligible.

You’ve cherry picked one sentence out of her post and used it to prop up your opinion which does not take into account her whole post.

Pensions aren't "enforcable" now. It's always been optional just like savings accounts are optional. People have always had a choice whether to save some of their income for financial security later or whether to spend all of their income.

I just find it a bit odd that many of the generation who preach to younger people about "cutting their cloth according to their means" and often imply they can't afford houses because they're financially irresponsible yet it seems many in that generation apparently went through all of their working life of 40 to 50 years without making any provision for themselves in old age in terms of pensions or savings.

You’ve cherry picked one sentence out of her post and used it to prop up your opinion which does not take into account her whole post.

I found that part of the post really interesting, so I responded to it. I'm not required to respond to every single point another poster makes. There's no need to be so adversarial to anybody with a different perspective to yours.

I also agree with the OP that given current working practices it will be very hard for many people to support themselves through work until state pension age now it is so high. On top of this we are in a paradigm shift with a new technological revolution which will make many jobs obsolete in the next decade or two. This means it's absolutely essential for people to save for the future as much as they can, and I was interested by the psychology behind many of the "don't buy things on credit" and "mend and make do" generation having somehow never thought they'd get old or that they should make any provision for this.

I suppose it is the same psychology that explains why there was an overriding consensus for decades to cut taxes and spend all of the money from North Sea oil (rather than, say, create a sovereign wealth fund and live within the means of current revenue excluding that). Or why no pressure was put on politicians to make any provision for sustainable state pensions that weren't a ponzi scheme, or bulging healthcare costs, given rising life expectancy and a large generational cohort. It was known for decades that this would lead to greater prosperity in their working lives and huge problems once they became old if the ponzi-style system of using current tax to pay for healthcare and pensions and social care for current pensioners was maintained yet it seems voters didn't even raise this issue with politicians or put any pressure on them to do anything about it and were happy to let things go on as they were knowing it would mean their children and grandchildren having a vastly reduced standard of living.

It's really sad how the UK has been so badly mismanaged, and even sadder that there is no political party to vote for who seems to have any intention of addressing these issues (very belatedly). It seems the short-term thinking of much of the populace is reflected in the Governments available to us, no matter how we vote: the old adage about getting the Governments that you (collectively) deserve. Just horrible for those of us who don't want this and want competent long-term and evidence-based decisions to be made.

I did something similar. After a lifetime of desk, admin and managerial roles I left the civil service at 52 and got a job in a tourist centre. It was everything my other job wasn't. Not well paid of course but I loved it. It was physically demanding though and when Rheumatoid Arthritis set in I moved to the NHS back to a desk job.

@stargazerlil I was specifically talking about pensions! You are speaking to the wrong person if you think I don’t understand government spending. To put it simply, no one “saves up” for a state pension via contributions to tax. All tax is collected by the government of the day and redistributed. Some for what you say but vast amounts on pensions and benefits. So the tax take in any year is spent, not saved up for pensions. The massive problem is the vast borrowing for pension liabilities and benefits. That is being passed on to dc.

the trouble is that after the age of 65 or so many people suffer various health difficulties due to ageing. I retired at 67 and have since developed severe arthritis in my shoulder I’m waiting for a shoulder replacement. I could not do my previous job which involved keyboard work. I am in pain on a daily basis which analgesia does not help. I don’t think many employers would take me on now, though in my last job I only took a few days off sick and was completely reliable.

@Meemeows As I’m nearly 70 I agree it wasn’t discussed. People were urged to have private pensions though. As you can see the carefree and ignorant didn’t listen,

Successive governments have just increased spending (and borrowing) and have thought the economy would keep growing. Since 2008 it’s not done much but we want more and more. We have way more people needing health and social care but the difficult decisions are kicked into touch.

Do not forget Norway has far fewer people then we do and are used to high taxes. We have always had high spending governments but lower tax. So we used North Sea Oil revenue to plug the gap.

20% of earnings is the recommended saving level for private pensions for the self employed. Then look at doctors pensions. Tax payers pay 24.%. Doctors contribute around 12-13%. So they have around a 36% total contribution. Sky high and early retirement guaranteed. No wonder we have a black hole in the finances. For many people this level of pension provision from the employer is dreamland.

Myself and DH plus two other couples we know have all retired at 55/56. Also know another couple who both retired at 60. Plus a guy whose wife is a decade younger so she still works but he has also left at 56. A neighbour and his wife have also done this. Eleven have public sector pensions and two do not, one just had an absolutely huge inheritance and the other is just someone that made it really big in corporate law. Two have small PT jobs, the rest do voluntary work. Five of them received severance or redundancy packages.

Most of us were work colleagues hence me knowing so many retiring early as it was offered in our area.

I haven't had a day off work sick in over 20 years. I'm overweight, but that doesn't affect my job.

@Bonjovispyjamas I am extremely happy with our nanny who is in her 70s. She's brilliant. Reliable, wise, fun, more energetic than me (!) and my children are very attached to her; she's the grandmother I wish they had but don't. Just, sadly for me, I have to pay her!

Please don't think everyone would dismiss you as a nanny because of your age.

Working in an inwards goods store, packing up the entire contents of a big store which was closing, working at the local recycling/rubbish centre. All of which involved lifting and carrying heavy objects. I also worked for a dry cleaners, which was hardest of all. You wouldn't think folding towels all day would be hard work but by the end of the first day I was knackered!

It seems to me that it is much more simple than the UK one. Everyone gets the same amount (single people do get a bit more than each half of a couple), with a few add ons for some.

Thanks, I guess I'll find out next time I'm job hunting. No idea how much longer my current job will last.

@ForGreyKoala thanks for explaining. That sounds impressive and quite hard work. It is good for keeping fit though. Wouldn't the employer prefer younger people? I am surprised that for such hard labour, so many workers are 60 and older.

It really wasn't that hard, far more interesting than boring office work, and as I said it did wonders for my back. I loved the inward goods job especially. I should have said, although I walk everywhere I am otherwise very unfit - a gym session would see me off! I did have a few aches for a day or two, but soon got used to it (and one of the jobs was for nine and a half hours each day, with a half hour walk there and back in very hot weather).

almost mid 60s, qualified professional, had several job offers since I passed 60, including current role that was a sideways move into a new area quite recently.

I don't expect that I'll grow two heads in the nest few years.

I have heard a few people that won’t hire beyond gen x due to work ethic. So eventually they might have to.

It's a question of Governmental political will.

We are one of the richest countries jn the world with one of the highest retirement ages. Compare China retirement age 63 for men, 55 for most women - only managerial women retiring as late as 58. And, this has only just come in. Since the 1950s ie the Chinese Revolution, it has been lower despite the dire poverty of China then.

No one with insecure working conditions eg (until this Government scrapped them), zero hours contracts (or poverty pay) can save into pensions because they never know what they will earn from one week to another or have no spare money. In previous generations eg women teachers were on only 75% of men's pay; women in banking were sacked if they married, many women were sacked if they became pregnant etc.

And still many men with private pensions decide to opt for a higher annuity rate ( ie just for themselves) rather than including their wife in their retirement pension. This can leave a widow in dire poverty.

i dont understand the argument against workers retiring before 68 and being supported by younger people?
in what way are they being supported?
are people assuming that under 68 people are living on benefits?

There’s not enough younger people to support the number of older people. Now and for a generation to come.
Anyway they can’t afford it. The young have it hard these days. Very difficult to start a family unless you’re wealthy or very poor and on benefits.