• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Extending Retirement ages


EvotingMachine0197

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
8,629
I don't get it. I know the argument is that it reduces exchequer pension costs by keeping people in employment longer.

Is that it ?

What about reducing retirement age ?

Generally, older staff will carry higher wage costs due to being further up the ranks.

And naturally, increased age leans towards increased health costs and sick leave costs.

So why postpone the inevitable retirement of these people when it seems they're not particularly happy about it.

Would it not make more sense if

  • These guys retired at the established age.
  • The system eventually moved everyone up one notch to replace them.
  • Then some bright young people get a job, a career and a life.
The economic equations don't make any sense to me on this subject. Nor do the social equations.
 

spidermom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
9,189
AGREED....employ me...as a frontline health worker at 68(FFS...I'll be on a zimmer frame myself)..at the top end of the employment scale...or pension me off...and employ a graduate at less pay!

What you save by employing me still, you have lost in the cost of training and mentoring....
While you would probably save by trading me in for a younger model!!
 

EvotingMachine0197

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
8,629
AGREED....employ me...as a frontline health worker at 68(FFS...I'll be on a zimmer frame myself)..at the top end of the employment scale...or pension me off...and employ a graduate at less pay!

What you save by employing me still, you have lost in the cost of training and mentoring....
While you would probably save by trading me in for a younger model!!
Well yes, shifting people up via promotions to replace their previous seniors creates a new onus for people. Productivity automatically increases.

How much productivity do you get out of a 65 year old when they have been told they have to work until they are 67 ?

What does that do to the mindset of the immediate sub-ordinates ?

Compared to a 20 year old who is taken off the dole to go and work.
 

SKELLY

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
3,120
I believe its a plan of the rich and elite to slowly do away with the welfare state.

We have seen what 13 years of FF/PD idealogy has done to our health service. Cystic fibrosis sufferers in ireland have a life expantany of 25, in canada its 45. This is solely due to their facilities. To date there is no dedicated unit for CS patients in this state.
Add to this the fact that whilst we are closing public hospitals private ones are opening.
I would love to see the percentage of public v private facilities in ireland today compared with 20 years ago.

Increasing the retirement age, forcing people into private pension schemes whilst enriching pension fund managers and investors is the goal.
It will be no surprise to me to see the state pension rot in line with inflation.


Thing is, what will the rich and elite do when the less well off and the lower paid revolt?!!
 

spidermom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
9,189
I believe its a plan of the rich and elite to slowly do away with the welfare state.

We have seen what 13 years of FF/PD idealogy has done to our health service. Cystic fibrosis sufferers in ireland have a life expantany of 25, in canada its 45. This is solely due to their facilities. To date there is no dedicated unit for CS patients in this state.
Add to this the fact that whilst we are closing public hospitals private ones are opening.
I would love to see the percentage of public v private facilities in ireland today compared with 20 years ago.

Increasing the retirement age, forcing people into private pension schemes whilst enriching pension fund managers and investors is the goal.
It will be no surprise to me to see the state pension rot in line with inflation.


Thing is, what will the rich and elite do when the less well off and the lower paid revolt?!!


WHEN.......or if?
 

afns1

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
738
How much productivity do you get out of a 65 year old when they have been told they have to work until they are 67 ?
One could say that's a temporary effect.

In general, one could say how much productivity does one get out of somebody who is two years from retirement - but that applies currently as well.

Generally, older staff will carry higher wage costs due to being further up the ranks.

And naturally, increased age leans towards increased health costs and sick leave costs.
That appears to be only relevant to PS workers. The State also pays pensions to private workers as well as non-contributory pensions where are higher than welfare payments. For the people working, they get two more years' income tax rather than have the money go the other way. And if the arguement is that people in their 60s earn a lot, that could be quite a lot of income tax.
 

Nermal

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,327
How much productivity do you get out of a 65 year old when they have been told they have to work until they are 67 ?

Compared to a 20 year old who is taken off the dole to go and work.
Er, I'd suggest that even an unmotivated 65 year-old can be more productive than a 20 year old. Experience counts for a lot. Obviously job-dependent.

I think before retirement ages are increased other steps should be taken:

- link pensions to CPI, not wage increases
- change pension basis to career average rather than final salary
- move to defined contribution model

Increasing retirement age should be the final step. Should not be done unless other steps don't provide necessary savings.
 

Panopticon

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5,576
I don't get it. I know the argument is that it reduces exchequer pension costs by keeping people in employment longer.

Is that it ?
Increasing life expectancy means pensions have to pay for more life years after employment than before. People life a lot longer than they used to. Women live longer than men, and women are now a larger portion of the workforce, so this has an extra small effect, but the main fact is that life expectancy after 65 could potentially double, and that's a lot of non-work years to cover with the same number of work years.

That's the argument. Increase work years, reduce non-work years. If you think about it, one or two extra years doesn't even cover it, in an era where many people will work for 40 years and draw pension for another 20.

What about reducing retirement age ?

Generally, older staff will carry higher wage costs due to being further up the ranks.

And naturally, increased age leans towards increased health costs and sick leave costs.

So why postpone the inevitable retirement of these people when it seems they're not particularly happy about it.
I'm afraid these are fallacies. If you make old people retire early, there are still going to be people "further up the ranks". They will just happen to be younger. Increased age itself doesn't increase health costs that much, at least not up to 65, because most health costs are associated with childbirth and with end of life. Few people die before 65 nowadays.

Would it not make more sense if

  • These guys retired at the established age.
  • The system eventually moved everyone up one notch to replace them.
  • Then some bright young people get a job, a career and a life.
The economic equations don't make any sense to me on this subject. Nor do the social equations.
Not really sensible. As I said earlier, pensions are expensive. Also, the signs are that life expectancy is going to keep rising. More non-taxed years and more pension expense. Finally, I don't understand what you mean by "the system": this is always going to happen because people are always going to retire; three years or so won't make that much difference. And outside the public sector, it doesn't.
 

hmmm

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
2,834
The economic equations don't make any sense to me on this subject. Nor do the social equations.
I don't think most people realise how expensive pensions are. To fund a pension of 40k a year, nowadays you'd need about a million in a pension fund.
 

TradCat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,992
The point is not that you will work until you are 67 but that you won't get the pension until you are 67. If you are not up to the job your employer will have eased you out the door before then. You had better make sure you have enough saved to keep you going until you finally get the pension. Or have successful children.
 

afns1

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
738
The point is not that you will work until you are 67 but that you won't get the pension until you are 67. If you are not up to the job your employer will have eased you out the door before then. You had better make sure you have enough saved to keep you going until you finally get the pension. Or have successful children.
For the two years most of such people could claim welfare payments if necessary.
 

Morte

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
198
Something I posted on a similar thread two weeks ago:

I'm pretty sure that the retirement age of 65 was set back when that was greater than the average person's life expectancy. Now for many of us we will spend about 22 years in education, 43 years working and then another 15 or so in retirement. With increasing life expectancy this 15 keeps getting pushed up and for many of us we will actually end up not working for more years than we do actually work in our lives. Also, up to now most pension schemes simply passed some of the costs onto the next generation but with birth rates falling this places a much greater burden on them than previously. The crux of the pension issue is that we are going to have to fund our own lengthy retirement ourselves and the amounts of money set aside previously are simply nowhere near enough to do this. An important step to solve this will be to raise the retirement age. Not everybody will still be able to do their old job of course. We need to develop a model where say a guard could "retire" at 60 and then get a small pension which is supplemented by working in a supermarket.

You're also assuming that there's a set number of jobs that will be filled either by young or old people. In reality the job market is more dynamic. If old people with skills are available then businesses may find uses for them. Similarly young people will be hired if they are of use to the firm, this doesn't necessarily mean that they have to replace someone else.
 
Top