They want us young people to work ourselves to death
Are there even companies that are looking actively for 65+ yo people? What kind of job are that and how many are there? I swear, we gonna lift the age up and up every decade before we gonna ask the rich to pay their fair share.
Shopping baggers is a popular ‘career’ for elderly people. :/
It’s cheaper to put in more self-serve checkouts.
I’d like to give you an extra upvote for your username :-)
Don’t know about 65+ but I’m 67 in a few weeks and only started my current job two and a half years ago. I think if you don’t look or act like a doddery old git, and you have the qualities and outlook required, you’re in with a chance. My role for instance is far better suited to a more ‘mature’ person. They’ve tried recruiting younger people but most of the ones they took on were not reliable or not up to the job! Some places like B&Q look to older people as they have a wealth of knowledge, Tesco etc. as older people can turn up at 0600 as opposed to others that turn the alarm off and go back to sleep because they’ve been on the piss until 0400. Obviously there will be exceptions to the rule, but just look at the number of older people staffing the supermarkets. Where I work and across our network of centres there are very few under 50.
It’s pants. My daughter (22) will probably have to wait until past 71 at this rate. Some will never be able to stop working.
Removed by mod
We don’t have Walmart and our shops don’t have greeters, so that’s one line of employment we’re short of.
We do have ASDA though and it’s basically the same.
OK as long as we also adopt a limitarian approach to personal wealth in the UK. Tax personal wealth above £10 million at 100%.
Why 10 million? Make the whole nation middle class.
If @[email protected] read this he’d have an aneurism. He’s a big believer in collecting wealth to the tiny 1%.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The retirement age will have to rise to 71 for middle-aged workers across the UK, according to research into the impact of growing life expectancy and falling birthrates on the state pension.
“But if you bring preventable ill health into the equation, that would have to increase even more,” added Mayhew, who is also professor of statistics at Bayes Business School and has advised the government on rises to the state pension age multiple times as a senior civil servant and in his current roles.
Jonathan Cribb, associate director and head of retirement at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said that while he did not disagree with a higher pension age, increasing it without addressing other cost-saving measures was not “realistic or equitable”.
He added: “It would disproportionately impact poorer individuals whose ill-health means they have shorter lives, and so who receive pensions for less time.”
The Intergenerational Foundation, an independent thinktank, agreed that the pension age had to rise, but questioned on whose shoulders that cost should fall.
“Increasing the state pension age would be a terrible policy – a really bad way of attempting to make people more productive,” he said.
The original article contains 825 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Removed by mod
The retirement age will have to rise to 71 for middle-aged workers across the UK
In what fucking universe is 71 “middle aged”? The life expectancy in the UK is only 82.
They mean that the retirement age off in the future will rise to 71 for people who are middle aged (in their 30s maybe) today. Not that 71 is middle aged.
Raising the age of retirement is just one of the couple of ways you can reach actuarial equilibrium. The other two are lowering the retirement benefits, or raising the contributions, by the participants or by the sponsor. Everyone of those methods os as useful as the others, but the last one requires taxing, this is why you never listen to politicians talking about how thats an alternative. Tax the rich as they should be, and this is a solved problem.
National insurance is supposed to be for our state pension but it’s only paid on earned income. I have no idea but I wonder how much it would raise if it was paid on all income?
Removed by mod
That’s the tax part I’m talking about.
Removed by mod
Who the fuck are we kidding? I’m going to die at work and so are you.
I’m fully expecting there to be no state pension by the time I get there.
100% this. I’m 38 and I’m predicting a crisis where my generation haven’t been cared for by their employers with regards to their pension, then the laws ensuring pension conts must be paid came in late into my career and were very small contribution defaults. Then with the high rent and property prices people are forgoing their pension savings to put into living or property early in life so they don’t get the compound interest through from early years. I keep doing the sums on my pension and even though I’m now putting 25% in and have been for a few years, it’s not like I’m destined to be rolling in it when I retire. Depending on the market (which I don’t have faith in either) I’m likely to just be able to retire pretty old and live modestly.
So long as you allow it to happen
Well. I think it was inevitable that the government Ponzi scheme collapsed. Like all such schemes, they only work when there’s more people paying-in at the bottom than are extracting value at the top. Our demographics are showing that wasn’t being sustained for quite a while now.
Government pensions are sold to us as a savings fund, but they just aren’t. Pension funds in general are horribly misused. Nobody in our society can bear that money placed with them to be there for some future dates should be unused.
Neoliberal dogshit economics. Disgusting that Guardian reporting on this is like Daily Mail.
No wonder UK is in decline. In many ways worse than the US. Even Trump is pro-Social Security ffs.
