Bitcoin Forum

This so-called measure has several benefits and drawbacks. The elder employees can benefit from their years of experience if they are retained on the job for longer, which is one advantage. The drawback of this is that many workplaces will report low performance because there is an inverse relationship between a person's success at work and their deterioration in cognitive and physical capacities.

Regardless, what I think is that the government shouldn't shove it down the throat of people. Workers who are approaching retirement age should be given a choice after appraisal to keep working or retire.

What sense does this make? Would you agree or disagree?

To be fair this is something we had to dealt with the same things in my nation for a long time as well. The main issue is that even though people pay taxes for it, you dont really make that work for 40 years. I mean do you think someone who is 60 years old right now, that could start paying taxes in 80s 90s being available today? Absokutely not, so todays kids working pays the taxes for todays elderly so that when they are old tomorrow, tomorrows kids would pay for theirs. This decision helps just a bit withkut a doubt, it doesnt suddenly make economy better, but it allows a bit of a lee way to cyt the spending and government not hurting the economy too bad. Obviously I know this because when I was a kid people retired at 40-45, and we started to spend taxes for them, thankfully its 60 years and even 65 years old in most cases, and that definitelymakes it a lot better now that it makes everything later, not that our economy is any better but at least its not that much worse.

It does make sense for the government so they can save the economy but sure it didn't for the people in France which already cause unrest in the country.

AFAIK part of the culture in France is leisure. Taking that away from someone who is about to get 62 is like slavery. These people already planned to travel somewhere a year ago for their vacation. But now they have to work for 2 more years to enjoy pension.

of course it makes sense in my opinion, because a person's productive age to work in that field may have been determined, that's why some differ in applying the retirement age, because the person's performance will not be maximized if forced, and it may also be dangerous for them if they are still working there.

The retirement age is much higher in other European countries; usually it's approximately 64 or 65 years old; in Greece, however, it's 67, which I personally believe is too much. I admire the French people's fight; although two more years might not seem much for us, as the retirement age is already quite low compared to the EU's average, the French are fighting to avoid any potential further increase in the future or other measures taken against them. Seeing that they didn't react to the first one, why not increase it further?

Extension of retirement is of an advantage and also of disadvantage. One of the advantages is that the worker will enjoy more years of service when they appear to be young and able to work. One of the disadvantage is that the younger workforce would not have space to be accommodated in the work space.

But talking with respect to this topic, the increments of the retirement year from 62 to the 64 should be made in such a way that it would be the opinion of the worker to continue the next two years, if not they should retire with their whole benefits.

Usually the Government's decision to increase the retirement age depends on many factors, including life expectancy, labor requirements, economic conditions, and social policies. Several countries face the problem of labor shortages and increasing the retirement age can be one solution to overcome this. If I see that President Emmanuel Macron made the decision to increase retirement age from 62 to 64 it was wrong, so there were pros and cons because there was nothing urgent. After all In general, some people at the age of 64 are no longer able to work properly and productively, while others may experience a decline in their health and skills that affect their effectiveness at work.

Besides that, increasing the retirement age can also trigger several impacts, one of which is triggering negative reactions from certain groups, such as the news that you share with trade unions and social organizations. In this case, the French government should carefully consider these impacts before making a decision to increase the retirement age. Therefore, I do not agree with President Emmanuel Macron's decision.

It makes sense. However, it is important to note that ageism in the workplace is a real issue, and older workers may face discrimination and be forced into retirement even if they are still capable and willing to work. In terms of the benefits and drawbacks of retaining older employees, it is essential to strike a balance between experience and productivity. While experience can be invaluable, it is also important to recognize that cognitive and physical decline can affect job performance. Employers should consider alternative arrangements such as part-time work, flexible hours, or job sharing to accommodate older workers and maximize their contributions while minimizing the negative impact on their health and well-being.

No one can discriminate senior workers in a workplace, remember they are the people who get in the work first, and others are like juniors to them.  In work ethics, it is often that seniors are getting the respect of their juniors.  If a person wanted to discriminate they will discriminate regardless of the age of person they wanted to discriminate.

Also, I don't think that underperformance will be the issue in this decree.  Since we cannot see any major changes in the performance of a person if ever the retirement age is increased by 2 years.  Other people are working even at the age of 70+.  I agree that it can bring both positive and negative emotional and psychological impacts to the worker but it is what it is, the government implementation of an increased age retirement bracket will not please everybody.

I always believed that relegating senior and experienced workers to advisory positions with less hours and decent pay is a good way to go. Giving them a choice to accept this role or quit working won't hurt any company that they're working on. Experience and knowledge is always respected and valued no matter the field is, and you can't pass it on to the young ones without a senior teaching them a thing or two about their industry.

The retirement age they have imposed is okay, though there should always be an option for these seniors to continue what they're doing albeit in a less physically-intensive work load and of course, reduced amount of pay, but I guess that's just me wanting these kinds of things to other people. I want to retire early, but I understand the void that it will leave me once I no longer do what I'm doing for years all of a sudden.

Once you are 60 years old people should retire and go and enjoy their life, people should not be forced to work into their later years. I know there are pros and Cons to this but it is important to consider a lot of issues. It is important to note that late retirement may not be feasible or desirable for everyone, as individual circumstances and preferences vary. Factors such as health, family obligations, job satisfaction, and personal financial situation should all be considered when making decisions about retirement and the Government shouldn't be in the position to make this for one, especially when you look at the history of Government when it comes to important issues like this

In my country, the retirement age is okay because all things doing good I don't think I want to work after their retirement age. I will like to live my life to the fullest and not dragging to work more after the age

The retirement of the workers is still based on the workers and their capacity to work at the old ages.In my country some people are working at the age of 70-80 years.It May be considered as the different one,but it was the fact.This happening in many countries and in some countries people with below 35 are not ready to work for their jobs and bill.They depend on their family members and brothers to survive in the hard situations.This is not a right way to survive in this world.Some people are ready to save for their life term in his 35 years.Most of them was in crypto trading and some in stock market.Earning money is the essential one.

I don’t think anybody should have to work past the age of 65, if they don’t want to. The situation in France has been wild but their current retirement age is 62, I really don’t think it is that bad that Macron is attempting to push it to 64. If it was 70 or something I would support the uproar but 64 really is not that old. It’s still younger than many other first world countries. The economy is obviously struggling, working until 64 does not seem too bad in my opinion.

and some people are still working even beyond 65. so this is only a matter of self preference. additional 2 years may not be that bad. at least for some people who are after for their benefits, can still work for another 2 years. they won't increase the retirement age if they are not seeing good reasons on such move. if it is already approved, then people should just look at the brighter side of this change.

In my country, the retirement age is 65 however since everything is so expensive many people work much past that. And they even extended the retirement benefits of security from 65 till age 67 if I recall.

So this is happening everywhere and I am not surprised many other countries are doing this. Obviously seniors won’t like it because they are probably old and want to retire already but with the massive debt that these countries have they have no choice but to make these cuts.

You're making sense but are we forgetting who's getting more benefits in this new law, the workers now have a chance of been paid for some additional years and I think that's a good things because many works don't have means of earning immediately they retire so giving them some additional years is a good move by the government of france and other countries should increase theirs.

As we grow older, experience should become a major part of our jobs instead of just relying on physical strength, the older workers can also be shifted to positions that won't need much physical strength so they can work longer and earn enough money to help them in their days of retirement.

Retirement age is usually depends on citizens' life expectancy and how productive are the old workers. I found if people life expectancy live in France is really high. I think 70 years old in France is still capable to work.


A middle class person will retire earlier if they're bored to work in the company and they have savings to fulfill his need until he die. But for lower class person, he will work until he die because he don't have enough saving and he can't survive if he not work.

Keep in mind that the increase in the retirement age will happen in every country if there's a public social insurance plan in which the government forces you to participate. The life expectancy is going up and the medical costs to keep things going for seniors is just going to rise, so they're forced to raise the age before benefits are paid out. It makes "sense" from the perspective of the government who are forced to meet the obligations of the citizens they forced to participate in the social insurance plan. Isn't so fair for the citizens.

Consider not relying on the government for your retirement. If you're young, there's no way to know when the benefits you pay into all your life will ever be returned to you.

Allowing employees to continue working also needs to be strictly managed to avoid affecting the company's work performance. This requires empathy and consideration for older workers and the rest of the company. Therefore, I agree with the view that employees approaching retirement age should be given the option to continue working or retire after the appraisal to ensure their benefits. But this needs to be managed carefully to ensure that it doesn't affect the company's performance at the same time. This is of great significance to the protection of workers' rights. Allowing seniors to continue working or to retire depends on their choice and due diligence by the company. This helps to ensure that older workers are not left with no choice and no means of living.

I would vote on personal choice after the required service years are finished. For example, 60 should be your last year of service and anything that is later than this should be retirement period of your choice. The finish line can be kept at 64 years of age which seems to be max age to effectively work.

However, there is a catch in this as well. Many employees start feeling inadequate right after they cross their 55’s. Defending on the industry of work this feeling could differ. An IT or desk guy may not feel the pain of working hard if compared to the mechanics or manufacturing based companies.

This is why, it should be kept as personal choice. There should be amendments by the company itself. HR can simply finish this activity when someone hits 60 and could ask the employee if they wish to continue and if they do then what should be the payroll and other incentives. This will help both, the company and the employee without any confusion.

This makes sense if there is a good plan for their retirement. The only sad thing is to use the retirement of retirement in the absence of things.

But early age, they often invest in their retirement fee in business and other properties, but at this time I will only receive a retirement fee for sure the 50% I will put in the Bitcoin investment here in the industry This is it.

As a young person you can avoid by participating in the social insurance plan, people are participating in that scam plan because of conformity. If you ask them why are they paying huge money for it they will answer that they don't know or they will answer that the company required them to do so. It is the conformity that holding us to achieve freedom that they want, I'm now in my working stage of my life but I never decided to have or participate in that kind of social insurance plan. I don't like security, what I like is freedom. Freedom to buy all I want, it is the freedom to do all the things that I want to do.

I will never achieve that kind of freedom if I will follow the majority of the people or in short comformity. The normal people are participating it without knowing the pros and cons of it. If you want to become rich, do not follow what majority of the people are doing. Follow what the rich people did when they where still starting. They focus on buying assets that will keep their cash flows alive and not buying or participating in scam insurances.

A very "thin" topic.
On the one hand, raising the retirement age indicates that the state wants to "save" on the pension maintenance of its citizens. This is a bad indicator, it indicates problems in the economy or a bias in priorities. In a word, this is not a good indicator.

On the other hand - if the life expectancy of the country's population is growing, people can live longer, and lead a full life longer, and can still earn - why not?
But certain conditions must be created for this, and such changes cannot be made in a couple of years ...

It seems to me that there should be some kind of compromise - a person PAYS TAXES FOR ALL LIFE. And there should be some kind of agreement where the conditions cannot be changed. If the state takes money from you in the form of taxes and uses it ineptly, which leads to distortions in the economy, then you should not violate the retirement period, but look for solutions, but not at the expense of those who have already paid, and counted on pension payments in a certain age. Then the taxpayer should also have a mechanism for reviewing relations. For example - you raised the retirement age by 10% - give me back 10% of all taxes I paid, plus the interest rate for using my money for this period, which I counted on but was deceived.

Yes, retirement age was always one of the lowest in France as far as I remember. Since average life expectancy in France is 80 years for male, I don't think that 64 years is that much for to retire. 62 years old male is really capable to work, still has power and definitely has the knowledge and experience, 64 is a normal and acceptable to my mind. But if French people burn their cities, then I'm afraid their retirement age will grow even higher.

High life expectancy doesn't mean that person will be capable to work till 70. Some people live until 90s but are physically very weak with low energy levels.

As long as older employees can still contribute to the company or office, it won't be a problem and the performance of those people can still be maintained properly. Maybe giving older people the opportunity to work can be more useful for them in preparing for retirement.

But if older employees feel that their performance has decreased considerably, they should immediately ask for early retirement. That will not interfere with the performance of the company or office. This will help them leave their work routine and enjoy their old days soon.

But most people, especially people entering retirement, don't think about this and instead want to get a higher position because there will be a raise for them. And if they retire in a higher position, their pension will also be bigger than those in a lower position. Maybe this will become the awareness of everyone, especially people who have entered retirement age, just to retire rather than burden their company or office.

Here I will say that this is just a bit of reality based on what I have seen from my relatives, They retired after completing 60yrs of service in the government, let's say that they will get a large retirement pay, and let's say that they will set up a business and house depending on the payment to be received in retirement. I think they will not be able to enjoy whatever business or property they buy because they are old. But anyway, of course it's their choice and we have no rights to say that their decision is wrong.

This is also true in our country as most people really don't have that choice to retire early since it is really hard to earn and save consistently in this kind of economy. But, I think, it takes good planning and discipline towards ourselves that would let us have a choice on retirement age. But, the sad reality for majority is that they have no choice but to work their whole life since financial planning isn't the strong suit of majority here leaving them no plans for things like retirement.

AFAIK, that is not the main advantage or disadvantage of the age retirement raise.  Macron's rationale for the reform is that it's necessary to raise the pension age due to the unbalanced ratio between the worker and the pensioner -- since the pension funds circling from both of those funds. So the benefit/drawback you have mentioned missing their points about the reform and the protest.

It has something to do with the pension system that was built around France, which I did know fully aware of, so I resist to talks about it further. Besides, I believe the protest is also ignited by other causes, not a sole pension age reform.

Solution is making use of the retirement fee, efficiently and wisely. Invest it to a business which has low risk such as grocery store and such, in order to keep the flow of money going. Depending on the money to be earned from retirement would end up in a mess for sure especially if it is not the retired employee who would make use of it; therefore that won't be sufficient. But if things will be used with plans and restrictions, a huge amount could be enough to generate another income. But regarding early retirement, indeed mist of the people have no choice but to continue working oneself until that ceiling age unless they would be able to save money during their days as an employee to achieve esrly retirement.

The only drawback that I see for that constitution is that the younger generation will have to wait longer to get positions in companies where there are more elderly people are employed and since now the retirement age is increased, there will be two extra years for the companies to have more open positions to hire younger people.

Physical capacities can be a drawback too, you are right about that, but I think that's not the case with most people these days. Someone in their 60s should still be good enough to work with no physical issues.

To be honest, I don't understand what's the big deal between 62 and 64 for such protests (that wouldn't happen in my country), but IMO Macron shouldn't have angered them so much and should not have pushed through when people are so much against it (it's not democratic, after all). I've watched a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXzDKw4tS5Y) about the history of French pension protests, and apparently it's a very hot topic for the French. Something more subtle should've been done (like increasing the work years a bit but not the pension age, for example), IMO, and with better explanations to the public to ensure they're not as angry. They've forced the bill without the vote on a Constitutional technicality, which sounds very shady.

While this seems fair, they're not going to give you back anything. It's the government that we're talking about. They can only take and whatever they "give" is their way of buying votes.
If they're mismanaging the retirement money they shouldn't put the blame on people, especially those older ones who worked for more than 20 years, just to find out they're going to have to work much more than they thought to get what was promised. They should make the change gradually, with the ones closest to retirement not having to take the burden.
It would've been best if the retirement was a choice. You retire at whatever age you like and that age decides the amount of money you'll receive as pension.

Age doesn't matter as long the individual is having the skills to complete the jobs given to them but with the current system we have age limit for retirement and it varies from one country to another but I see this only applies to government jobs because a private company can fire an employee at anytime if they want because they want more productivity at less cost.

I would say just give them the salary and get them retire as early as possible because the youngster can be more helpful in many ways but to the core experience matters too.

I think it's still depends, there's a lot of workers in a retirement age and still contributing a lot in a company which makes them the foundation. By that it you can't just simply change their role or else it would impact the company's economy. It's the retiring people's choice if they'd still want to contribute or not, some of them doesn't really afford to lose the job as their source of money for their needs, maybe if they have the savings or investment that could help them to retire without worrying about the financial needs.

We also need to think of new graduates for youngster. They also have the potential and skills that suit for some jobs. But due to low hiring rate they can't apply to jobs. In the end it's still up to them. If the company doesn't approve retiring age then they can't do anything about it as the company principle.

I think this issue is much larger than just this. This issue is more about how will these changes shape the economy of this country. Because if you see the burden of payments to be made to retired personnel has eat up a lot of GDP. This has to be paid by the people eventually and therefore this additional 2 years will help government cover that. Not to forget the most important aspect that as less number of people retire there would be less opportunities available for the youth as well.

The lesson which should be learned from all of this is to not be dependent on your government for such a thing and instead save on your own for your retirement, the pension system all around the world is either bankrupt or its liabilities are way higher than the money they receive, so at some point governments will simply wash their hands and not pay a single dime anymore, and anyone which failed to create a retirement fund on their own will suffer when this inexorably happens.

"Full retirement" in Serbia is at 65 years and 40 years in service, for men. If you have only one of those conditions met you can go to pension, but it will be reduced by some %! Before in "communism and socialism" it was different, but now we have capitalism.  And as I read from the news we will go to 67.5 soon, but nobody will raise their voice about that... So I have respect for French workers, they fight for their rights. I hope they will endure... but it will be tricky.

I am not sure if that makes or doesn't make any sense, I guess it all depends on where you live... in which part of the world you belong. The conditions are different when you move a bit on any side. The point should be on people who fight for their rights, if we do not fight for our rights we can't expect some changes.
 

Increasing the age for retirement is like delaying their benefits for the sake of the government interest and I don’t agree with this one. In my country 60 years old is the retirement age and that is the only time you can get benefits from government, this could be an ideal age after working for so many years, i don’t know the culture in France but I don’t think this is a good idea, having an old employee can affect the company on many cases.

In my opinion retirement age should be around the 50's of someone's age, despite them being men or women. And the age should be also the same for both genders. After all, is all this talk about equality for real or not?

I say that about the age, because from my experience, always I talk to people who are on their 52-58 years old, they show a lot of disinterest for working. They complain about it, they say it's time to stop and take easy with daily life, and when they are forced into something they aren't willing to do (regards work, in special), they become angry, annoyed, upset, depressed. So once they reach the 60's, they have a lot of negative sequels on their behavior, that potentially prejudice the after-retirement life considerably.

If I'm not wrong you're from India. Earlier retirement needs to be followed, maybe something around 55 is good in my understanding. After 60 even the fittest will feel tired and they doesn't have the time to enjoy. If the retirement age is 55 years of age, atleast they'll enjoy life for the next five years and then take rest. In my country it is like they spend 60 years working and spend the retirement fund on their children's education and marriage. With what they receive as pension they run the daily life. In that a major portion goes to medical expense.

Even if I agree in principle that those which have worked for so long should enjoy a period of rest once they are old, we must remember that not long ago people literally worked until a few days before their death, and the longer people live and the more time they spend not working then the more expensive they become for governments all around the world, and this will eventually cause governments to simply stop paying pensions all around the world, so if anyone wants to retire early and avoid this scenario then they have no other option but to save and invest their money on their own.

I am not so well informed on the French politics, but I'm my personal opinion and raise in the age of retirement is viewed as a cut in the governments plan for those desire to retire and spend the rest of their life in a calm situation, enjoying the money they have managed to accumulate during their professional career.

I am not sure why Macron needed to do this, are there not enough experienced workers in France ? Why not start a goverment program to recruit professionals adroad?

Even thought it is only a difference of two years I can perfectly see why anyone would not feel happy with that.

The French government is trying to reduce the cost of paying salaries and other employment benefits. When workers retire they have to receive gratuity and pension which affects the finance of the government. The government also needs to employ new staff to fill the position of these retirees which is also capital intensive. So to save money, they have to increase the age of retirees to make them work more years, which will also help the government to save the cost of employing new staff for an extra two years.

This policy will also help in reducing the number of foreign professionals that will be attracted to France. But the government fails to understand that forcing people to work against their will may lead to low productivity. Although some people might like the policy because they still want to be active for more years, I think a high number of French workers are against this policy and we might be more protests today.

This is the gist of it, this is about money and nothing else, the French government likes most governments around the world is heavily indebted and they need to find ways to reduce their expenses, and one way to do it is to increase the age at which people can retire as they can avoid paying those people the money they are owed for a few extra years, but this is nothing more than a temporary solution as eventually people will work for that extra period of time and retire anyway, so unless the French government finds a way to increase its tax revenue they may begin to consider more extreme options, like raising the retirement age for workers again or simply stop paying their obligations to them.

Maybe indeed at that age people can still work but the work done at that age in my opinion will not go well, therefore people who work at that age must be rewarded for their dedication to an institution

Raising the retirement age is not a panacea. It simply means that state leadership is incompetent. There are many other ways to support the state's economy. It's not worth hitting the most vulnerable people. I hope that reason will prevail and that the retirement age increase will eventually be repealed.

It is quite understanding that every individual get older day by day and as we get older our power and strength and ability also reduce, which natural affected our output. Due to this poor output is what brought about retirement age, generally there is a particular age that we are weak as humans and cannot do some certain work.

Retirement age also in need and useful to implement in every organization so that the weak ones can give ways and opportunities for the young ones and youths to be replaced. It is a chance given previlage for the young ones,  I think retirement age for workers makes sense in my own view and little understanding.

The state-owned pension/retirement system is the biggest ponzi scheme in history. Few young people enter the labor market, while many old people leave the labor market and start getting pensions. The only two ways to maintain the system are:
1.Import more workers from somewhere else-Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc.
2.Raise the retirement age gradually or at once.
Raising the retirement age with 2 years at once, was a radical decision by Macron. I don't know why he decided to do such thing.
A way better solution would be to raise the retirement age with 3 months every year for several years.
Anyway, I'm not a big fan of the "Bismarck" pension system.

In government jobs it's definite that you are going to retire after 60 or 65 years of age and after that you'll get pensions to support you in later years.  But in business you have no retirement and no definite working hours which is tiring as everyone wants to relax at some point in thier lives .

Retirement is a math game.

Every government that allows and pays some funds to your retirement has skin in the game.

Every government in the world wants the following thing to not happen.

My stepfather worked for the Long Island Railroad in New York.

He got the job in the 1950s when he came back from Korean War.

He was born in 1932
he got the job in 1954
he had a boy in 1960
his boy joined the Long Island Railroad in 1982
he retired in 1987 got his government funded pension. retirement age was 55
his son had a boy in 1990
that grandson got a Long Island Railroad job in 2010
his son retired in 2022 retirement age was raised to 62.

So right now.

My stepdad will be 91 this july and he is on pension since 1987
My stepbrother is 63 this april and he is on pension since 2022
My stepbrothers kid has had his job since 2010 and can retire in 2052

So one worker getting paid
and two workers getting pensions

This is not an affordable thing to do.

So pension age gets raised.

but this fucks kids coming out of college since the older worker has to wait to retire.

The swing is still towards pushing workers to older pensions and fucking college kids.

Maybe it swings back.

People age differently, and while some other people in growing old may become both weak in body and mind, some others may just become weak in body but their minds more better with time. For that reason I feel workers should not just be given a choice but some sort of test to determine is they will be fit to continue working or retire.

If only a choice is given without any form of test to really know the answer, some workers may want to lie about their fitness to continue working productively, just so they can still get the benefits of working in the company.

In my country, 56yo is the set retirement age, while in the US it is an average of 63 to 65. In conclusion, individually the productive age of each employee can be different and sometimes some aren;t ready for their retirement, so 2 years imo isn't too much addition to make lots of protests here and there.
But I agree that this policy shouldn't be implemented all at once. Actually there is a more subtle way that isn't provocative for the majority of workers, like op's last suggestion.

It should be based on performance really, if you are rich, then you can retire at whatever age you want, like Mark Zuckerberg had the IPO and had billions of dollars at that point, he was less than 30 years old, he could have retired easily and just had fun, that's a type of retirement too. And some person may retire at 70 and still have huge debts and not survive and have financial trouble, that guy retired as well. Are those two the same? Obviously not, they are nowhere near the same.

This is why the 62 or 64 discussion worths nothing, it all depends on the performance, governments job is to make sure that elderly could live a life where they do not have to worry about shelter, food, clothes, health and so forth, basic needs, after that, whatever their age, if you can provide that, then rest should be up to them.

Retirement age should not be a thing of much concern.  The government knows the input of every staff and it  Should not be a thing of concern to separate the seeds from the shaft. The out put of every staff should determine if they should be retained at some certain age which is a legal age of compulsory retirement.

Those staff who contributed immensely during their vibrant age Should be retained so as to share their wealth of experience to the junior staff.

I know of a man who served and achieved so many milestones while in active Service. He was well known be the state government and to federal. Due to his vast experience and knowledge on the job, his year of retirement was extended to 5 years and even after retirement, he is still sort after by the government for consultation and technical input uptill date, he is called upon when ever there is a difficult situation at hand.

What I am trying to say here is that the government or organization knows their workers very well. They know their inputs and that is a factor to guide them through making decisions after retirement of workers. Age should not be a concern as their are lots to learn from older generation that has been on the job. I think this is another topic of discussion because the new generation gets things wrong in line of duty most times and would need the advice or guidance of the older to get things going.

This relates to the culture of every country. You can't just tell them to retire base on their merits and achievements in the past as opportunity of each person is different. One person comes from a rich family and able to graduate Law. The other one worked  a hard labor being a plumber.

Not sure if they have 401 in France but 401 as well is dependent to how much you have saved for yourself.

Well, I have only one question here. Why this retirement age is not applicable in politics? Joe Biden will be 86 years old when his second term ends in 2028 (in case he gets elected during the 2024 POTUS elections). My question here is, if someone at 86 years of age is capable enough of running the country, then how can you prevent (or impose a blanket ban on) someone who is 66 years of age from working in some other domain? IMO, it should be left to the employee and the employer. If both the parties are satisfied with their current arrangement, then the government doesn't have any role to play.

I have thoughts about the imbalance of working age, when the aging population in the EU or Japan and the US is growing, and the level of young workers is decreasing and many people are not interested in serving. service with local jobs they only benefit from preferential policies from unemployment benefits.
I'm not sure about the appropriate level of retirement in their country, but where I live, people usually retire before age 60, perhaps because of their poor health, they need to be replaced by a class are younger and we really feel that retirement is not a concern with the current workforce. Sometimes I see people in some countries claiming their own interests, but they are not under a good obligation to build a developed country in a balanced way, benefiting from many years of policies in terms of finance makes people less conscious of labor responsibility, it is not natural for the government to decide that, accept it as a contribution and bring balance rather than demanding personal interests when there is no obligation to perform well.

Well, it might also be because they want their senior employees to serve a bit longer in their duties since we know knowledge and experience plays a great role at any job, so if senior retires and is replaced by a young worker, he probably won't bring the same expertise and professionalism which the senior had within himself.

I don't say that the younger generation is not talented and can't cop with responsibilities and carry the burden of their seniors, but they will obviously take their time until they become able to fit in the shoes of their seniors who retired.

Governments like always were shortsighted when they designed the retirement system or maybe they never had the intention of paying up, as such a model could work when the population pyramid consisted of a lot of young people as the base of the pyramid and very few old people at the top, however now we are living longer due to a combination of better medical attention and a change on the habits of the people, while at the same time a global campaign to reduce the number of kids born out of each couple was implemented, this changed the nature of the population pyramid and now governments do not know how to square that circle.

I'm not sure if this is the situation in all countries, but in my country for many years there was a policy that people received approximately the same pension. One has been working for 25 years and the other for 35 years, but people's pensions did not differ much. If you want to get a big pension today, then you or your employer must pay a lot of taxes. The retirement age is constantly rising, and not many people live to this age. But you have to trust the state in this difficult time, or think about your pension on your own.

There’s a lot of ups and downs in your perception on what need to be done about retirement age. Some people after retirement always end up miserable because they didn’t plan well for their retirement or maybe government policy that is not favoring retirees.

Another disadvantage of leaving worker to decide when to retire is the fact that some countries doesn’t have the capacity to accommodate more workers without retiring the old ones and hence can lead to low productivity in economy of the country entirely. The idea of which to go for, whether to retire workers when they reach the age limit set by the government or they retire at their own will depends on how it’ll favour the overall economy and wellbeing of the people.

The retirement age in our nation is 60 years old, but it has been discussed raising it to 65 years old, which is a good thing because there are still elderly people who wish to work to support themselves. Since the majority of them want to have successful careers before retiring, I don't see any issues with it. For us to be able to continue to enjoy life as we age, we must lay a strong foundation for our careers while we are still young. We should constantly consider saving and planning for the future as long as we are strong and capable of working.

Such is the case in my country as well. The main thing to discuss here is; Is the pension sufficient to sustain one's life? What is the difference between the salary that a person receives while working and the salary he will receive when he retires? This is the main determining factor. Therefore, rather than asking the person's opinion, the main issue is the difference between the pension and the salary he receives while working.

They should be given that option and they deserve that because they contributed to the company's growth, the company should assess the employer if he is still fit to work and what work in the department he is convenient at his age.
We all hate the word retirement when we are workaholics and we treat our job as something part of our existence, there are senior people who have a good memory and can still keep up they have become very organized through the years and developed an insight on their work through the years.

The majority of the Unions don't want it
In a country like ours, our senior workers hate the word retirement because their pension can not keep up with the standard of living, it may be different from France because they don't want it, and it being unpopular in France makes us conclude that senior citizen in that country wants to enjoy the fruit of their labor by retiring early than what was proposed by their leader.

For a rich country where a senior retiree has a lot of benefits, they want to enjoy it as early as possible but for a third-world country a $100 to $200 worth of pension will not be enough.

I strongly agree with this, everyone reaching retirement age should have choice: either its time for retirement, or he or she has some energy to stay in job. The real problem lying beneath issues with retirement age is overall income difference: a janitor with a bunch of chronic diseases and with no savings must be free after years of so unpleasant work. And if it's a CEO or entrepreneur, or high rank civil servant with millions of dollars lying under his/her bed, doing nothing but creating schemes to deceive employees and rivals... Then its totally a different age-related retirement case...

It is logical. In spite of the fact that older people may still be capable and ready to work, ageism in the workplace is a serious problem that can lead to forced retirement. It's crucial to balance experience and productivity when weighing the advantages and disadvantages of keeping older workers on staff. While experience can be extremely helpful, it's also critical to understand how physical and cognitive aging might impact work effectiveness. To accommodate older workers and maximize their contributions while minimizing the detrimental effects on their health and well-being, employers should take into account alternative arrangements like part-time work, flexible hours, or job sharing.

Retirement for workers shouldn't only to rely on the social insurance funds that all countries provide to their citizens. In my country, for example, every person pays insurance expenses at least once a year, or deductions are made from the wages of employees once every three months, so that they get a fixed wage upon reaching the retirement age, which ranges on average between 60 and 65 years. Determining the retirement age is subject to many factors, the most important of which is the economic conditions of the state and its compatibility with the age structure of the population.
The good thing about this plan is that you can pay as much as you want, and according to those payments, the retirement age wage will be determined ; I mean, if your current circumstances are good, you can pay a large amount, and if the circumstances do not allow, then the little amount available can be satisfied.

It was logical but at least the parents realized they were getting older and didn't force themselves to keep working and it was time to retire. If the government gives them more time to work, they can do it if they are still strong and can work well. But if not, they should choose to retire and enjoy their days well without thinking about work problems. After all, having worked for more than 10-20 years seems enough for them to provide the best for their office, company or business. It is time to give that responsibility to the young ones to continue and develop it so that it is even better.

Physical ageing is inevitable and their performance will not be as good as when they were young. In addition, companies may incur more costs for them, especially for health checks, because the elderly are prone to health problems. And it would be better to realize that it was enough for them to create and now is the time to enjoy the results. But people who still want to enjoy all the facilities of the office or company will not let go easily and will continue to try to keep working despite their limitations.

Yes, workers should have the option to stay after the age of 50-60, in my opinion, because human abilities differ from one person to another. Some people weaken early at the age of 50, while others retain their strength until 70 years.

This is on the one hand, on the other hand, in developing countries, where government salaries are insignificant and not sufficient to cover living, forcing workers to work up to 60 years with these ridiculous salaries, so workers must have the right to stay or retire before reaching this age.

I agree that it's people's right to decide whether to continue to work after retirement. It becomes their decision to make since they are no longer employed to anyone. If you are an employee, you must know that your employer is the one that will make decisions about your work, including when he feels that you are due for retirement. You don't have much choice when the employee wants to review salary or retirement age. So going further, I also agree that it is good that an employee that wants to continue work after retirement should have plan for a business that has no age limit, as you rightly mentioned.

People lose their ability to work after a certain time. As a result, he has to go to retirement since it was a specific time. But the main thing is that when a man retires, he is not the one he becomes. However, many people may have a slight problem in the work and many can perform the task naturally. However, the government must give a specific limit here otherwise the discipline will not remain. However, if the government extended the time here to 2-4 years, it would have been more associated. Because some are able to work enough at that time.

Experience they say, is never out of fashion. It is important to always tap from the wealth of knowledge of the elderly, because over the years they've had so much techniques and expertise while working for a certain organisation.
 In the field experience for instance, a newly recruited police officer might not be well baked on how to file a case for prosecution  for a court hearing, at this point, it will take an experience police prosecutor to properly guide the new officer on how to appropriately go about the filing of the case for hearing.
So you see that In this case, experience has played a great role.

But a lot of people will argue that, the younger ones are not getting jobs, why are you increasing the service years of those that already gotten jobs, so there is always a two side argument whenever this topics is raised.

agreed - vaild point stated
neither does the hard work - if someone is a hard worker and hosnet worker he would not be failed person

I think this all depends on how other money is spent in France by the government, that force them to make this change of moving the retirement date back. This is the reason I stress to my clients that they should be saving as if social security (our version of France’s retirement package you speak of here) isn’t going to exist when it comes to time for them to retire. Never count on the government to do it all for you. Plan as if they won’t, and if they do provide retirement of some sort when it comes to your time ..then it’ll be icing on the cake and a much more comfortable retirement.

It would be really sad for the people who have already made plans years before the age of 62 to travel and go on vacations with their families. Regardless of the pros and cons that accompany this decision, it would have been better if the people were given the choice on when they want to retire without compromising the benefits that they'd be able to receive. This is because for some, their work has been stressful and detrimental for their health both mentally and physically after enduring it for years while for others, it is what gives meaning to their existence, or should I say, it makes them feel a sense of purpose; that they are still useful and capable. Governments should be more compassionate towards its people so to receive as much compassion as well that would make things better for the whole country. Forcing people to work against their will when they have already dedicated so many years of their lives to their jobs, would only degrade the quantity and quality of work in the long run. Not to mention the negative views that people would have towards their government that should have been taking care of them instead of treating them like slaves.

I am not even close to retirement but is it better to have it early right?  I really dont know well about retirement but if you move it for few years then it think it is inefficient to the worker as he is too old to do the task and i dont really see a reason moving it to +2 years and i think all of us aiming for early retirement as we know that we will be receiving pension closed to what we earned monthly but still this depends on the government or private sector as other will really force you to retire without pension due to other circumstances but i dont like have additional on retirement age

In my opinion, being able to retire at the age of 60 is considered very old, especially more than that age. How do you want to enjoy retirement, when you don't sleep well enough, you don't eat well, and when you're in your 60s and over, your body's stamina will definitely decrease. So I think, if someone can retire from a job over the age of 60, I think that's a little bit unfair. Because even if forced to work, surely the performance will not be optimal and not as good as people who are under 60 years old. I don't underestimate it, but at that age, in my opinion, it's not worth it to continue working. In your 60s, you should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor more, playing with your grandchildren, children, and taking vacations. Because in your 60s, it's like an age bonus.

Although in france, the average human age can reach more than 60 years.
Source: https://www.halodoc.com/artikel/8-negara-dengan-penduduk-yang-berusia-panjang#:~:text=3.%20France,age%20population%2082%2C4%20years.

But that's just average, and it's very lucky if someone can touch that age. Because when it comes to age no one knows, because that is the secret above.

If you need the government retirement plan in your late age you are fucked anyway. Retiring at 62-64? No fucking way. How about making investments while you were young and getting retired at 50? 40? or even 35? Now that sounds cool. The government can take that retirement plan and stick it to the place where the sun don't shine. Unfortunately for the most people, they need that shit to survive and that's a terrible thing. Now they need to work 2 more years just to what? get retired on a shitty gov plan. You only live once, plan accordingly.

Setting a retirement age for workers can make sense in some ways. It helps to ensure that there are opportunities for younger workers to enter the workforce and advance in their careers. Additionally it can help ensure that the older workers are not forced to work beyond their physical and mental capabilities. There are arguments that retirement age should be more flexible, based on individual circumstances such as health, financial status, and personal preference. Indeed whether or not a retirement age makes sense for every individual. None of us wants to force ourselves to work even we reach the old age.

You need to understand if not everyone in this world are get paid with minimum salary where they work and many people still get paid half of the country's minimum salary. How you can expect those people who are get paid half can save for their future life when it's only enough for their foods and bills? everyone would be happy if they have a lot money, so they can retire earlier, but the reality isn't and they're forced to work until they die.

Not everyone thinks this way and that's alright. Not everybody is going to have an early retirement. I have never looked at the statistics but I believe the percentage of people that retire early due to proper planning and investment are very few. There are countries where the government retirement plan works well and I don't see anything wrong with relying on it in that kind of system.
Why would I want to retire at 35 when I can still work? I mean, if I have proper planning and investment, that doesn't stop me from working, does it? For someone like me, that's an entrepreneur, and would most likely be an entrepreneur for the rest of my life, I don't think I'd have an early retirement.  ;D

Depends on the job you are talking about. Many people don't really like their jobs, they don't do enough vacations, get underpaid, work for long hours... These people can't work till their 60's. It is too damn stressful. I am talking about those people. People that need to work to survive this world.

If you are one of those trust fund babies then sure, you can work till your 80's.  :D It won't make a difference to you.

It depends, some people get retired because they have been in service for way too long and some are retired because they are old, I understand that some older people are still able to work, but retirement comes with pension money right? Although some government in some countries don't fulfill their promises to retired government workers, in my country many retired government workers are abandoned by the government, left to survive on their own and some.of these old men and women have no relatives that can take care of them, only this that have children that are successful and rich are in good care.

If I have to advise anyone who is older and also a government worker, I will tell them not to rely on the government work, when they are getting closer to their retirement, they should be able to find something else to do with the money they made from the government's job, they should be able to deposit money into another new business that will help them as they get more older.

Retirement age doesn't really matter in my opinion since we all have choices on what age we should retire. Senior employees contributed a lot in any companies, they are the best teachers to train new employees while getting a very decent salary, that's why even in the age of 60, they are still working to maximize the benefits of their hard work.

This kind of topic doesn't promote or encouraging us to work until we're old. Of course it is so much better to retire at an early age to celebrate our success.

Like you said earlier it depends. If you are old but are still very active and you also need money to support yourself and the people that depends on you then you can continue working. So, it is better for the retirement age to be flexible or better if a company doesn't have it so that there will be no worries if our company will permit us to continue or not but I think the only advantage of retirement age is that there are certain benefits that entails with them like pension funds. I don't know if that is the same to retirement funds but having one of it is better than nothing. It ensures you a fixed income even if you are no longer working.

Every government has a retirement plan for their workers. They have the age at which every civil servants will have to retire. But government coming in the middle of the game to change the goal post saying that every civil servant we have to serve for x more years.
To somw people, it is fair because they will have to be in service for more years. But to some people, it will be unfair to them because they would want to relax and enjoy the fruit of their labor. According to your analogy, anyone can decide to retire at any time but if you retire before the government stipulated time, how sure are you that the dividends and retirement benefits would be given to you? That is the bone of contest in this discussion.

But usually, retirement is at the age of 50 and over, some are less than that depending on those who work and the policies of the company they work for, but every worker who retires has severance pay that must be given because he has served the company for a long time.

Because the government always forgets about some civil servants who are not given pensions for many other administrative reasons that do not meet the criteria, even cases like this are many in several countries, but in the end, these civil servants will be neglected because the government will no longer pay attention to them after retirement.

It's much better for them to have their own business as a side if they rely on pension money then it won't be a complete fact, they have to be able to be creative again in any field other than being government employees first so when they enter retirement they are ready with the business they are running. run it and don't depend on the government that doesn't always keep its promises.

Now people are not looking for the long term jobs. They are now looking for the business which can help them grow.

Long-term work can also help a person to grow in life. Because if someone is just looking for a job that can make him grow without considering whether the job will last him in the long term or not, it will only help him for a while because he has to find another job that he can do in the long term. So a job in the long term is the first solution that must be found by everyone if they want to grow well in their respective lives, especially if it is their own business that is run independently.

Some people do love it, you can call it shitty government plan or whatever but it still doesn't change the fact that some workers do reduce their age as to continue working, especially a place where the money never stops coming.
I agree with you where you said "you only live once. Plan accordingly", the way you feel is it the same way the people feel about themselves? Thats what you need to know, it just have to happen SHITTY GOVERNMENT PLAN.

I think this is a serious topic, there are a lot of worker that still wanted to work because thier condition is still good even if they are old, and there are also wanted thier retirement fee because they have a health problem, so for me it is a good option to asked the worker if they can still work with thier age, i think it depend on the health not on the age.

I slightly agree with what you are saying, because at this time there are still old and old people who still want to sell in the market to get money. That means they are still healthy enough to continue working and earning money in their lives, because in fact at this time there are also young people who are no longer able to work to earn money due to being hindered by their health and even because they are completely paralyzed in their life. So I agree more that working is not all about age, but health because young people can't work when they are sick.

Not really, if there's an opportunity to work for long-term jobs. There will be people that are quick as a flash to take it as long as the opportunity permits them to stay for the long term. People want security and this is a real thing while everyone wishes to have a business and grow with it. For most starters, having a job is a sign of having no failure at all but if it's for having another source of income then business is the other source that we're thinking of. That's why even if there have been people on their jobs and they've worked for so long and even they're already old, they won't just leave it because there's the stable income that they get from it. No offense to both parties but wherever you're happy and earning hard earned money, that's the best place where we can be as long as we're happy and enjoying.

i think its a good practice to have retiremnt plan and specific age of retirment
But most people do not life sitting idol
they want to work and they have enrgy too. I have seen people health detirate during their stay at home retirment days

The needs and wants of each person change as they age, at the beginning of their career people are not afraid to change jobs and even to change their whole careers as they have a lot of time left and they are trying to increase the pay they take home each month, but as people age and they get near their retirement age the last thing they want is for things to change, they just want to keep their job and keep their current pay until they can retire, however the job market is evolving and this is getting harder and harder with each passing decade.

This case is different from my country because there was a plan around eight years ago now that you can choose to retire at whatever age you plan to in government work and you will be given all benefits for those years if you follow the due process so the age increment is not a do or die affair some people will like while some won't,so you choose.

I think this retirement age limit can be adjusted according to what type of work that person is doing. If it is for jobs such as private employees and the like then in my country the retirement age in that field is a minimum of 55 and a maximum of 60 years. ¹

But the minimum and maximum retirement age limits in each country are very different. and in my country, Indonesia is one of the countries with an earlier retirement age.

But it all depends on the type of field entered. Just as a civil servant in a country holds the position of an expert in a particular field, the maximum retirement age is usually raised to 65 years. because it is difficult to find a substitute who can replace a veteran expert in a field.
and I feel the rules in my country are the most comfortable. and I agree with the regulations in my country. but for other countries as OP listed. I don't know the situation there. and what is the level of health and fitness there at that age. so those who can judge maybe from the residents there.

------
Reference:
1. https://www.refruitfirst.co.id (https://www.recruitfirst.co/id/aturan-pensiun-karyawan-swasta/#:~:text=Usia%20Pensiun%2055%20Tahun&text=Ketentuan%20mengenai%20batas%20normal%20usia,karyawan%20swasta%20adalah%2055%20tahun.)

It's a necessity and should be treated as such. The population of Europe is growing old and combined with low birth rate it's a potential disaster. Soon there will simple not be enough people to pay the pensions for the existing pensioners. In some countries the increase is not so dramatic (62 to 64 in France) while in some it's more radical (60 to 65 for example). In any case, we'll have to adapt to that, otherwise the whole pension system will collapse.

If this is for government civil work, of course there must be a limit for retirement, even if they retire, of course, their experience is very much needed so that they can be placed in special training so that what they get can be immediately adopted by the next generation or successors.

Civil servants who are retired do not necessarily have to share their experiences with other people or with civil servants who are still actively working because usually civil servants who retire are due to their old age and even if they want to be used in training places it will not be very effective because usually people who are too old, the way of teaching will be slightly different from those who are still not retired. So there is no need to force someone who has retired to share his experience through a training because retirement is a time to rest for him.

the work done by civil servants is to run the existing system, so I also think their experience is not needed, in fact, many young people or new civil servants can still innovate to make changes to the system easier to run.
PNS who are retired are civil servants who are old and respect them by giving them time to rest in their old age, I agree with you.

If a company takes care of her employees, they wouldn't be bothered when an employee is approaching retirement because they know that that employee would have passed down the necessary skills, and knowledge needed to excel at the job and meet the organization's vision and mission. On the other hand, it is really hard to see employees who stay up to 5 years at a job. There is no company loyalty anymore as it was in the past where you could easily find an employee who has worked there for 30 plus years. Lastly, an employee who has reached retirement age may decided to stay back as a no executive or play the role of a consultant but must do any job because if they do they are taking up space for the younger generation.

Of course the policy will have pros and cons. But I personally agree if retirement is added. It's good that the French Constitutional Council provides an opportunity for the retirement age up to 64. Because in a country like Japan, people are old too, if they are still strong, work has never been stopped. so there are still many old people who are healthy, active and creative. Because they are still using their energy to make them healthy, not many are unemployed.

Just like we have drawbacks with extension of retirement age there are also benefits and which side of the dice it falls on depends on the individual in question. A worker who is aged 60-65years and still open to innovation, creativity, new ideas can be more productive than a younger worker who is naive 

Yes I think that they should give a choice for their employees specially if they had been in the company for a long time,
but at the same time I see why they want them to retire as knowledgeable as they are due to their long term work experience being old also have it's negative side: getting slower at work, and of course they also care about the accuracy what if they starts to be forgetful? and not to forget about the health risk.

many people who retire and are in good want to work they feel bad for not being able to work - had I been the one who would decide I would reemployee people who are retired and are in good health

The problem of pensions is of course something that the state must do so that there is a better change, of course people who are going to retire must provide or transfer experience, the best thing to transfer experience of course depends on the situation, if the candidate for retirement has a lot of experience then you can transfer 3 years before retirement.

Well if there's is no health issue or if the worker can still work then the worker should have a choice to continue or stop working, in my past company( in the garment factory) they need an limit fast worker is what they needed with a clear eye sight and we all know older than 60 to 65 years old is not fast as 18 to 40 years old so they don't have a choice, but there are so many works that old people can do so to be fair to those who still wanted to work the company should give thier worker a choice to leave or to stay at work.

Yes I think there should be an age for retirement.People who work for 20/25 years in various companies and government jobs.At some point they become old and they can't retain their previous work skills.I think there should be an age for retirement.By doing this they will be able to spend some time with their family and alone after their working life.I think they should go to retirement and they will spend the rest of their lives on their pension money.

even bill gates and steve wozniak said honestly that their abilities in old age are now declining, it's different from when they were young, especially since coding continues to progress, so both of them prefer to retire and only get involved behind the scenes.

from the story above, it is clear that a decline in performance will occur as age gets older, so there is nothing wrong with setting the retirement age for workers, and we cannot deny that there are many young people looking for work every day, with the setting of pension rules, their opportunities to compete in the world of work are also wide open.

This very far from the standard of productive age but,  I'm confused even though the working period for retirement is definitely different for each. For my country if he is a educators (Teachers) the retirement age limit is 60 years and for ordinary employees it is 58 years old.

But what you convey is true, the government through their staffing agency there should review it by making policies and regulating this matter in a relevant manner and giving awards for services to those who have dedicated time and knowledge to the country.

It depends many people are very productive after retirment

This change is certainly very burdensome for retirees because their retired age is certainly old and their performance has certainly decreased so that they will not get maximum results, so from here I think there is no benefit because the work period they have missed has been very long and all the experience they have gained and at the age of entering 62 years is old and it's time to rest so there is no need to add more, So it is very natural that many protest.

Yes, I agree that retired civil servants, on average, are old, rarely take early retirement.
And indeed, when civil servants with various experiences as knowledge only stick to their historical stories with dead-end explanations or just boasting about themselves, I often find such retired civil servants in my environment.
Of course this will be in contrast to young people who have a need for accelerated education, in my opinion, it will not be effective and will certainly be far from the target it should be.
So it's better if this is the case that the working retirement age limit is closer to me, like at the age of 45-55 years who are regarded as humans who have the maturity and maturity to share experiences with younger ones.

We are supposed to enjoy more of our lives when we retire so it's really hard to imagine seeing many of our elders continue to work not because they still have the urge to do it but because they need the money. In my country, 60 years old is the retirement age although they can still continue to work if they wanted to since our forced retirement is at 66.

I quit my regular job 6 years ago. Although after a few years of enjoying and traveling everywhere I like, I am back to looking for ways to earn a regular income due to the COVID pandemic. I still have no regrets that I quit my regular job since I am confident that I can establish another successful business soon. I'm loving the freedom of my time especially since I am a night owl. I cannot imagine anymore waking up at 5 AM or 6 AM in order to be in the office before 8 AM. And there is also that stressful overtime where most of the time I never received extra payments.

retired people are very punctual and considerated abiut their work because that is what they have the whole life.
but they are not much familiar with tech on the othet hand new generation is more in tech but they are not punctual and focused

The thing that is often a problem for us is retirement age, sometimes when entering retirement age they have a very good skill and experience so that when retiring then they can work in private companies and even abroad. This is an important lesson for us that if we want to be happy then we must always increase expertise.

Setting a retirement age for workers makes a lot of sense, it has to be an inevitable gesture of the government to Set this standard, their should be a retirement age for workers in other to accommodate the younger graduates this should also affect but the private sector, considering what is happening today somany country mostly African countries in particular can no longer sustain their economy and this has affected but their workforce,the available vacancies are now given to people that either lobby or has somebody that will speak on their behalf in other to get the job this is also applicable to people that have been in active service for over 50 years this set of old folks go to office of those that are in position to retire them to bribe or do whatever they are been told to do in other to extend their service irrespective of how old they are and at such depriving the energetic ones the opportunity to render their services. instead of giving them options I will advice that they should employ the younger ones pay this retirees a little stuff since they are on pension so that they will teach they will pass their wealth of experience to them that's if their is any.

There are several objective reasons for raising the retirement age in European countries. In Europe, as well as in the world as a whole, the average life expectancy is gradually increasing. There is also a general trend towards an increase in the number of pensioners. Therefore, the increase in the retirement age occurs almost everywhere.
  In Ukraine, the retirement age depends on the number of years of work experience. If a person has more than 30 years of work experience, he has the right to retire at 60 years of age. If less, then at 63 or 65 years old. If he has not gained the minimum number of years of work experience even at the age of 65, then he can only count on social assistance, and not on a pension, which hardly covers even the minimum needs. I think that in France the conditions for retirement and the retirement age will change more than once.

in different countries there is different retiermet age in different countries. But in our country there is not a specific age for retirment.

Is the average human lifespan increasing? In my opinion, on the contrary, our life expectancy is decreasing day by day because of the impact of the environment, dirty food, as well as our living habits, are getting worse and worse. I think that the reason for the increase in retirement age is that European countries have a large number of old people and people who are about to retire. And the government itself does not seem to want to spend too much on subsidies for these people, even though they have sacrificed their lives to dedicate and work.

Difficult living conditions in previous centuries, including manual working conditions, almost no medicine, and as a result - periodic epidemics, constant wars of conquest, as well as a number of other factors were the reasons that a hundred years ago very few people lived to be 45 years old. age. On the Internet you can find more detailed information about this. This is how the data on life expectancy by years in Europe looks like:
1701-1750 35 years
1751-1800 35-37 years old
1801-1850 38-39 years old
1851-1900 40-45 years old.
  Of course, the ecology and food quality have now fallen, but they do not really affect these statistics.
In 2021, life expectancy in the European Union was 80.1 years, according to the European statistics agency Eurostat, but these data are slightly lower than in 2020 and 2019, probably influenced by an increase in mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic.

most of the people feel very helpless and sad when they are retired. And in my opinion the retired people are more productive and more helpful then youngsters. They have no tantrums to show because they have lived their lives

     -  There are people who have the mindset that when they retire they will have a large amount of money available from the company they have served for decades. When they receive a pension every month, they are happy. And the other is that if they don't want a pension, they will make a lumpsum so they can build their own house and start a business and buy a car.

There is nothing wrong with whatever reason they have for retirement other than they are old or elderly. It's just that sometimes you think that they won't be able to enjoy whatever they can invest in after they retire because the only thing that will benefit a lot and be happy is to inherit what they worked for, we who have retired will not be able to enjoy that anymore though for us. that's fine and that's for the ones we love. This is the only thing I saw in my other relatives.

I completely agree because increasing the retirement age is not a good idea because everyone starts working at a young age, so this an old age is the best time to have their own time to rest and and have a peaceful time with the family. Also, when people reach their own old age, they should be allowed to rest because that is not the right time for them to continue to struggle in this life.

I agree that there should be some assessment of whether an old employee is good for retirement already or be allowed to keep on working. I guess each private company or even the government can do this in favor of those that have serviced them for the longest time.
That's the best benefit that they can give to them especially when they've contributed a lot to them. Being a worker for a long time and giving the best effort that they can be is unmeasurable. Although it's part of their job the loyalty itself is already a big deal to every individual and to companies that do appreciate it. So, depending on the capacity and the likes of the worker, if they think they can still work, allow them but if the company thinks that they're good for their retirement, give them a choice and if they chooses to retire then give all the benefits.

Indeed, every country has a different age level in determining the time of retirement. And usually this is based on the fitness level of the majority of people in that country at that age. And this is also assessed based on their effectiveness in carrying out the work. if at the age of 60-65 their effectiveness at work has decreased dramatically then of course it is very appropriate to determine the retirement age limit at that age. But in every country the level of human fitness and health is not the same. like in japan it seems the fitness level of people is much longer. because I see parents there have an extraordinary level of health due to a healthy lifestyle and discipline. So in Japan the retirement age which was originally up to 60 has been increased to 65 years.

I think the retirement age should be increased, in my country the retirement age for government jobs is around 65 years and private jobs are 60 years, of course retirement is something that can make everyone feel happy because they can enjoy the results of work without having to work, but as a retiree who has a lot of experience, before retiring, you must be able to provide knowledge to juniors.

I personally dislike working in full time job until the age of 60. Its something "insane" in my opinion. Its wage slavery at max level for sure. We, laborers, should focus on making good amount of income to guarantee our future through savings and investments and retire early. Much earlier. Probably around the age 45 at MAX. Otherwise your life quality will quickly die. But as liberal, I can't say everyone should retire early. Early retirements can disrupt many economies because it creates masses who live on retirement wage and do nothing. You should be able to work or invest and help other people start businesses.

If the retirement age is increased it will be more losses compared to benefits, because pensioners who are already 62 have decreased performance especially they are already at 64, then this is a decision that must be considered by the government council, especially now that there are very many people who have taken higher education but they cannot be part of the government, So this also has to be thought about by the government because they are still young and it would be better if they develop a draft that has been set by the government, so I disagree with the decision.

If you know that the retirement age is an old age, maybe you won't think that they can work again in private companies or go abroad to work again. Because all parties in the company do not only look at skills and experience in terms of hiring new employees into the company. But the company will also see how old he is and how he is in life so that his loyalty considerations can be very clear, because someone who is old will certainly tire more easily when he has to work under pressure where there is even overtime made by the company.

So this is not only about experience and skills, but also about one's energy and health which is also an important point for companies willing to accept new employees. But I don't understand how you think about this that still thinks they can work at their old age.

I want more specific and detailed reasons for this when you say retirees are more productive and more useful than young people. Because basically those who have retired were also young in their past, so it is impossible for the government or private parties to use them when they are seen as useless or useless. And if you think that young people are useless or useless, that means you have to wake up all the old people who have been bedridden to manage the country and also the economy.

For me, that doesn't really make sense because whatever you feel and see around you, young people are the next generation in every country because they are the ones who will replace their retired parents. And if you still see young people who can't do anything in their lives, it's the parents' job to direct them to the right path so that they can be useful in the future like those who have retired. But I really don't understand why you call young people useless in this matter.

Retirement is not an alternative to wages. 

A pension is a reward for older people for their past work for the benefit of the country in which they live.  A pensioner can receive a pension and not work.  He can also receive a pension and continue to work (if he has the appropriate opportunities and desires). 

Raising the retirement age is a very unfair act towards the elderly.  Each person must be sure that when old age comes he will have a reliable source of income. 

After all, human health, as a rule, deteriorates with age, and the need for comfort grows.

Raising the retirement age of workers sometimes I likely pointing towards a short of labour or work force in that country but in countries of much population, the retirement age is always reviewed so as to allow or call for more employment of the new or younger generation into Service. However, the retirees are not just allowed to be idle that way most at times, they are invited to pass or teach the younger generation more of their duties.
I know of an who has retired in my locality but uptill now the government still seeks his expertise in difficult situations and also, they organise a seminar at their state office inviting him to come train their workers.

Retirement age should not really be a thing of worry because at some certain age in life ones work energy would start declining and it will amount to less productivity hence the  reason for the retirement age for workers so they could have time fur themselves and family too but these days as a result of the rate of unemployment, people tend to fame their real age just to stay in a particular job for years without any remorse for the younger generation and this is mostly common in government jobs.

I think it's important here to recognize and capitalize on the good strengths of each. Their collaboration and mutual support can lead to a more productive and inclusive society and thus make a valuable contribution also because individual abilities and contributions vary, regardless of age group according to individual capacities.

You actually have a point, but let's be real some people already worked more than a decades in the sa job with the same position which might affect the company's performance if they just suddenly change the person's role. But in every year we have new fresh graduates who also have skills and talent that needed for the job so if they couldn't even find a position that suit for their course then it would be a waste. That's why I think retirement age for work is still a must. Maybe ask for help from the retiring people in hiring talented young people that could live up and be better to their past performances.

I don't really understand you, what do you mean that the old ones are more productive than the young and upcoming workers would have the zeal to work and impact knowledge based on what they have learnt. There people are old and can not deliver as they used to since there muscles are weak and is unable to do things efficiently like they used to. The age 64 is too far for a work to retire because some persons at 64 ha e started losing the IQ and the way they reason. Just imagine a lecturer teaching students at the age of 65 years. This is absurd andthey might be too old to pass comprehendible knowledge to students based there old age.

The pension laws in France (and most countries) were established decades ago and the ages have not necessarily risen with the much longer life expectancy that people have now. It costs the state a lot of money to give out such pay and while the people have paid into it, the balance has swayed too far out of whack so it needs to raise. You can see a slight slowdown in cognitive abilities but let's not forget that the current and last president of America around 80 years old, so people can certainly stay in somewhat reasonable shape long past the 60 year range.

There is no word retirement for people who waste their youth by not saving and investing to prepare for their old age.
It's true that it's not rare, especially in developing countries, there are still many people who rely on their physique to work at a no longer young age just to make a living. or they choose to be homeless or beggars because they are no longer strong enough to rely on their physical work.

For an employee in the government or civil servants, maybe they won't be too bothered to think about their old age because someone guarantees a pension fund every month and that's what happened in my country. but for us ordinary people we have to really think about old age so we don't have trouble.
So while you are young, make the most of this time. Creating an independent business is one way to guarantee your old age. Besides that, don't forget to save your money to answer future problems.
When old age or retirement age is your time with your family, avoid physical work that takes up a lot of time and endangers your health.
Investing is one way to increase your wealth and savings without taking up a lot of time and endangering your health.

Each country has different age limits. And indeed it has been adjusted with analytical data related to the majority of the work effectiveness and health of the population in that country at that age.

It's just that sometimes the actual retirement age limit can't be too much of a problem. What's more important is how we should keep our bodies healthy and strong until our retirement age. because now there are even many people who have complained about their health even at the age of under 50 years. Unhealthy lifestyle is the trigger. So it is not surprising that many are unable to work at an age below the retirement limit because they are not healthy.

It would be understandable that there should really be that some sort of retirement age or limit on which a certain worker should really be retiring because it would be that normal that efficiency of a certain worker would really be greatly be affected as we do reach up the old age. Yes, we do really have that experience on which those young workers doesnt really have but sooner or later they would be able to gain those experience.
Plus, it is really just that right time for those old workers to take retirement and better to relax than to do some job which isnt really that just that right for them to get stressed or worked hard for.
Therefore, they wouldnt really be giving a choice on proceeding but rather they would really be giving a choice on having that optional retirement if they would decide on retiring earlier.

This one does have sense because if they wont really be putting up limits then for sure we would be seeing lots of oldies that would be staying up into their work until they wouldnt be able to move
or would be simply dying.

Workers' retirement ages vary depending on their country, employment sector, profession, and personal preferences. In most nations, the retirement age is between 60 and 70 years old. Nevertheless, due to the aging population and the pressures it places on government pension schemes, several countries are steadily raising retirement age.

In my opinion, the age of 64 is very old, it is no longer productive if you are forced to work, in my country, the retirement is 55-60 years. You should give opportunities to those who are younger.

So wrong decision. Because
1. Narrowing down young people who want to find work.
2. It is certain that the level of worker productivity has decreased, it will have a big impact on the company.
President Emmanuel Macron has ignored everything for the sake of the income that the state has received from 2 years of rotating workers' pensions.

What is the reason for this governement retirement pool? Basically it is creating mismanagement of funds and bureaucacy. Basically you can give the money in the hand of the worker and can let him organize his own retirement plan.

I think the reason for the governement controled retirement pool was to protect financial unedicated workers from losing their retirement investment. So maybe the centralization is the better of two evils. And if you have f.E. the centralized mismanagement and the bureaucracy, than it is okay to raise the retirement age. Basically you can retire with 40 in France. But you will not live good with this small social benefits and the retirement money then with 67. Same fish, different speared.

In my opinion retirement age is beneficial in two ways first of all the government thinks about the rest of that person because after age of 60 a person is not active in managing duties so rest will be needed and other benefit is that there is an opportunity for other individuals to take part in that job because there is large number of individuals who are jobless so this is a good feature to provide opportunity to new comers to join the field.

 Although it is true that elder person has lots of experience but this will deprived the other individuals to get a job because that experienced person will always choose for that seat and remaining will not get any job because of little or no experience so this is one of the major drawback if retirement age is not limited.

When someone reaches retirement age, of course, the expertise he has is very broad and proficient, companies or countries that have someone who retires must be able to take advantage of the potential he has, and the best thing is that prospective retirees must have transferred knowledge and skills since 1 year before retirement .

The retirement age is a separate issue as governments around the world are raising it as pension funds fail to meet their obligations. And even if you take care of your health, which of course you need to do, the pension pays may be too low for you to have enough for the standard of living you are used to, and therefore many people continue to work even after reaching retirement age.

It make sense in other to accommodate others, people should retire so that they can be receing their pension every month and with their wealth of knowledge as people that has served for a long time, they can help in impacting their knowledge to the new recruit of the sector in other to move the firm's forward.

Due to in my opinion retirement age will be in two ways in first government will think about that person because after 60 age the person not have done duties fast and due this retirement age are need to fixed and also other benefits are chance to get it and not having job person lot is there and other should get that job for new comers due to this retirement are the good opportunity .

Aging workers' efficiency? That's a fine line to tread. They're fountains of wisdom, but strength might be a weak spot. The answer isn't necessarily pushing them out to pasture at 65, but perhaps overhauling the workplace instead.Consider this - many of today's jobs don't require brawn. Our experienced lot can still pull their weight without risking health. And for physically demanding roles? Maybe a switcheroo or lighter tasks could work. They stay involved without overexerting. Retirement? It's their call, but decisions should be guided by routine performance chats.

Increasing the retirement age makes sense, IMO. Here in India, the retirement age remains at 60 years and it hasn't been increased for a long time (for some state government jobs, retirement age is as low as 55 years). At the same time, the life span has increased by quite a lot during the last 2-3 decades. And this puts an enormous strain on the government. Every year, an increasing amount is being paid out as pensions and the number of pensioners are exploding. Very soon, pension payments to retired employees will overtake the salary payments to active employees. This situation is not viable.

Well, you mentioned facts that I also encountered around me. Where there are still many people who still have to work even though they have reached retirement age. But that's for those who really don't have a pension fund because they don't work in the government or in a company that provides pension funds. They are people who have only worked as casual daily laborers since they were young and have not made financial plans and preparations for their old age since they were young. So we must learn to have preparation from now on. so that you can enjoy retirement in peace and without having to bother looking for income.

Well if I was age 61 and going to retire then this happened I would be really upset. Thinking I was going to retire but then having it taken from me. Now having to work for another 2 years would not make me very happy.

I think it needs to be up to the person going to retire. I know people who are aged 70 and above still working. It really depends on the person and the age is just a number when it comes to working. Me I will want to work until I am older then 64 but maybe not someone else.

Yes, I may agree with your statement above. On the other hand, from an economic perspective, an aging population can put a strain on the pension system and public finances. But, if the government conducts a Polling for Workers who are approaching retirement age, Choose which to keep working or retire. I'm sure Dominan will choose to continue. Everything has a cause and effect, perhaps. Some individuals may want to continue working past the traditional retirement age for financial reasons or a desire to stay active and involved. Raising the retirement age gives them the opportunity to make that choice.

On the other hand, extending the retirement age may limit job vacancies and career advancement opportunities for younger workers. This can lead to an increase in the unemployment rate among the younger generation and hinder intergenerational equity.

I think it's just general. Each country has its own Rules of Law, one of which is the age limit for working. So, as good citizens, as much as possible to follow what has been determined and what has been determined is not a unilateral decision, they have sat together to discuss this as has been done by the French Constitutional Council.

The government isn't shoving anything down the throat of people, they're likely trying to keep the books balanced. People live longer now than when these pension systems were first developed so it's only normal to increase the age. In reality you are free to retire at any time you want, but you need to accumulate enough assets to support yourself in that endeavour. Nobody is being forced to retire in any country with normal laws, many businesses allow people to stay on for as long as they like and are competent enough to complete the job they are paid to do.

It makes sense though in many way like if you don't retire after reaching certain age then how is it possible for the upcoming generation to get a job? First of all the concept of permanent job should not be exists anymore because that is where most low efficiency of a job comes from, if the job based on their performance then who is giving the results will stay and others shouldn't which is hard I know but if we have such system I bet we will have different world than now.

It is not France's crisis alone, but rather that all countries that suffer from demographic aging are subject to decisions similar to those taken by France. Population aging means a decrease in economic productivity that may reach the stage of disability. This also explains why these countries accept large numbers of immigrants and asylum applications.
In my country, the retirement age was raised to 62 for the same reasons, and we did not witness any protests, neither from unions nor from citizens, although I live in a country that enjoys a good margin of freedom.

Do we only look at work productivity to determine if a plan is something that is great or not? I don't think so. This plan is great as it is because not only does it give these old people a little more chance to work and put food on their table especially now when things are a little hard to deal with and the government's not really reliable. At the same time this gives them more opportunities to live a more fulfilling retirement life. Work productivity will not be inversely affected by this change as you have to consider the fact that the percentages of people on their 62 applying for work is not only low, but exceedingly impractical for companies to hire, not only over the fact that they are already old, but also because they are only legally allowed to serve the company 2 years. Plus the fact that there are also young people that are getting hired every year.

So all in all this is a great plan, gives those whose old but still capable of working at least 2 more years to provide for themselves, and ultimately allows them to live fulfilling retirement days.

And in the end it will depend on the health and fitness of our body at that age. whether we will still be able to work or not. I personally want to be prepared from now on so that before retirement I have a passive income that can keep me receiving income without having to work. I want to enjoy old age with lots of vacations to various areas that I have never visited with my family. or relax enjoy every moment with family. And to make that happen I have to have two long-term investments. namely health investment by maintaining body fitness so that it remains healthy until old age. and one more long-term investment in assets that could pay off for me in the future.

I believe the government is considering the well-being of employees and aiming to ensure they can benefit from their retirement by enjoying life while they have the opportunity. Ultimately, this decision may be influenced by the global mortality rate, also known as life expectancy.

According to the research as we can see here in this article.  (https://www.worlddata.info/life-expectancy.php#:~:text=The%20world%20average%20age%20of,data%20from%20the%20year%202021.)


If the retirement age is set within the age bracket mentioned by OP, individuals would only have around 10 years to enjoy life after retirement. Therefore, I believe it's necessary to encourage them to retire, as life is not solely about work but also about fully enjoying it.

i didn't read clearly about the pension law set by the French order but it definitely doesn't include the post of president or other state officials.  those who are over 60 years old, of course, will experience a decrease in the quality of energy and thoughts, so it's no wonder that in some fields of work, hiring people over the age of 60 is a bad thing, moreover, job vacancies don't increase but young people who are productive continue popping up then it establishes a shrimp pension law is a good thing imo.

Because there aren't many options for healthcare and life expectancy is declining globally, I find the idea objectionable. With the retirement age being raised to 64, some people who have worked and paid into the system for many years may not live long enough to get benefits. Thus, extending work hours shouldn't be required; instead, people should do it if they feel well enough to do so. Recreational pursuits, travel, time with the grandchildren are all intended to be part of retirement. They cannot appreciate life if they are broken down and in anguish.

I also think that it would be much better for someone who has turned 60. to have the option of whether to take retirement or choose to continue working for an additional few years as agreed. So that people who have the desire to retire at the age of 60 will not feel disappointed if there are options they can choose. and those wishing to remain employed will also not be disappointed as there are options for extensions of employment. and I heard there is a system like this in my country. what is referred to as young retirement or early retirement, namely retirement before entering retirement age. but they still have pension benefits. it's just not as big as when they retire at the retirement age limit.

Naive young individuals will not endure in their jobs until retirement. They will struggle to compete with other workers when it comes to promotions. It is true that individuals aged 60 and above possess remarkable experience, but their productivity declines along with their less-than-optimal physical condition.

They easily become drowsy, and senility becomes a common occurrence. Thus, when this truly happens and there are still elderly employees, it only adds to the company's burden. There is nothing that leads to a significant improvement for the company. Everyone will simply bow down out of respect, rather than working objectively.

Depends on the working area. If a person is working in the office, then retiring at 60 seems early (yet again, depends on persons health and how he had lived till 60), because I've seen many people at 60+/- being quite energetic at work. But if a persons had a physical work who whole life, then at 55+ he will be exhausted already.

Imho, it would be better for aged people to retire at 60. They still have time to live for themselves, to get some rest in life. I believe that even though ages people are experienced, current generation has learned enough from them already.

There are many things to take into consideration before we say that this is the right thing. Because with old age, people lose the edge both in mental and physical health. What business wants? More production and works. So if they keep those guy who are over their 60s and lost the edge, then that will be a loss. Experience is not everything when it comes to work. It is important, but in order to implement that to work, you need strength and mental capacity to keep working. New recruits will be less productive in terms of working benefits, but they will pick up the pace and gain those experience if they work hard.
Also, the population of this earth is not decreasing every day. Instead, it is increasing. So if you keep people over 60s, will that not take away the opportunity from the new generation? Working opportunity is getting less and less every day, and not to mention that the competition is so high these days. What to do in this situation? On the other hand, those who retire, they can create their own business or help the new gen to gain the experience that they have achieved over the years.
Or the companies can offer a service in where the veteran will teach the newbies what they know best. And in return, they will get paid for their service. Doesn't this make more sense than keeping them in the work and taking away opportunities from others? I don't know, man. This is what felt right to me.

It seems that the retirement age is around 60-65 years. And because they certainly think about the productive period of the workers while working. And if you are above that age, of course you have to think again about your productivity, about the risks at work, how big the impact is, not only for the company or institution but also for yourself. So I think, if it's time to retire and it's old enough, there's no need to extend it anymore. especially if they do get a pension fund, at least they can have enough rest in their old age. Even if they still want to work, maybe they at least choose work that is not heavy, not binding, and can be done optimally according to their conditions.

It makes sense to raise the retirement age so that people can continue to contribute to the workforce and the economy. Many workers are physically unable to work past a certain age, and that raising the retirement age would unfairly penalize these individuals. There are also economic considerations to make into account. If the retirement age is raised, it could lead to decrease in unemployment rates as older workers remain in the workforce for longer. This could also lead to a decrease in job opportunities for younger workers who may struggle to find employment. Retirement age for workers should be based on efficiency of employees. It is important to balance the needs of older workers with the needs of the economy as a whole in order to ensure a fair and sustainable system for all.

This is a double standard. You are speaking in two voices supporting extension of retirement age and also pointing at unemployment rate for the young people. Of course if old people are retained in work force even when they are not contributing efficiently to the economy, they need to be replaced and this may not be done selectively. The best is to let them go for a replacement with the young people and you may open up space for the old active workforce on a contract or part time bases because of their expertise. I believe countries with long service age are those who lack young workforce for replacing the old. There are more advantage for introducing energetic minds in the workforce and these advantages are what we all know needless to mention.

Productivity at age is not always the same from one person to another and there are some people at the age of 50 who cannot even work anymore due to limited health. Every company or government has a different perception regarding productivity age, but I think it needs to be seen from a health perspective. In my country there is usually a young retirement term for people with health problems and they don't have to wait until retirement age to stop working.

So as long as they are still productive at work, I don't think it's a problem, but it's different if they don't have health that can encourage more productive work. Age 62 years should be enough for workers to retire and does not need to be added to 64 years for retirement.

People should be allowed to decide if they want to continue working or not because most people retire without any achievement  it has  resulted to different cases of forging ages just to sustain and last long on the job so government should allow workers to be optional on this because many retire and find it difficult to survive

In my opinion, in this case it depends on the health of the citizens, in essence in terms of physical and other things, of course the government also carries out research on the physical and performance of the people because sometimes each country always has different physical conditions, and in my opinion, aged 62 or more, are no longer strong. in physical terms but of course in this case there are definitely pros and cons and even in one country but sometimes physical conditions vary so I think in this case there must be awareness from individuals because in reality everyone has different physical conditions sometimes there are times when people who are old but still want to work because their physical condition is very good, but there are also those whose physical condition is no longer strong, even though for example they are less than 60 years old, so in my opinion, in this case we have to respond wisely.

We're all allowed to choose whether we want to pursue working or not. But in most cases of government jobs and even in the corporate, there's a retirement age for most employees.
Whilst for executives, they don't have retirement age and they can just pass it on to anyone that think is qualified to work on the task for their position.
Otherwise, retirement is for everyone if they think that they're on that age.

one of the reason why we don't see much vacancy I recent is because most people have refused to retire and give way to the younger folks to piloting the affairs I firms and organisations. Increasing tye retirement age for workers won't do them any good, for crying out loud, you've worked for 40+ years and you are already in your 60s what do you still want in the service?

If you give most people the option of retiring or to continue working, they will comfortably choose not to retire because most of them don't even have an investment to run back to and they are not even sue that their pension would be paid to them at the end of their service year.

Retirement is the period of time someone that has been working his whole life uses to enjoy his years of active service and extending it means the person has to almost work with the whole of his active life and will have little or nothing left after retirement.

I know that it is just a difference of two years but for some, it means a whole lot . I think the suggestion you gave is very valid because the desire to continue in active service after the normal retirement age should be totally left for the person retiring to make .

This decision is of course pros and cons but of course, it has been through research and so on and this is also happening in my country, especially in civil servants and also the military, it is increasing but I don't know for sure whether it has been implemented and it is still several years faster than in France, and looking at the newspapers that the retirement age in France is still different compared to the average in other European countries at around 64-65 years, and because it has only been increased by two years, this should not be a problem because adjustments can be made quickly.

Well, honestly, I have relatives who are in government who have grown old, started working single or had no husbands until then, got married, and until they get old or retire, they are there in their service to the government.

And the benefit they got when they got their retirement fee is that they have a monthly pension of around $200, so it still makes sense the fatigue and hard work they did somehow because the money they got was given the lump sum of 50% of their pension and the other 50% is in pension every month.

Well, let me first of all say that, I do not see a much difference between 62 and 64,  though I still understand that having to work for  2 more extra years can be really a lot and unbearable for the man or worker who have been waiting and looking forward to retiring for a long time. And this I believe is where the need for personal decision comes into play and very vital as well.

Workers own their body right? They themselves know how they feel in the inside, they know how weak they've become, they themselves know if they really need a rest or to keep going, workers are to be at liberty of choosing when to retire, a sick man 60 years old man can't possibly keep working all in the name of trying to reach the specified retirement age, he may as well possibly drop dead before he reaches the stipulated retirement age, and this totally makes no sense.

With the numbers given those are the ages of the people who can receive as part of the elder people which we call senior people would like to retire at that early age if they can but it depends on the kind of life what they have, if you raise already a good amount of money during that times you can now leave as you want and retire but what if not? people in the lower-low status of society can't choose this kind of life because they don't have any options they need to keep working so they can serve food every day and keep working hard for the challenge of life. Not all the time government can sustain those seniors at the end of the day it's their path of their life that make them keep alive.

In my opinion, it all depends on each person. because people's pleasures are different in nature, for example someone who is 60 years old and he does not have a family or only lives alone, in my opinion, a person like this will prefer to continue working because of his situation who does not have a family and the friends who are in his workplace are his family so maybe I he will continue to work even though he is 60 years old.
And there are those who choose to retire at the age of 60, because they have a family and realize that their old age must be spent with their family because their pleasure is in their family, and their family is the most valuable treasure in life.
So everything has its own portion.

If the old man was living alone without the support of his family members and they left out by their sons means he had no option other then working.In other case,some people had the potential and brave to live with their own earning.Such old people doesn’t accept the money from their family members also,they try to take food by earnings.Such people was motivated people to the younger generations all the time.The life of each people was not the same one,some also work because of their family left out to avoid of care them at the old ages.


If the government increases the retirement age for the old people it doesn’t take the opportunity of the young people.Because the younger generation even get into the government job at the age of 30-35.But every one year after the 60 years will be very hard,because in many families they was not get respect because of the money support to their family.

In this case it will really depend on each person and also the environment in which they live, you are right, if someone is alone and doesn't have a family to take care of them, of course they have to keep working no matter how old they are because if they don't have a job, of course no one will want to take care of them. except for themselves and for those who have families, there are even some who are under 60 years old. They no longer work because their families take care of all the things they need and they will spend more time with the families they have.

Well, there's mortality rate and that means that not all of the people working will be able to render until their retirement and there are a lot of people that have economic difficulties.

And that means that they're going to find better opportunities for which will open opportunities to the young ones. Honestly, there's always opportunity somewhere else for each of us.

But we have hard time finding them or because it doesn't fit the criteria that we set or the passion isn't just enough.

Everything has a deadline.  Similarly human performance and mental skills also have a fixed term.  After a while, the human brain no longer works as before.  The human body is no longer functional as before.  Every man has to retire after the appointed time.  There are many more young candidates in the country who need to be given job opportunities.  How will the government and private institutions get new candidates if the senior citizens do not leave their seats?  Everything needs innovation.  Everything has a certain age limit and we have to accept it and move forward.

Not many people can achieve the level of income that will allow them not to work when they want. Also, often the pension is not enough to provide themselves with everything they need and these people have to continue working.

Sometimes people continue to work even in retirement because they are bored of being retired without work, but this is also a very rare case, most often they keep going to the work because they need money. The retirement age is needed so that the government knows when to pay citizens a pension, but recently there is a tendency for governments to raise the retirement age, so people have to work until they are old.

Raising Retirement Age when the life expectancy has become longer is actually make sense. The reason why retirement age exist is because at certain age a person was deemed to be unreliable to do some task. But along with the development of medical and nutritional science, people will have better life quality, compared to the previous generation, the later generation must have better nutrition and life style. And the result is that previously people who are on their 60s considered to be less reliable, but with better food and life-style nowadays people are still able to work even after their 60s.

All that being said, I would still prefer that elder are given a choice whether they are willing to continue to do their job or just retire.

Exactly! especially now that some older people, they are no longer able to reach the age of 60 because of the diseases and illnesses they have but having an advance technology and good vitamins and medicines,they will live longer and have a vigorous body with the help of supplements and taking care of their health. Here in our country, There are still some International companies who are still accepting retired aged employee to continue doing their job as long as they are capable and has no any other illnesses and I think that's right, just give them a chance to choose continuing and leaving their work because of their age..

that makes sense. Also, in my opinion, someone who enjoys their job and they don't have friends other than in the world of work, it is likely that they will continue to work not for money reasons,  but because they have work friends who they consider to be their own family, and this happens in my environment where there are one parent who is elderly and he still likes to work also he has been warned to stop working by his family but he refuses because the reason he is in his job is that he finds pleasure that cannot be replaced with money, this indicates that money is not everything but everything need money.

It could also be that they choose to keep working because they are bored if they don't do the things they are used to doing,  and it is possible that money is the number one thing, maybe they still like working for reasons like my story above.

The elderly man's job clinging is a great example of work surpassing money. He sees the workplace as a social hub where fellowship is the main course! This goes beyond job satisfaction to the workplace's social structure. Social creatures, we are! The workplace replaces family and community when they fail. In today's fractured world, where else do we spend much of our time? The workplace becomes a pseudo-family, covering money-less gaps

Boredom drives work ethic greatly, yet is often neglected! Breaking from routines feels like leaving home. Money is a convenient scapegoat, but it's not everything. Work fulfills our purpose-driven nature. Your story illustrates a larger trend: employment is more than a paycheck; it's a source of meaning and protection from laziness. We must acknowledge this and cease reducing the story to financial motives. We misunderstand work by looking at it through a narrow lens

There are many people in our country who, after their retirement, are still working because of the hardships of life here. Even if they don't want to retire from work, there is nothing they can do because there is a limit to the age at which they can work. There are others who, even though they don't want to work anymore, are still obliged despite their old age.

Because they are forced to do so because they don't want to be a burden on their children who are staying at home, that's why the parents who reach old age are lucky that their children take care of them.

I agree with this, where those who do not have a good relationship with their family and make the workplace and work friends as family this is a good thing. because not everyone has a good relationship with their family sometimes there is also a child who lacks affection from his family which in slang is brokenhome, those who experience this tend to always be alone or always with friends who he trusts and sometimes there are some children who are brokenhome talking about not having a home to go home to, but this is not about the house. someone who is less fortunate in terms of his family maybe they will prefer things outside such as considering friends who are at work as their own family. This is possible because in my opinion not all elderly people want to spend their time at home, there are also those who want to spend their time outside the home such as in the world of work or others, I don't think it's bad because they themselves have rights, and usually if people are elderly it will be difficult to be prohibited, so let them choose things that can make them happy, I strongly support this, if those who do not have a good relationship with their family but spend their masters in their own homes there is a possibility that they can get upset and become angry too because they are prohibited from doing anything other than staying at home.

I also think that socializing is not wrong, in fact it's good. because they will have friends to chat with who are cool and comfortable. but if they just stay at home, they might feel bored. the purpose of working is indeed to earn money primarily, but there is nothing wrong with those who do not have a good relationship in their family and consider their workmates as family, someone who works certainly aims to earn money to meet their basic needs, if indeed they do not experience any problems in the family, maybe their main purpose in working is because they can earn money. i'm sure they know the choices they have to make because they themselves will feel the results.

Yes that's right. As a person gets older, a person's skills and productivity will also decrease at work, especially if he works as a government official. The best way is to lower the retirement age limit from 58 years to 53 years from 60 years to 55 years, this also applies to all government employees so that there is continuous refreshment with the presence of the younger generation, so that they are more productive in working in government and companies.

It's different if someone works freelance rather than as a government employee, he can decide for himself when he wants to retire, if he has sufficient finances of course he will choose to retire and spend his old age with his family. Therefore, it is important for us from now on to prepare for financial freedom for old age, one of which is that when we are old we can just rest at home while playing with our grandchildren.

We do know that there would really be those poor people and there would be those ones who are in the middle or shall we say on average. This is why when we do get old, it would be always better that you should really be getting those life insurances at least of trying out to have some savings and dont tend to relying into your children when they do gets old because they would really be having their own family
in the future and dont expect that they would really be there just for you when you do get old. This is why it would be always that ideal that you should really that make yourself that prepared at
least so that you wont really be that get disappointed on the time that your children wont really be minding on both of you together with your wife.

This is why it would really be that best that you should really be that wise and prepared. Getting retired early? this is what we do wish for but if we do still have
tons of responsibilities specially into our family then its really that hard on doing such thing. There are ones how do really still love to do work
but due to age they are really that mandatory for retirement.

Retirement for civil servants has both good and bad effects on retirees. As a civil servant, you are supposed to retire at a certain age when the physical strength has derailed, so that the younger ones will continue to give effective results in the work environment. But, this has to come with a mouth-watering incentive that will help the retiree sustain his / her self and family, to avoid retiring to poverty. The bad side of this is mostly caused by the government. The failure of the government to pay that retiree when due has caused a lot of menace in society. Making some of them go into depression, which sometimes leads to death.

In my country, the government official age retired around 60 years old not matter with their condition keep healthy or not have retired and indirectly loss his job. Government official work is not really hard and I little agree with age retire because many people still keep working although their age over 60 years old. I little agree with some one have get an older their skill will decrease as on government official working they have much experienced than beginner and easily work although on older age.

Some one in freelance seems not have retired age exactly their working not schedule yet as government official work, they spent which one worth time for working and get holiday difference with the other and likely if get controlling skill and manage good time they will not has retire age.

By the way, there is 60 years of retirement in our country, but some people do not want to retire even at 60 years. Once someone gets recruited in a government organization, after that his health and performance is never looked at. Work in government offices is not difficult, but even then government employees do not work. Therefore, if retirement is kept in terms of performance, I think his performance will be excellent even after sixty years.

Skill increases with age, but efficiency and power decline. In our country, the only job of a government official is to sign a file, and this performance can be continued for 100 years. Sometimes they find this work very difficult, the actual fact is that they are a burden on the institutions, who do not give any benefit to the institution despite taking huge salaries. Therefore, it is better to retire early those who are not beneficial to the organization.

Each country has different rules including the retirement age for workers and it makes sense to me the policy taken by the French government. Every year thousands of young graduates are born after they have graduated in academics. Limiting the retirement age for government workers can open up new job vacancies for those who meet the requirements.
Regeneration must be carried out in order to create prosperity in an area, the government also plays an important role in taking policies so that the number of unemployed decreases. Creating new jobs is the best solution to maintain economic stability and equality for those who are qualified to work in certain sectors.

Based on different countries, the retirement ages based on different career has a particular years when they will ask workers to retire because the brain and mode of faculty may no longer be able to help continue the job. It is important for us as we are getting to the age of retirement, we need to make sure that we save for the time when we can no longer work again or make money for ourselves. Retirement age is a age when we might not longer have the strength to work or do things on our own the way we used to do before.

I agreed that government should not forcefully retain it employees after attaining the mandatory retirement age or increase retirement age, it should be optional though majority of them would opt to leave however their wealth of experience would still be needed especially workers or expertise in health sector, technology, etc it might be very difficult for government to replace some of these key sector of the government replacing them with newly recruited employees isn't a bad idea though I prefer those employees who are about to retire retrain the newly recruited employees thereafter release them to retire because their productivity would wane as they aged in the job.

The percentage of people who work because they want to is very small, but most people work because of needs that must be met, and it is true, as you said, that each person has a different portion.
However, in my opinion, the retirement age cannot be set by someone else, even if we are workers in someone else's company, it all comes down to ourselves, even though every job, whether in the government or private sector, has its own age limit rules.
But what I mean is that our desire to work can be regulated by ourselves. For example, for those who want to retire early from work and enjoy life, they must prepare carefully before deciding on this, prepare savings or other things that can meet their needs in When he doesn't work later, it's easy in my opinion because we can do whatever we want as long as we are able to prepare in advance.

In my opinion, if the government increases the retirement age, of course there is a clear reason to retain them, as you said, with the experience and expertise they have, it is certainly natural to retain them, but in my opinion, if the government continues to retain them for a few more years, of course the generation that wants to develop will less interested in developing themselves to be able to replace those who have reached their retirement age.
I really agree with what you said, it is better to give young people the opportunity to have skills like theirs and give pensions to those who have reached retirement age to enjoy time with their families while they still have time.

As far as I know, each country has different laws that apply to the retirement age for working in the government, as I have read and seen in several countries.
For example:

In this case, if we talk about the economy, of course the impact on pensions aged 60-64 will definitely be on you, especially benefits being cut, so that pensioners have to look for other additions to cover their economic needs, In this case, I don't agree that those who work in government have a retirement age of 60-64. I agree that if the retirement age is 68-70, maybe this action is more mature to consider.

That makes sense, many of them work to meet their needs, sometimes there are also those who don't like their work but they still work and this may be due to factors related to their economic needs which must be met every day. However, in my opinion, it feels unethical if they have reached old age but are still working, they should just rest and spend time with their own family, because I am a person who always feels sorry, so if I were a boss and had an old employee, I would tell him to to just rest at home and spend a lot of time with their own family.

because in my opinion old age is no longer for working, but for enjoying periods of peace, life in old age should be enjoyed with things that make them happy, because there are people who don't like their work but still force themselves to work because of economic factors . but it is also up to them themselves to determine everything, as long as they think it is good then I will support it.

If you feel sorry for the person, then dismissal or layoff is the wrong decision. Because if you stop it, that person will lose their livelihood and income, so that it will be very difficult for that person to fulfill their needs. Indeed, if we are talking about a desire, a person really wants themselves to be able to retire as soon as possible, but because conditions make it impossible, they choose to continue working because there are demands and needs that they fulfill. And if only someone had enough savings, I'm sure that person would have decided long ago to retire. If you are kind enough, then don't fire the person, but give him a lighter job and if you are determined to fire him, then give him an allowance so that at least he has enough money to survive.



If you feel sorry for the person, then dismissal or layoff is the wrong decision. Because if you stop it, that person will lose their livelihood and income, so that it will be very difficult for that person to fulfill their needs. Indeed, if we are talking about a desire, a person really wants themselves to be able to retire as soon as possible, but because conditions make it impossible, they choose to continue working because there are demands and needs that they fulfill. And if only someone had enough savings, I'm sure that person would have decided long ago to retire. If you are kind enough, then don't fire the person, but give him a lighter job and if you are determined to fire him, then give him an allowance so that at least he has enough money to survive.

Indeed, old age is a time to enjoy peace and happiness with family. but when you experience serious economic and financial problems, let alone being able to live happily, being able to live in peace becomes something that is difficult to obtain.
And starting from this, it is important for us to be able to prepare everything later, lest we also suffer the same fate as people feel, where we continue to work in our old age.

You're right about retirement age autonomy. We must acknowledge this power! The idea that employer retirement policies control us is outdated. We must take control. First, financial literacy important. Traditional savings accounts are obsolete. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are financial game-changers, not trends. By investing in Bitcoin, we may multiply our money. This isn't just about preparing for retirement; it's about revolutionizing it.

We must transition from working because we have to to working because we want to. Here comes financial independence and early retirement (FIRE). It's about aggressive savings, clever investments (hello, Bitcoin), and prudent spending. The aim? To be wealthy enough to live off passive income without working until retirement. Though ambitious, it's achievable. Just start seeing Bitcoin as a key player in your financial decisions.

I agree with this, old age should be enjoyed well, because old age in my opinion should spend a lot of time with family, a person who has a good mindset I think they will work hard at a young age because they know old age is no longer a time to work, with them working hard at a young age it will produce in the future and when in old age they only have to enjoy it, But on the other hand, where there are families that are economically disadvantaged, it is possible that old people still work because they have to support their families by fulfilling their basic needs, because there are families that are not able to generate stable finances, or the absence of complete family members makes one old person still have to work even though they are old.
And in my opinion, I think it all depends on the person, but as I said before, we should work hard at a young age so that in old age we can enjoy it and not work anymore.

And then after that there are stupid people asking, why are you tired of working hard and fighting tooth and nail for old age, even though God doesn't necessarily give us a long life? Why collect money to save and invest here and there just because you think that in a few years you will decide to retire and enjoy this time with your family. Who knows, maybe before you retire, you might die? And in the end you won't be able to enjoy the results of your hard work that you have accumulated, except for your funeral costs. And instead of doing all that, it's better to just use the money to have fun and enjoy your youth.

That's a series of stupid questions and statements that I often encounter. They really can't think long, and think like this, that it's better for me to spend my youth full of effort and hard work without having to forget to enjoy the process, and also stay focused on building a better future. because who knows, God will give us a long life. And if you have to die young, everything will not be in vain, because wealth and objects can be passed on to the family. And if in fact we are given a long life, then we can enjoy everything together with our family.

Well, this is interesting, basically people's thoughts are different, and as you said, I think your comment reflects someone who doesn't think about their future where they prefer to spend their money to enjoy their youth. That's not completely wrong, because it is everyone's right, especially if they do that but also don't forget to save, that's better. and in my opinion, people like this tend to have short-sighted thinking, because all they do is spend their money to have fun in their youth and not have any benefit in their old age.
and you said about death, I say once again everyone's thoughts are different, why do I think more about youth, because when I worked hard at a young age and wanted to live to enjoy old age by relaxing and enjoying the results of my hard work and if indeed I died, is it all over? I don't think so, because when I have enough results to enjoy and I die, the results that I should have enjoyed can be enjoyed by the rest of my family, maybe my sister, wife, or other relatives, also if they have I think they have a good mindset and will continue all of this to make it into another business that should produce results too. In my opinion, nothing is in vain in this world if we do it with good intentions, but as I said, every person's thoughts are different. is this helpful enough?

because I have my own principles in life.

Depend on each individual because not all of old age should enjoying their life with family because they have burdens and liabilities that must be paid off. Actually we are on the young age have prepare well investment assets in the future and raise old age not keep working exactly in my environment they have spent more than 8 hours in daily to work with cheapest salary payment. Right position for children can get stability financial and help our parent not have to work on older their age.
In some countries have regulation can't allow the older for working in the company but they helped with giving all insurance needed by old people, good solution for helping old people enjoying retired their life without work but get help from government.

yes there are also people like that, because maybe he doesn't have a complete family, for example he only lives alone so it's possible that this person has a family only in his work environment where his coworkers at work they consider as family, and even though the boss has told him to quit but if he is comfortable in that place, it's likely that he won't leave the job even though it's not because of finances but about his coworkers who are already considered as family.
And I think it also depends on the individual, you mentioned "we" not "me", I don't think everyone invests at a young age because like the story I launched earlier there are also some people who spend their money in their youth because they don't think long so they choose to spend money in their youth by having fun. "Helping elderly people enjoy their retirement without working but getting assistance from the government. "That's good, because if it's like this I think this government can see the society around it, because in my country this doesn't happen often. many people who are elderly but still work to meet their own needs or their family's needs and maybe for other reasons, I don't know myself clearly but what I see is like that.

Here in my country early retirement starts at 60 and some other people here choose 65 as their retirement age. Though numbers differ in any parts of the world but yeah that is the the old workers enjoy the fruit of their hard work. Salute to these people who really has huge contribution to the economy sacrificing their personal wants to cater the need of their families. My mother is actually one of them she retired working at the age of 60 and now she got small monthly pension enough to be used for their daily needs. That is the reason why I had to work smart to repay their sacrifices when I was a kid. It's not a responsibility as what others might say but family is a family.

Different heads, different contents.... And yes, everyone has different thought patterns and opinions, but don't let us be easily influenced by other people, you intend to build a better future, but because there is a whispers from other people, you change your perspective and prefer to enjoy your youth by relaxing and having fun, while whatever your future holds, it's up to God to decide.

Therefore, what you say is true, that we must have strong life principles, so that we are not easily influenced by other people, not easily confused with stupid things, especially thoughts that lead us to bad things and misery. And the environment or relationships are the main factors for a person in choosing a life principle and finding an identity. Therefore, it is important for us to sort and choose relationships, choose an association that actually invites goodness and can encourage us to be more enthusiastic about becoming better.

this is the reason why it is important to organize your life from a young age, because we will not know what difficulties we will encounter when we are old, I have seen many people who have very difficult times in their old age because they retire and their old age makes them have to let go. their jobs and like it or not they have to be willing to live without a job in old age.
For anyone, investing from a young age is very important so that when you are old, your life will be difficult, you will not depend on other people even your own children, because we don't know how our children will behave in the future, maybe they will leave us and not care about our lives in old age.

60-65 seems a bit too old for someone to retire. I mean at this age, illnesses starts to occur and one might not be able to do all the things that requires physicality, and this means there are only a few more things left to enjoy the remainder of your existence.
I think the most suitable age for someone to retire and have pensions is 50. Considering how huge the government are taking taxes from businesses and workers, without a doubt it could be sustainable. We barely even seen where our taxes went lol.

In my opinion, the contents of the head are the same, namely the brain, the difference is the way of thinking haha, don't be too serious, friend. ;D
with different thoughts this is clear,  and I think everyone wants a successful future, if perhaps there are people who don't want a successful future maybe they have their own reasons. what is clearly true as what you said is don't be easily influenced by other people, and with us having thoughts of course we can determine which things are good for us and which things are bad for us, so if we are influenced by things that trigger goodness or profit That's good, but if you're influenced by something bad or detrimental,  it's best not to and don't be careless if you don't want to have problems in life.

Yes, you are right, relationships are also a factor that must be paid attention to, because if we make the wrong connections, of course we will be carried away by bad currents too. and in my opinion,  don't hesitate to do something good or something good, because it's for ourselves,  unless the person really wants to always get into trouble, maybe they will do something bad that could harm them, but if there is someone like this, I think he stupid.

Previous people who worked in government offices or in government services really had a clear dedication to developing the economy. Even though by law they are paid by the government, the way they work is very tenacious and never gets tired so that those who have reached the age to retire will be truly proud of their country and their families too. I see this in people who are still alive and have retired in my area, especially my neighbors and my own parents.

In general, a child will not be able to repay his parents even though a child makes various sacrifices to repay him. But I would rather say it as a form of devotion because as long as our parents are still alive and they have retired, of course it is a child's duty to take care of him and also provide every devotion to him. And I think you are also a very good child if you try to make sacrifices for your own parents in their retirement for now, because many children out there are still not able to do this for their own parents.

If you're working under someone being employed, you may not have choice o er your retirement plan than what they give from their own rules to follow concerning retirement plans, but when you're independent of yourself and the work or business you do, you will do it to your satisfaction until you feel like, you're indeed satisfied enough, not only that, you can leave the work for tour children to take over after you when they understand how to run the business and manage it well, together with their interest in doing it, then you can choose when to retire or not.

Even at age 50 on which illness would really be starting to occur on which it would really be just that normal that you would really be that considering on having those retirement as early as possible but if you are that someone whose really that working into a company or private/public then they had already set those bar standards on which you cant really be able to get retirement funds if you cant really be able to hit that specific number of years of work or service on which this one wont really be leaving you any options or choice but to deal up with those things. To those who had made out those voluntary retirement is into those people who had been able to make themselves succeed on other ventures on which they had made out themselves to be that successful about business on which they are really that confident that they could quit and they could sustain
if ever they would be deciding on quitting up their job.

It is really just that good to see that we are really that stopping working and would be focusing into the things on which we are interested in without stressing yourself that you might be losing up your job.
It could be possible but its not a state that you could really be easily be able to achieve because we know that things in life doesnt really come that easy and it would really be requiring that hard work
and effort for you to be able to reach out that state.

Not really bro, there are some whose brains are empty and there are also some whose brains are in their knees. and there are also brains, shrimp brains... hihihihi

Everyone wants to be successful, but not everyone is able to achieve success... either because their efforts are not optimal, or they don't try at all to make it happen... because if you only plan, everyone is capable of making a plan, but not everyone people are able to realize what they plan. I don't know, maybe it's because of a sense of laziness that can no longer be helped or because they don't really care enough about their future... and in the end they only rely on inheritance from their parents, but it's still better if their parents are rich, if their parents are poor... well, what do you want? inherited.

Apart from that we also have to be smart and wise in matters of friendship... however, we also have to be wiser in choosing a life partner... choose a partner who can really keep you enthusiastic, both in pursuing a career and in the business world... because quite a few people... a person who before marriage, he had a good career.. however, after marriage he became a lazy person.. because he was influenced by his partner

Old people will not be able to compete with young people who are still fresh and have good enthusiasm and stamina, so it is only natural that old person who have entered retirement age will eventually be eliminated by competition in the world of work. btw, it's really sad to see old people over the age of 60+ who are retirees and are no longer able to earn money for their families, but that's a reality that can't be changed, and usually, old people who suffer in their old age are people who don't make the most of their time and money to invest in good things. I am now almost 40 years old, I have been thinking about investing since now and also working on things that will give me certainty for my old age, and my investment choice is cryptocurrency.

You seem to think that this is an enforced retirement age? It is not. It's an age that people reach and can choose to leave the business, at which point they will be eligible for state benefits which they've probably been paying towards their whole life. In most cases it is optional and very attractive for people to leave at that point, as they essentially have an income that they don't have to work for anymore and it is supported by any private pension plan that they may have also built up over time. Businesses may be happy to keep workers on after this age, especially if they are fully competent, because of the skills that you mentioned and they don't force people out after this age in most civilized countries.

hahaha that's funny mate ;D.
that's true, in my opinion there are also young people who want to be successful but they don't do something called change, I mean they don't have any movement to achieve that success, and I have a friend like this, where he always says he wants to open a business or business because he doesn't want to be a burden on his parents forever,  but he doesn't take action that leads to the things he wants he just does the same thing where he is always lazy, and he says this so often, that I once shouted at him because I was alone. I'm fed up with the advice I give but he doesn't make any movement at all, which clearly makes me annoyed. Is it normal for me to yell at my friend like this?

In my opinion, even though they have rich parents, they shouldn't hope for or only rely on their parents' wealth, because I think there will definitely be negative talk from other people about someone who only relies on their parents' wealth. parents, unless they have no shame, maybe they will still rely on their parents' wealth even though they are married. That's right, when it comes to partners, of course we have to choose the best,  don't make the wrong choice which will lead us to bad things.

The normal retirement age is between 65 or 66 for most people.This age range for me seems to be too old  for someone to retire.Maybe the retirement should fall a few years earlier.

Retirement age for workers;for me,the important thing is,to retire,you need income coming in every month that equals or exceeds your living expenses forever.
  However,your desired lifestyle after retirement or in retirement should be considered greatly.So that you can enjoy your retirement life comfortably without stress.Depending on your financial status,feel free to retire at any age....
  What matters most is that you are financially prepared to answer to unforseen circumstances,emergencies and life's uncertainties.You need not to worry about the retirement age,the fact that you are financially guided will increase of security and your peace of mind.

If you are really that working on government then these ages would really be that totally be the right age for you to retire on which it is true that for me its already just that too old for you to have that kind of
limit but since we dont have no choice since we arent really that someone who do possess tons of investment on which could provide out that passive income then we dont really have no choice but to work
hard and even if we do reach up with old age. For those who do able to find out some ways for them to make themselves better in terms of finances then they are the ones who would really be able to retire from their
work on early or still young on which they could really be able to cherish out those remaining years and do spend up their time with their loved ones.

We do know that not all would really be able to succeed out into this venture but its always that wise that you should really be coming up for the better and if you do have plans
on having that progress and trying out to achieve such state then it would be wise that you should work hard for it.

Retirement age can be restricted, especially if personal investments can't provide early retirement. Fixed retirement ages are common in governments globally to guarantee a smooth succession of roles. Here, personal finance knowledge is important. You must work smart, not just hard. Personal finance expertise, passive income opportunities, and compound interest can shift the game. It's about constructing a retirement safety net, not just building riches

It's never too late to start retirement, for someone like you. Small, persistent investments can build over time. Not just retire early, but retire comfortably. You can retire on your terms by diversifying your income through investments, side jobs, or ongoing education. It's about giving yourself options and ensuring you can spend your latter years with loved ones without financial worries

Cant provide early retirement? Investments could give out that kind of opportunity but of course it would really be that depending if that investment of yours is really that something profitable on which it could really be able to sustain the things on what you are dealing with on which it is really just that your own common sense on retiring early whether you would be able to support yourself or not. Its impossible that you wont really be able to see on to that condition. We do know that there's no other way on retiring early but only on having those passive income or having those multiple businesses. The main thing on why we do stick into a 8-5 job is that we do need money for us to survive.Its impossible that once in a moment that you wont really be thinking up these things on which you would really be liking a life to have a passive income.

So it would really be just that depending on you on what are the plans that you had set into your life whether you would really be planning to be a worker for the rest of your life or you would really be
working for something that would freed you on that working life cycle. It does vary on a certain individual because there are people who do really love and getting contented on what they do have
but there are ones who arent really that making those things to let it happen for life.