Retirement Age for Workers - Does this Make Sense?

[Russlenat]

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?

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.

A male child born in the United States today will live to be 73.5 years old on average. This puts the male citizens of the US in 43rd place in this ranking. On average, US women are 5.8 years older, reaching an age of 79.3. The world average age of death is a few years lower at 68.9 years for men and 73.9 years for women. Within the European Union, these are 77.7 and 83.3 years respectively.

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.

[macson]

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.

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.

[alastantiger]

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.

[Uruhara]

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.

[bayu7adi]

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 

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.

[bakasabo]

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.

[tjtonmoy]

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.

[lalabotax]

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?

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.

[axxo]

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.

[palle11]

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.

[lizarder]

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?

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.

[Jenwi]

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

[Kaliandra]

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.

[terrific]

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

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.

[Hewlet]

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.

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.

[Marvelockg]

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 .

[Strongkored]

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

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.

[gunhell16]

France's Constitutional Council on Friday approved an unpopular plan to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64, in a victory for President Emmanuel Macron after three months of mass protests over the legislation that have damaged his leadership.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/france-retirement-age-raise-64-approved-constitutional-council/

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?

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.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

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.

[Peanutswar]

France's Constitutional Council on Friday approved an unpopular plan to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64, in a victory for President Emmanuel Macron after three months of mass protests over the legislation that have damaged his leadership.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/france-retirement-age-raise-64-approved-constitutional-council/

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?

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.