Retirement Age for Workers - Does this Make Sense?

[Flexystar]

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.

[1714932711]

1714932711

[1714932711]

1714932711

[1714932711]

1714932711

[gunhell16]

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.

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.

[DevilSlayer]

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.

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.

[DrBeer]

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?

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.

[Synchronice]

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?

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.

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.

In 2022, the average national life expectancy for men in France was 79.3 while for women it was 85.2.

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.

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.

[michellee]

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.

[kingvirtus09]

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.

[Twentyonepaylots]

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.

[vv181]

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?

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.

[Yatsan]

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.

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.

[savetheFORUM]

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.

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.

[kryptqnick]

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 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.

[darkangel11]

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.

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.

[jrrsparkles]

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?

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.

[reizella28]

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.

[teosanru]

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?

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.

[South Park]

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?

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.

[iv4n]

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

"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.
 

[crzy]

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.

[uneng]

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.