Tesco Becomes First Major Firm To Move Pension Age From 65 To 67

[Vagabond]

What's wrong with working until you're 67?

Serious question? I'd rather have another 2 years of earning good money before retiring instead of (let's face it) a pretty dire pension. I am not on a final salary scheme. So if this working until 67 happened in the company I work for (which I am sure it will) - I wouldn't see that as a bad thing. Realistically though, you'd probably be asked to retire early anyway when you reach 60 going by how things are going.

I guess everyone has different goals in life, and some want to retire early. Well, then plan for it yourself? I just don't see working until 67 as a bad thing.

When pensions were first introduced they were meant to be a quiet respite for a year or two after a lifetime of work. They were never meant to be decades of fine living on huge sums that nearly matched your final salary.

Unless the pensions problem is solved and soon, the current UK sense of entitlement is going to crash head first into the economic reality of bankrupcy and the resulting wreck isn't going to be pretty.

[PopGun]

Most people will be on the employment scrap heap long before they're 67.

Edited March 15, 2012 by PopGun

[the gardener]

I boycotted Tescopoly over the workfare con - cut my spend there from ~£500 a month to <£10 (driving past need milk kind of act).

My monthly spend was about £550 on groceries, £160 on petrol, £10 mobile. That's over £700 per month Tesco aren't getting from me ever again.

I have not set foot in a Tesco since the boycott began. My daughter was meant to go to Tesco with her Brownie group to help pack bags for customers to raise money for charity but she decided that she would not go there either (she knows about our boycott but I told her it was fine with me if she wanted to go). I was very pleased to see that she has a well developed social conscience at her young age and refused to attend.

Edited March 15, 2012 by the gardener

[scottbeard]

When pensions were first introduced they were meant to be a quiet respite for a year or two after a lifetime of work. They were never meant to be decades of fine living on huge sums that nearly matched your final salary.

Exactly. People compare the new pensions world to the previous generation's unsustainable position, and cry foul.

For a better perspective, people should go back a little further and look at some more pensions history.

For example, when the state pension was first introduced, it was payable from age 70 and means-tested.

[alexw]

When pensions were first introduced they were meant to be a quiet respite for a year or two after a lifetime of work. They were never meant to be decades of fine living on huge sums that nearly matched your final salary.

Unless the pensions problem is solved and soon, the current UK sense of entitlement is going to crash head first into the economic reality of bankrupcy and the resulting wreck isn't going to be pretty.

Its got absolutely nothing to do with economic reality, and everything to do with an out of control monetary system. We can produce more goods than ever before with less labour. Indeed productivity increases on an exponential basis, while life span linearly. Thus, economically speaking we should be reducing the retirement age not increasing it.

We are crashing head long into the brick wall of our ludicrous monetary system, not an economic one. Fix that and we can be retiring at 50.

[alexw]

Exactly. People compare the new pensions world to the previous generation's unsustainable position, and cry foul.

For a better perspective, people should go back a little further and look at some more pensions history.

For example, when the state pension was first introduced, it was payable from age 70 and means-tested.

Rubbish.

Productivity is increasing exponentially.

We have 25%+ of our current potential workforce either unemployed, in make-work education, in low hour part-time work, long term fake-sick, or doing make-work non-jobs. And with all of that the population generally still have decent quality life-styles.

So what the heck do we need more people working longer for?

The problem is one of a disconnect between our monetary and economic systems, nothing else. Going on the basis true economic production and productivity we should be decreasing retirement ages.

Edited March 15, 2012 by alexw

[scottbeard]

Rubbish.

Productivity is increasing exponentially.

We have 25%+ of our current potential workforce either unemployed, in make-work education, in low hour part-time work, long term fake-sick, or doing make-work non-jobs. And with all of that the population generally still have decent quality life-styles.

So what the heck do we need more people working longer for?

Productivity HAS INCREASED exponentially; it won't necessarily continue to.

And life expectancy is increasing.

Also, from a lot of the posts on this site, i'm not sure everyone agrees that "the population generally still have decent quality life-styles"

[SarahBell]

So what the heck do we need more people working longer for?

We probably need less people.

[winkie]

We probably need less people.

The choices are very clear and straightforward, less people over working and more people under working or not working, or more people working less and sharing more.

[alexw]

Productivity HAS INCREASED exponentially; it won't necessarily continue to.

And life expectancy is increasing.

Also, from a lot of the posts on this site, i'm not sure everyone agrees that "the population generally still have decent quality life-styles"

Productivity has increased much much faster than life expectancy has increased. Ergo it is entirely feasible from an economic production perspective, to slowly lower the retirement age while still having an increasing quality of life arising from growing economic production.

Yes, our lives are harder but people are not starving on the streets. Now imagine if we had merely a third of our economically inactive/unproductive being economically productive. We'd have very comfortable lifestyles, while still having a significant proportion of our inactive/unproductive population in reserve. That could easily be used to keep our retirement ages constant and lower the average working week.

The BS about needing to increase the retirement age is the powers that be trying to get us to run ever faster on our hamster wheel so as to prevent the wheel falling off.

Edited March 15, 2012 by alexw

[alexw]

We probably need less people.

But if you decrease the number of people you decrease the number who need to be economically provided for. Thus you end up back at square one.

[scottbeard]

Productivity has increased much much faster than life expectancy has increased. Ergo it is entirely feasible from an economic production perspective, to slowly lower the retirement age while still having an increasing quality of life arising from growing economic production.

Yes, our lives are harder but people are not starving on the streets. Now imagine if we had merely a third of our economically inactive/unproductive being economically productive. We'd have very comfortable lifestyles, while still having a significant proportion of our inactive/unproductive population in reserve. That could easily be used to keep our retirement ages constant and lower the average working week.

Actually I guess you're probably right - in theory.

I think in practice, when productivity has increased people have consumed more now, rather than saving more for an earlier retirement.

E.g. if the price of a TV comes down from £400 to £200, instead of people going "great! £200 more for my pension fund" they've said "great! now i can have an ipod too".

[alexw]

Actually I guess you're probably right - in theory.

I think in practice, when productivity has increased people have consumed more now, rather than saving more for an earlier retirement.

E.g. if the price of a TV comes down from £400 to £200, instead of people going "great! £200 more for my pension fund" they've said "great! now i can have an ipod too".

Your not understanding how it works. When people 'save' for retirement they don't take some of their prior production and bury it squirrel like. There is no giant warehouses holding the stuff they produced during their working lives to use up later. You simply alter who is consuming what is produced.

If the general public all tried to save to consume it later in retirement all it would do would be to shrink the economy. Your thinking from a monetary perspective and not a economic production one. When productivity increases either the total level of consumption has to increase or the average number of hours worked per person has to decrease. You can also have some mix of the two. These are the only choices. I'm advocating the last one. (Of course we can be Mr stupid and decrease the average number of hours worked per person way faster than productivity increases, and this is what we have spent the past 5 years doing to the detriment of us all).

[SarahBell]

But if you decrease the number of people you decrease the number who need to be economically provided for. Thus you end up back at square one.

The ratio was of 40 workers per pensioner when pensions started out.

It's now about 4:1

As people have said you can't expect a pension to support you for years. It wasn't meant for that. It isn't going to make any sort of financial sense to try and achieve that.

[alexw]

The ratio was of 40 workers per pensioner when pensions started out.

It's now about 4:1

As people have said you can't expect a pension to support you for years. It wasn't meant for that. It isn't going to make any sort of financial sense to try and achieve that.

Thats a 10 fold increase in pensioner numbers, productivity over that time has increased many many times faster than that.

Its easily possible for 4 workers to support 1 pensioner.

Like everyone else your thinking from a monetary perspective, not an economic production one.

Our psychotic monetary system requires continual increases in growth and thus in economic output, otherwise the system collapses. This is why we are trying to increase the pension age, not because its needed.

Edited March 15, 2012 by alexw

[bmf]

The choices are very clear and straightforward, less people over working and more people under working or not working, or more people working less and sharing more.

As productivity increases the complexity associated with this also increases.

I work as a programmer. We have a hard time getting good ones. There are not enough because it's very complicated. Supply is inelastic.

[bmf]

Thats a 10 fold increase in pensioner numbers, productivity over that time has increased many many times faster than that.

Its easily possible for 4 workers to support 1 pensioner.

Like everyone else your thinking from a monetary perspective, not an economic production one.

Our psychotic monetary system requires continual increases in growth and thus in economic output, otherwise the system collapses. This is why we are trying to increase the pension age, not because its needed.

House price lending as a multiple of wages totally insulates house prices from productivity. On the builder side it matters not a jot if they can put up a better house at a quarter of the cost in half the time. On the buyer side it matters not if you are twenty times more productive than your 1960 counterpart (I exaggerate for effect!). You will still have to save 4 (or even more now) man years of labour.

House prices should be lower as a multiple of wages, say two times, were productivity gains realised. As it is prices are based on ability to pay as demand exceeds supply creating an auction.

edit: it pisses me off that on this site people are so short-sighted. They simply want prices to return to whatever they can afford, say four times income, rather than discussing the much bigger picture they are happy to play along with a serfdom that leaves them with one over a fellow serf.

Edited March 15, 2012 by bmf

[winkie]

As productivity increases the complexity associated with this also increases.

I work as a programmer. We have a hard time getting good ones. There are not enough because it's very complicated. Supply is inelastic.

There would be plenty supply if 1. our education system was teaching the skills in low supply, the skills of tomorrow not yesterday. 2. the right people that could do the job were encouraged to work in the up and coming new industries instead of wanting to become lawyers, bankers and politicians.....the money supply needs to be spread around more evenly.

Edited March 15, 2012 by winkie

[bmf]

There would be plenty supply if 1. our education system was teaching the skills in low supply, the skills of tomorrow not yesterday. 2. the right people that could do the job were encouraged to work in the up and coming new industries instead of wanting to become lawyers, bankers and politicians.....the money supply needs to be spread around more evenly.

I'd agree with that in part, in that better education would alleviate the situation.

However I think there are a finite number of smart people and as complexity increases (which it is) more pressure is put on less and less people. This makes everyone unhappy as money is thrown at those who are qualified in a pact to earn a fortune but have no life, whilst those that can't do it are consigned to shit jobs we haven't automated yet.

[winkie]

I'd agree with that in part, in that better education would alleviate the situation.

However I think there are a finite number of smart people and as complexity increases (which it is) more pressure is put on less and less people. This makes everyone unhappy as money is thrown at those who are qualified in a pact to earn a fortune but have no life, whilst those that can't do it are consigned to shit jobs we haven't automated yet.

No, you would be surprised how many really smart people there are out there....they have just not been allowed to reach their ultimate potential for various reasons...spot talent early and put the investment in and you will have something very worthwhile come out at the end......our teachers can spot talent, they just haven't the means or the ability to do anything about it, so it is left to fester and die in many instances so that potential is lost to all of us, worse still it can sometimes travel down the wrong negative destructive path.

[scottbeard]

Your thinking from a monetary perspective and not a economic production one. When productivity increases either the total level of consumption has to increase or the average number of hours worked per person has to decrease. You can also have some mix of the two. These are the only choices. I'm advocating the last one.

OK, I'll approach it from a production angle rather than a monetary angle if you like.

Suppose we are twice as productive at making TVs as we were 20 years ago. We could double production and hence halve the price of TVs, allowing people to have 2 where they used to have 1.

However, you suggest that the oldest TV-making workers retire at 50 instead of 60 and we just keep the same number of TVs (i.e. at the same higher price) as we always had.

My argument is: people could choose that path right now - but they don't.

We could all live a 1950s lifestyle, work 4 days a week and retire at 50 if we wanted to.

We could all eat plain simple home-cooked food, have no television, no internet, no foreign holidays, one car per family etc etc and all the 55-65 year olds who are currently working could retire, as we would have no need of their productive capacity.

However, given the choice between working more and consuming more, or working less and consuming less, most people choose: work hard, play hard.

Plenty of people over 60-65 still keep working even though they have enough money for a comfortable lifestyle. They use the extra money to boost their lifestyle yet further, eg with a nicer car or weekends abroad.

Since people are not choosing the choice you advocate, it seems that most of society view it as the wrong choice.

Edited March 15, 2012 by scottbeard

[bmf]

No, you would be surprised how many really smart people there are out there....they have just not been allowed to reach their ultimate potential for various reasons...spot talent early and put the investment in and you will have something very worthwhile come out at the end......our teachers can spot talent, they just haven't the means or the ability to do anything about it, so it is left to fester and die in many instances so that potential is lost to all of us, worse still it can sometimes travel down the wrong negative destructive path.

Complexity is always set near the limits. Therefore by definition the most complex work will only be understood by a minority.

Or is everyone getting a gold star, like under Nu Labour, where we are all equal on the Animal Farm.

[winkie]

Complexity is always set near the limits. Therefore by definition the most complex work will only be understood by a minority.

Or is everyone getting a gold star, like under Nu Labour, where we are all equal on the Animal Farm.

...no we are not all equal....but some are more equal than others......I am sure if many a well known person I can think of was born into a unemployed family with a bad upbringing and a poor education they would not be in the high powered job of status and income they are in today......some people have masses of potential, but few opportunities...for others the opposite is true.....most are somewhere in the middle falling fast.

[alexw]

OK, I'll approach it from a production angle rather than a monetary angle if you like.

Suppose we are twice as productive at making TVs as we were 20 years ago. We could double production and hence halve the price of TVs, allowing people to have 2 where they used to have 1.

However, you suggest that the oldest TV-making workers retire at 50 instead of 60 and we just keep the same number of TVs (i.e. at the same higher price) as we always had.

My argument is: people could choose that path right now - but they don't.

We could all live a 1950s lifestyle, work 4 days a week and retire at 50 if we wanted to.

We could all eat plain simple home-cooked food, have no television, no internet, no foreign holidays, one car per family etc etc and all the 55-65 year olds who are currently working could retire, as we would have no need of their productive capacity.

However, given the choice between working more and consuming more, or working less and consuming less, most people choose: work hard, play hard.

Plenty of people over 60-65 still keep working even though they have enough money for a comfortable lifestyle. They use the extra money to boost their lifestyle yet further, eg with a nicer car or weekends abroad.

Since people are not choosing the choice you advocate, it seems that most of society view it as the wrong choice.

Your basing your argument on being twice as productive as 20 years ago or similar. Fact is its vastly more than that, here is a graph for manufacturing output for the U.S.

[bmf]

...no we are not all equal....but some are more equal than others......I am sure if many a well known person I can think of was born into a unemployed family with a bad upbringing and a poor education they would not be in the high powered job of status and income they are in today......some people have masses of potential, but few opportunities...for others the opposite is true.....most are somewhere in the middle falling fast.

Yes - I agreed with this in my first reply. This doesn't change the fact that complexity is increasing and only a minority can cope with it well. Those that can cope with it are automating the jobs of those that cannot. They are paid a lot to do this but work all hours. Or work no hours.

In all this tedious back and forth over the same point again and again my other post about housing being quoted as a multiple of wages therefore ignoring productivity gains has been lost :-(