Work Until Your 75 Years Old

[Roman Roady]

I seem to remember reading that the retirement (and therefore pension) age was set at 65 by Chancellor Bismarck of Germany.

He did this because the average German at the time died at 63...

Good point.

When did the retirement age come in here...1948 with the welfare state??

What was the avaerage life expectancy of the working class back then? 65??

In other word, the state said "well done old boy, put your feet up for the rest of your natural", which was likely to be only a few months. Dont forget that most would have died by then.

What age will we be living to in 25 years time? Is it fair to expect a shrinking younger generation to suport an un productive older generation?

The retirment age was always going to increase.

Point taken about Sir Fred et al.

[Garry AKA Pod]

The world doesnt owe anyone a living.

I've not said it does. Perhaps I'm being naive in believing in the concept of paying into a pension.

[stormymonday_2011]

Good point.

When did the retirement age come in here...1948 with the welfare state??

What was the avaerage life expectancy of the working class back then? 65??

In other word, the state said "well done old boy, put your feet up for the rest of your natural", which was likely to be only a few months. Dont forget that most would have died by then.

What age will we be living to in 25 years time? Is it fair to expect a shrinking younger generation to suport an un productive older generation?

The retirment age was always going to increase.

Point taken about Sir Fred et al.

Don't they teach history any more in British schools

The old age pension was not a created with the welfare state in 1948.

In fact it predates the First World War.

It was introduced in 1908 by the Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lloyd George.

The first pensions were paid in 1911.

It was originally funded out of general taxation on the population and was only later added to the National Insurance system.

BTW Beveridge originally intended for pensions to be fully funded by individuals NIC payments (ie there would be no 'burden' for later generations) but needless to say subsequent generations of politicians could not resist dipping their hand into this money to fund their pet causes including it must be said an exponential expansion of the educational system to lobotomise the young.

Edited July 11, 2009 by stenosis

[stormymonday_2011]

The world doesnt owe anyone a living.

There is a big difference between making a living and defrauding people in a ponzi scheme.

[Dorkins]

why?

What does the average person want to consume in a lifetime? Standard economic theory wants you to believe it's infinite, but I don't think that's true. Human beings need food, clothing, shelter, and heating in the winter. On top of this we have life-cycle needs like education for children and medical/general care for the oldest and youngest. Everything else is pretty much a luxury. How many hours a day would the population of the UK really have to work to keep us all supplied with 2500 calories of fresh and balanced food each day, a new shirt/shoes/trousers/winter coat every now and then, a one-quarter share each of a 3 bedroom house in decent repair, 1kW of power for heating/lighting said house, 10-15 years of full time education, and core medical treatments which many people will need during their lives such as vaccinations, eyeglasses, antibiotics, A&E to fix cuts and breaks, hip operations, 5-10 years of daily care for the most elderly, pain management for the terminally ill. How much would this cost with our current technology and at current market prices? £10k per person per year?

I am convinced that at least half of the UK's GDP measures economic activity which takes up our time and effort but makes us no happier and which we don't really want: zero-sum services like litigation, EAs, financiers, salesmen, advertisers, graphic designers; the cost of commuting long distances to work; overconsumption of telecoms/digital entertainment (who needs to stream movies to their mobile?!); big-budget television; unaffordable medical treatments; crap carbon-intensive food; replacement of white goods and electronics which could easily be repaired or don't really need to be upgraded to the latest model; oversized cars; new kitchens; multiple foreign holidays each year; educational courses and state-funded research with no personal or social value; luxury houses and toys for the richest 1% who are often among the most disturbed and unhappy people in the whole country.

If we cut out as much of this waste as we could, and I think a lot of this is going to happen naturally in the coming austerity decade, then we may find that as a whole we are able to support everyone on a basic but comfortable level while only working a 3/4 day week for 30-40 years of working life. Many people may choose to do this voluntarily by simplifying their lives and reducing their outgoings. If one person reduces their demand there is less work for somebody else to do. This is ultimately why everybody working to 75 is just never going to happen: who wants to consume the amount of useless crap that the average person produces in 54 years of 40+ hour weeks? There's just no call for it. Nobody wants that extra labour, and nobody is going to pay for it.

[Horridbloke]

What does the average person want to consume in a lifetime? Standard economic theory wants you to believe it's infinite, but I don't think that's true. Human beings need food, clothing, shelter, and heating in the winter. On top of this we have life-cycle needs like education for children and medical/general care for the oldest and youngest. Everything else is pretty much a luxury. How many hours a day would the population of the UK really have to work to keep us all supplied with 2500 calories of fresh and balanced food each day, a new shirt/shoes/trousers/winter coat every now and then, a one-quarter share each of a 3 bedroom house in decent repair, 1kW of power for heating/lighting said house, 10-15 years of full time education, and core medical treatments which many people will need during their lives such as vaccinations, eyeglasses, antibiotics, A&E to fix cuts and breaks, hip operations, 5-10 years of daily care for the most elderly, pain management for the terminally ill. How much would this cost with our current technology and at current market prices? £10k per person per year?

I am convinced that at least half of the UK's GDP measures economic activity which takes up our time and effort but makes us no happier and which we don't really want: zero-sum services like litigation, EAs, financiers, salesmen, advertisers, graphic designers; the cost of commuting long distances to work; overconsumption of telecoms/digital entertainment (who needs to stream movies to their mobile?!); big-budget television; unaffordable medical treatments; crap carbon-intensive food; replacement of white goods and electronics which could easily be repaired or don't really need to be upgraded to the latest model; oversized cars; new kitchens; multiple foreign holidays each year; educational courses and state-funded research with no personal or social value; luxury houses and toys for the richest 1% who are often among the most disturbed and unhappy people in the whole country.

If we cut out as much of this waste as we could, and I think a lot of this is going to happen naturally in the coming austerity decade, then we may find that as a whole we are able to support everyone on a basic but comfortable level while only working a 3/4 day week for 30-40 years of working life. Many people may choose to do this voluntarily by simplifying their lives and reducing their outgoings. If one person reduces their demand there is less work for somebody else to do. This is ultimately why everybody working to 75 is just never going to happen: who wants to consume the amount of useless crap that the average person produces in 54 years of 40+ hour weeks? There's just no call for it. Nobody wants that extra labour, and nobody is going to pay for it.

Unfortunately there is such demand, because vendors go to huge lengths to create demand via advertising. It's ridiculous that industries supplying ring tones or replica footy tops can exist, but people can be persuaded to shell out for this crud. If humans were truly sentient then advertising wouldn't exist, because it wouldn't work.

[Si1]

Unfortunately there is such demand, because vendors go to huge lengths to create demand via advertising. It's ridiculous that industries supplying ring tones or replica footy tops can exist, but people can be persuaded to shell out for this crud. If humans were truly sentient then advertising wouldn't exist, because it wouldn't work.

even African tribes and Red Indians covet stuff, it's just human nature, wish I could change it but I can't, acceptance of which forced me to accept capitalism as the best system

[Dorkins]

Unfortunately there is such demand, because vendors go to huge lengths to create demand via advertising. It's ridiculous that industries supplying ring tones or replica footy tops can exist, but people can be persuaded to shell out for this crud. If humans were truly sentient then advertising wouldn't exist, because it wouldn't work.

Most people feel that they have to live up to the expectations society has for them. You must go to university and get a career working for a respectable company or government institution, you must work 40+ hours 5 days a week from your twenties to your fifties, you must get a mortgage, you must drive a car, you must buy new clothes and a plasma screen TV. You must give somebody else almost all of your creative energy and physical labour during the time of your life when you are most able and productive. In return, you might get a few years' holiday at the end when you are a worn-out shell of your youthful self.

It is insane that in an age when agricultural and industrial productivity is so high that we continue to work to the same pattern as Victorian factory workers. If you went up to anybody born before 1800 and said, "one day, we will be able to produce warm housing and enough food to feed a family on just 15-20 working man's hours a week" they would have said "wow, that's amazing, you guys must have a lot of leisure time!" But no, we don't, we have a system where everybody, from richest to poorest, overconsumes lots of unnecessary crap and then has to work like a dog to pay for it.

I think a massive, massive part of being happy is learning to reject social expectations which are going to hurt you and your family and to live a sensible life which gives you time to breathe, to think, and to open your eyes.

[juvenal]

Most people feel that they have to live up to the expectations society has for them. You must go to university and get a career working for a respectable company or government institution, you must work 40+ hours 5 days a week from your twenties to your fifties, you must get a mortgage, you must drive a car, you must buy new clothes and a plasma screen TV. You must give somebody else almost all of your creative energy and physical labour during the time of your life when you are most able and productive. In return, you might get a few years' holiday at the end when you are a worn-out shell of your youthful self.

It is insane that in an age when agricultural and industrial productivity is so high that we continue to work to the same pattern as Victorian factory workers. If you went up to anybody born before 1800 and said, "one day, we will be able to produce warm housing and enough food to feed a family on just 15-20 working man's hours a week" they would have said "wow, that's amazing, you guys must have a lot of leisure time!" But no, we don't, we have a system where everybody, from richest to poorest, overconsumes lots of unnecessary crap and then has to work like a dog to pay for it.

I think a massive, massive part of being happy is learning to reject social expectations which are going to hurt you and your family and to live a sensible life which gives you time to breathe, to think, and to open your eyes.

Wise words. Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately a cornerstone of happiness is somewhere reasonable to live that doesn't enslave you financially. That's why the present housing situation is so pernicious.

[Dorkins]

Wise words. Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately a cornerstone of happiness is somewhere reasonable to live that doesn't enslave you financially. That's why the present housing situation is so pernicious.

Bang on. Roll on house price crash, roll on a bit of freedom for the working masses.