Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
blankster

Crazy Employment Situation...

Recommended Posts

A few years ago we were all looking forward to a retirement age of 60 for all, as that was the retirement age for women and it was hoped that gender equality would be achieved by bringing the male retirement age down to 60 too.

Then it started to become clear this wasn't going to happen. Now we are told that we're probably all going to have to work until we're 70. Also an insidious charm offensive seems to be under way to 'sell' old-age as something to look forward to, and how working to 70 is what a lot of people want anyway - yeah, right! A few, maybe.

And yet, if you lose your job in your 50's, you'll be lucky to work again at all in many parts of the country. Men over 50 are 'on the scrapheap' if they're made redundant, women perhaps a little less so.

So what will we end up with if these trends continue. Lots of people in their late 60's who are desperate to retire, but can't, with lots of middle-aged people desperate to work but can't. What's more the people in their late 60's would be paying taxes while the unemployed 50-somethings would be claiming benefits.

What is the point in keeping 65-70 year-olds in work when people in their 50's can't get work?

Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing!

Edited by blankster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Work until dead.That's the retirement plan.

So, John works until he's 70 because he has to, then retires and dies aged 71. Meanwhile his twin brother Bill has been unemployed since he was 51 despite applying for hundreds of jobs. He spends the next 19 years on benefits before going on to collect his pension until he dies aged 87.

Putting someone in their 50's back into work - off benefit and paying tax - would probably pay for the pension of an older worker retiring. If we get the willing unemployed middle-aged back to work then there'd be no need to raise the retirement age.

Edited by blankster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, John works until he's 70 because he has to, then retires and dies aged 71. Meanwhile his twin brother Bill has been unemployed since he was 51 despite applying for hundreds of jobs. He spends the next 19 years on benefits before going on to collect his pension until he dies aged 87.

That will be the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable
So, John works until he's 70 because he has to, then retires and dies aged 71. Meanwhile his twin brother Bill has been unemployed since he was 51 despite applying for hundreds of jobs. He spends the next 19 years on benefits before going on to collect his pension until he dies aged 87.

In horror of death, I took to the mountains-

Again and again I meditated on the uncertainty of the hour of death,

Then, capturing the fortress of the deathless unending nature of mind.

Now all fear of death is over and done with.

Milarepa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retire at 70? The retirement age will probably have been raised to 100 over the next 44 years meaning I will die at work, before I can collect my pension.

Whilst your contributions pay for those that have already retired.

This is the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few years ago we were all looking forward to a retirement age of 60 for all, as that was the retirement age for women and it was hoped that gender equality would be achieved by bringing the male retirement age down to 60 too.

My dad retired at 60, and found himself working harder than he'd ever done when he was paid for it.

That's the optimistic scenario: retired people in good health contribute a lot to society through voluntary activities. And it's still true. But it doesn't help with the demographics of baby-boomers. Or a world where ever more voluntary work has become entangled in endless red tape.

His is a privileged generation, in the sense that there are fewer of them, so society could afford them to retire early. But at the same time, they were not as rich as us, having grown up in wartime and lived through post-war austerity.

Then it started to become clear this wasn't going to happen. Now we are told that we're probably all going to have to work until we're 70. Also an insidious charm offensive seems to be under way to 'sell' old-age as something to look forward to, and how working to 70 is what a lot of people want anyway - yeah, right! A few, maybe.

That's the pensions crisis: an unsustainable promise coming home to roost. But if you own a house outright, you can get around that: retire at 60 richer than a lot of working folks, let alone your ancestors, even as the do-gooders proclaim you impoverished and push more benefits your way.

(I suspect that's why a lot of retired folks don't take the benefits they're entitled to. They're much richer than they were whilst paying taxes, mortgages and families, let alone in their youth, and find it distasteful to take money from people who are now where they were).

And yet, if you lose your job in your 50's, you'll be lucky to work again at all in many parts of the country. Men over 50 are 'on the scrapheap' if they're made redundant, women perhaps a little less so.

Or 30 in some sectors. But that's only half-true, and I think it's improving. Lots of us turn to self-employment rather than go to stack shelves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few years ago we were all looking forward to a retirement age of 60 for all, as that was the retirement age for women and it was hoped that gender equality would be achieved by bringing the male retirement age down to 60 too.

Then it started to become clear this wasn't going to happen. Now we are told that we're probably all going to have to work until we're 70. Also an insidious charm offensive seems to be under way to 'sell' old-age as something to look forward to, and how working to 70 is what a lot of people want anyway - yeah, right! A few, maybe.

And yet, if you lose your job in your 50's, you'll be lucky to work again at all in many parts of the country. Men over 50 are 'on the scrapheap' if they're made redundant, women perhaps a little less so.

So what will we end up with if these trends continue. Lots of people in their late 60's who are desperate to retire, but can't, with lots of middle-aged people desperate to work but can't. What's more the people in their late 60's would be paying taxes while the unemployed 50-somethings would be claiming benefits.

What is the point in keeping 65-70 year-olds in work when people in their 50's can't get work?

Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing!

The left hand being businesses, and the right hand being government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In horror of death, I took to the mountains-

Again and again I meditated on the uncertainty of the hour of death,

Then, capturing the fortress of the deathless unending nature of mind.

Now all fear of death is over and done with.

Milarepa.

Worth repeating. Horror of death is what drives it all fundamentally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a macro level it's inevitable that state retirement age, i.e. the age at which the state pension becomes due has to increase.

Looking at individuals though, anyone who's retirement aspirations are met only by the state and their state pension entitlement is in a poor position whatever the age is set at. Individuals should be making their own retirement plans, saving (in whatever way suits them) for their retirement as best they can so that they can decide when to retire based on what they can afford. For people who've taken the initiative in this way talk of state pension ages is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the point in keeping 65-70 year-olds in work when people in their 50's can't get work?

there'll be plenty of work in menial low paid tasks once the value of the £ has collapsed, providing labour-intensive goods and services for the more advanced economies in Asia

if 10-15 years olds currently do it in the third world, then why not 75 year olds in the future third world that will be the UK?

Don't fret - you'll still get a chance to pay for your own retirement and not simply leave it to following generations or idle financial speculation

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst your contributions pay for those that have already retired.

This is the plan.

+1

100% correct, guaranteed.

The boomers will have their comfy retriement, you will pay for it, then die in poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.