Is Trade Union legislation needed

Debs,  I have to take issue with you on your interpretation of the baby boomers easy life with  smaller mortgages & cheaper rents & work/life balance.

You political viewpoints are clear & I am not trying to take issue with that other than say I am close to 180 degrees oposite

But I was one of those baby boomer's, & believe me my friend the winters of discontent, strikes going on for weeks, unions hell bent on political revolution not workers interests, power black outs, inflation over 20%,  15% plus plus mortgages were not like you describe.

Yes its tough today,  I have family just starting out in life & do have an understanding.

But your picture of those days is way off the mark  

Bruce,

I'm sure if someone is very happy in their work, they can carry on past 80 or 90, and i wish them well with it.

But if they're not happy it's a different story.

Like you have pointed out, the reason for early retirement is often because of ill health.

A report conducted in the late 1980's showed Royal Mail Workers who retired at 60 living on far longer than those who chose to retired at 65 who often died before 70.

Most of the one's who worked on until 65 did so for more money (greed) so often worked many hours overtime. At 65 they found on retirement they had no life outside of work... or the pub.

Mike,

I have written the opposite of what you claim.

Please learn to read  

and I don't have a political viewpoint, just a moral one.

Debs

Debs

Early retirment is also often associated with financial security, which generally is associated with better health outcomes so the picture is not simple. Work is associated with good health in a variety of ways (the link between long term unemployment and poor health is very well stablished) so it is quite conceivable that longer years working do not result in worse health outcomes, and the majority of independent reasearch supports that.

I'm not advocating longer worker life for all, just pointing out the evidence. I like a good polemic as much as the next man, but the facts ought to be right too. The demographic bulge of a top heavy ageing western society is also fact. Not even McDonalds will reverse that!

My feeling is that future work behaviours are moving away from the conventional model of working full-time until a set retirement date. Choices of working hours/styles and flexibility of retirement at the older age range will be the norm. I'd love a situation where pension provision and the employment market facilitates those sorts of choices as retirement years approach, both for earlier and later retirement according to financial needs as well as personal wishes. I'm increasingly caring for people who are trapped with ill-health in unsuitable employment but have had to defer retirement decisions for financial reasons. This will not be going away any time soon, and I do not see any fix. However I also look after a fair few who wish to continue working longer and do not have that option due to inflexible employers, or lack of options in the local employment market.

In the next 20-30 years the affluent elderly population is going to have to help pay for the poorer elderly population.

Any thoughts on my suggestion the state pension should be means tested and therefore somebody like me should give up the right?

Bruce

The way things are going there won't be an affluent elderly society.

Will the government actually save that much money by raising retirement age. Employee retires at 65, this cost government £95.00. The resulting vacancy is filled by a person claiming JSA, this save the government £65.00. more if the job seeker has a few kids and is claiming benefit.