The difference between wanting to keep working and having to keep working isn't as obvious as it might be, and will likely become even less obvious once this legislation passes.
It's standard Jobs™ rhetoric. The problem isn't the retirement age, it's the way that the concept of Jobs™ is used to frame the issue.
New government figures out today show that unemployment of those over 50 is rising at more than double the rate of any other age group.1 Age Concern is warning that older workers are facing a dual blow of rising unemployment and forced retirement, which could make them amongst the biggest `job-cut casualties' of the forthcoming recession. Older workers were disproportionately affected by job cuts in the last two recessions and today's figures show they look set to again be amongst the hardest hit groups as unemployment rises. Research from the charity shows this is a huge concern - half of workers aged 55+ are worried they are more at risk of losing their job because of their age and almost nine out of 10 people think it is harder for older jobseekers to get a job.
Older workers were disproportionately affected by job cuts in the last two recessions and today's figures show they look set to again be amongst the hardest hit groups as unemployment rises. Research from the charity shows this is a huge concern - half of workers aged 55+ are worried they are more at risk of losing their job because of their age and almost nine out of 10 people think it is harder for older jobseekers to get a job.
People shouldn't be forced to carry on working because they can't afford not to. I agree that the framing of 'jobs' is an issue and one that isn't being addressed effectively in the way that the campaign for abolishing the default retirement age is being run.
But this review is being brought forward to look at the mandatory retirement age, people will argue for abolishing it, and the Government seems open to that but perhaps not for the right reasons. There will be a consultation no doubt, so who would like to help me with a response to set out why and how 'jobs' are framed in the wrong way and put this forward within the context of the default retirement age? Ad astra per aspera
Similarly, unemployment provision can be redesigned to be less punitive. Older people can be encouraged to use their skills for training and transition support, which would be a half-way house between their old jobs and retirement. They can be moved towards self-employment of various kinds.
And so on.
The point is that age discrimination, pensions provision, and voluntary extended working are all separate issues. So is skills loss, and so is the usual employer need to cut costs by hiring teenagers who work for pocket money.
You could reframe this with evidence that older employees provide a better overall return because they're more skilled, more effective, and more reliable. Getting rid of them is a false economy.
This isn't just rhetoric. Organisations have been destroyed by short-sighted skills loss.
It needs a packaged push-back, not a single-issue pushback.
I'd concentrate on the pensions angle and less on the Jobs™ angle. What's needed is a push back on pensions provision increased returns decreased insecurity government reassurance that both public and private pensions are protected in the same way that we've seen banking speculation being back-stopped and protected.
In other words, better public pensions, paid for out of general revenue. In a market-based system, 1) and 2) are mutually exclusive, and 3) amounts to nothing better than privatising profits and socialising risk.
Provide decent public pensions. And if people then want to set aside more money (which should not be tax deductible, by the way, any more than buying ordinary securities should), then they get to carry the full risk that goes with that if they put it in anything that is riskier than German sovereign debt.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
