The average person starting their first job in a high-income nation can expect to retire two years later than today’s retirees. Furthermore, retirement ages will be significantly higher in other countries. By 2070, Denmark plans to raise the pension age to 74.
However, despite all of the changes in society, employment markets, educational systems, retirement plans, and trends over the last 70 years, the working age remains between 15 and 64 years old, according to the wealthy nations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Social Security has confirmed a new retirement age for upcoming beneficiaries.
Individuals and governments benefit from having a set working age when it comes to retirement planning. However, it’s perplexing that this age group remains the norm. After all, many people outside of this age group contribute to the economy, both formally and informally.
Despite today’s pension ages, 23% of adults aged 65 to 69 in OECD countries continue to work. This demonstrates why talking about working life solely in terms of chronological age is problematic.
As the retirement age rises, the modern concept of working age loses meaning. Societies need a more creative and dynamic strategy. In some countries, the concept of functional age—a measure of specific mental and physical abilities—is used as an alternative.
However, this is only true for a few professions, such as pilots, firefighters, and police officers, who require specific skills such as vision, physical fitness, cognitive age, and decision-making. Although making functional age the standard isn’t always the best option, it does show that other approaches are possible.
According to the research, cognitive, biological, functional, and social age all have an impact on a person’s ability to work, earn, and pay, which may not always correspond to chronological age. Furthermore, several factors, such as caregiving responsibilities and disability, may prevent “typical” working-age people from making a living.
Furthermore, other groups, such as migrants, frequently have distinct incentives, passions, and opportunities to participate in paid labor. When most cultural and economic criteria are based solely on age, there are obvious social and financial consequences, and this frequently exacerbates ageism in the workplace and society.
Those who have reached retirement age can be perceived as less productive
For example, despite receiving more (such as pensions and benefits), elderly people are frequently perceived as weak and unproductive. Older workers face discrimination in the hiring process and are more vulnerable to layoffs. Furthermore, employers frequently believe they are difficult to train.
In other words, modern economic and social structures support the assumption that an older person’s chronological age is the best indicator of their value to business and society. It is critical to note that the system’s arbitrary nature reinforces ageism, which is unlikely to change unless the perception of older people as economic and social burdens is challenged.
Is it time for a change in the retirement age system?
Too many elderly or young people outside of this age range can put a strain on the country’s income and resources because fewer people are available to work and support the welfare and public service systems.
However, the current inflexible system divides people by pitting the young against the elderly. This frequently leads to resource competition and intergenerational tensions. Given human populations’ increasing longevity, the upper age limit will remain arbitrary, even if it is raised to match the state pension age.
Changes to the current structure will undoubtedly be difficult and time-consuming, requiring several system restructurings and revisions. However, phased-out structures based on their chronological age would be a positive step.
A comprehensive shift that separates age from economic metrics will cause society to reconsider the utility of chronological age as a metric, contributing to the abolition of the artificial age barrier. The use of age as a social and economic identity is inconsistent.
In an era of fluid identities, it is time to reconsider the relationships between retirement age, society, and the economy. To recognize the importance of both economic and non-economic needs and contributions, societies require a flexible retirement age strategy.