speedking

There is only a finite amount of work in this country, which is why we have unemployment.

If most people who are aged 66 or 67 are to continue working then that requires say a million jobs. Does that not mean that a million 25 or 35 year olds are going to become unemployed? These are the paople who pay tax and NI to fund the pensions of the retired. If they're claiming benefit then there won't be a pension pot for the 68 year old retiree.

I know this is gross simplification, but where is the flaw in the logic? Tony, Gordon, anyone?

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

For a start, if they haven't retired then younger people don't need to fund their pension. For a second, the number of jobs is finite, but not fixed: if the economy does well then the number of jobs expand (and vice versa, natch). For another, if everyone stopped doing overtime and instead the jobs were done by others. Etc. I'm sure other people can find more flaws in your thinking...


M

GrollySTI

I think you have to assume everything everything else stays the same (or near enough) - it will certainly have an effect.

Suresh

The average age of the population is increasing, so at the current rate there will probably not be enough younger people to fill vacancies. Therefore it is better if the fossils work a little longer!

2001 census findings:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2287650.stm

Two causes of an ageing population would be -
o Improved healthcare (people live longer)
o Low birth rate (replacements not being generated)

Controlled immigration could provide the labour to fill the vacancies. Alternatively people should just **** more.

Suresh

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Well, that'd be a good idea if employers paid a decent wage to the majority of workers, instead of a pittance, then magnanimously allowing them to work every hour God sends in order to have a decent take home.

Ask the lads in the warehouses at DFS what THEY'd think of "no overtime". Or the guys who "housekeep" the steelwoks for Corus.

I'm heartly sick of this government. If that scruffy scots pension thief hadn't nicked £8 billion a year for the last 5 years, the pot would be in MUCH better shape.

Yet does he mention putting it back? Does he fek!

What they DO is to bring back the blind thief to oversee the crisis they helped to create.

And this morning, Turdon Brown is trying to pressurise the people who've been looking into the problem, BEFORE they even publish their findings, as he thinks it'll be too expensive for government.

Lying Labopur B*stards! (Oh, and before anyone starts, no I DON'T think the Tories are any better )

Alcazar

paulr

If you lower the price of something often you get more of it.On the high street the only shop i ever see with doormen is Harvy Nicks,if you lowered the wage for doorman then maybe more shops would have them.
What will probably happen is a lot of these older people will be in low paid service industry jobs,like all the old guys you now see at B+Q.

the moose

It's very simple. The average man who made it to pensionable age lived a further 9 years, thus around a quarter of his working life.

In the last 30 years we've seen life expectabcy increase dramatically. If you make it to 65, it's now statistically the case that you'll make it to 84 or so, so something like half of the average working life.

What we really need to think of is that we need to work for a proportion of our lives. If we're planning on living to 90 (and many can realistically think of that) then you'll need to work for something like another five or so years to fund that additional life expectancy.

It's nothing to do with this government (or the last, come to that), other than to point out that the NHS and the general state of the economy can't be that bad if we're all living massively longer than our grandparents. Unfortunately, that longevity has to be paid for.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Ah? So Turdon Brown DIDN'T steal £40billion in 5 years then?

Alcazar

the moose

I wasn't addressing *that* issue, as well you know.

Leslie

Suresh,

Is it NL policy to address our elders as fossils?

Is that why they avoid helping pensioners as much as they possibly can and hit them between the eyes with inflated council tax charges and send them to prison if they stand up for themselves over it while the thugs get away with a token wrist slapping?

Les

the moose

Blimey, d'you want a brush for that sweeping statement?

How about talking about pensions in this, rather than (yet again) talking about the good old days? When there was no NHS, when children died from the commonest of diseases, when there was true poverty, and when the education system was spectacularly lop-sided.

Leslie

Stick to the subject Moose, I was talking about now!

Les

unclebuck

Probably. It mirrors the contempt and lack of respect New Labour clearly have for the elderly, as demonstrated by the Chancellor's decimation of the country's pension funds. (there's no votes in it you see.....)

speedking

_Meridian_ the state of the economy is irrelevant. Compare a later retirement age with the current situation if all else remains the same.

Firstly I can't see shops like WHSmith taking on doormen just because cheap labour is available. They don't need doormen now, and won't need them in the future.

Secondly we are not talking about people retiring then going back into a low paid job for a bit of pocket money. This is an extension of working life. Someone who is a project manager or senior web designer or consultant is not going to wave goodbye to that career and take up shelf stacking at Tesco They will carry on in high position jobs and the young will not have the opportunity to move up (or even get a job in the first place).

Exactly my point. Where is the work going to come from for everyone to work an extra 15% longer?

I agree with your point that retirement as a proportion of working life is increasing, but you can't just create work from thin air to redress the balance.

fast bloke

you don't need to create work - you have removed 20% of the pension population. You can afford to fund a few jobseekers

fast bloke

if the expensive people are self sufficient then you can afford to take a hit on the cheapos. Trouble starts when you have to take a hit on the expensive people

speedking

Reclassify 20% of the pension population if they are still gainfully employed. But if you don't create work then 5% of the working population doesn't have a job. you still have the same balance of contributions against payout so nothing has changed?

fast bloke

no because the 5% that don't have jobs are the cheapo 5%, so the govt can get away with paying them 40 quid a week. by removing the 65 and 66 yo pensioners from the loop the govt will save approx 4 times what it would end up paying out to those that didn't get the job. Remember that over 65's currently receive more state support than under 65's. This issue would be best adresses when I am sober, but if you can't wait another 15 yeras then I would suggest reading some economics stuff...... but not the crap stuff - only the decent stuff

fast bloke

in the words of Billy C - shiddly boooo.....

Suresh

Leslie,

Firstly - I think 'fossil' is much kinder than 'coffin dodger', for example.
Secondly - Please stick to the subject. This has nothing to do about what ever you recently read in the Torygraph or Daily Mule and blindly believe to be the truth! The question concerned population demographics.

Get a grip man!

Suresh
Plans to be a fossil one day, too

Suresh

Stick to the topic, fool.
The original poster is concerned that younger people will be kept out of jobs as people retire later. Personally, I don't think that it is a concern.

Suresh

Adrian F

But isnt the most important point that it isnt worth saving for retirement unless you can save a large amount as Pensions are means tested so if you have anything the state gives you nothing for the taxes they have taken but if you have p*ssed it all away they just give you money!

speedking

I'll second that opinion as well Save for a rainy day and a) you might not live to get the benefit, and b) if you do you end up with the same as the person who spent everything on **** and plasma tv's