People who can have a duty to retire(!)

[jacob]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... young-jobs

This is the first time I've seen this argument in the MSM. It's in stark contrast to the duty of the older/st generations of having a duty to work until they drop.

[saving-10-years]

One of the outcomes of my own ER was that a junior colleague who had been working on temporary contracts for years was (at last) offered a permanent contract. I was really happy about this. I mentioned it as one of the pluses of taking ER at a gathering in which many of the audience were my contempraries. It did not get an enthusiastic response from those able to retire. I have other (younger) colleagues in 30s and 40s who really want to think that they can retire in the next 10 or even 20 years and don't expect to be able to. This is going to get a lot worse.

[Ian]

Aside from the article's main point, I can't help but wonder if this is part of a backlash against all the workers who say they will never retire because they cannot afford to. It's possible that society at large will also pressure aging populations out of jobs. Not directly, perhaps, but if managers continue reading articles like this, I can imagine it influencing their firing decisions...

[saving-10-years]

Ian, its interesting how age discrimination has had an effect on HR planning here in the UK (where this article focused). There is now no standard retirement age here, and no-one can be required to retire because they are 'too old'. So if people feel that they need more money to retire or are concerned about being bored (both reasons that I have been given why colleagues don't want to retire) then they can remain in employment and succession planning becomes stalled. You can only remove someone from post if there are 'performance issues' and bear in mind that it is much harder to remove from post a seasoned worker with experience, insight into the process and friends in the admin. There has been a practice of bribing people to go (deals) which in my experience is particularly likely to remove those staff who have most to offer. These are not worried about income as they know they are in demand elsewhere or have earned and saved well and they also have lots of interests to pursue - ERE types in fact.

The next generation are also in a quandry as they have had higher living costs (particularly housing and education costs) and more likelihood of starting in a permanent job later when they may find colleagues who they expect to retire remain in post blocking their promotion path. Will they retire even later than the boomers? From colleagues in their 30s and 40s I get the message that this is the generation that does not expect to retire. They feel pretty desperate about it.

For the people entering the job market right now the message is that education costs even more (interest on loans is 3 times higher than pre-2012) and a Masters degree is the key to getting a good job whereas for the boomers a Bachelors degree would be more than enough. They will often need to rely on family help to get on the housing ladder and I know several boomers who stayed in work longer in order to help pay for house deposits for the next generation. Other boomers are supplying childcare in their retirement so their children can afford to work and have children. Vicious circle.

ERE habits and ideas are particularly important now, across any of those ages. Son (17) getting a tad fed up at listening to this speil.

[tommytebco]

the spin in MSM depends on who is spinning.
For example:
Social security seems to tirelessly encourage working until you drop to maximize monthly payment. this trend started around when the talk of the fund going broke got popular again.

The labor department is probably behind encouraging early retirement which opens up hiring.

The only true and inescapable duties are death and taxes (in some form)