Employment minister Ed Davey explains why the end of the compulsory retirement age will boost jobs

Comments

[Andrew Smith]

His argument is similar to the one about unlimited immigration. The point is that aggregate GDP may be increased, but who cares much about that. What matters is income per head, and it is difficult to see how that can be achieved by either policy.

Unlimited immigration (which HMG can do nothing about while we are in the EU) results in better incomes for the immigrants than they could get at home, and that is why most of them come here, but they typically displace or compete with native workers. As a result all sorts of people cannot get jobs or they get lower pay. The same will result when older workers have to stay at work because they cannot afford to retire, and they will have to accept whatever pay is available.

The result will be more people living on the breadline, more unemployed, more working very short hours and depressed pay for all except the public sector and professional grades (for now).

While ministers may think it is easy to get a well paid job over (say) 50 years of age, based on their observation of how former ministers get set up nicely by quangos and trades unions and government linked charities, it ain't like that in the real economy or the real labour market.

[Martin Marprelate- A Man in the Street!]

Sorry I can't see that to be honest. Leaving aside whether people WANT to have to work after 65, (and I most certainly DON'T but will quite probably have to owing to financial circumstances such as a poor pension), then preventing employers from terminating the employment of OAPs at 65 (or from 2020 at 66) will lead to bed-blocking with younger people in lower positions being stuck where they are. The normal progression in a business of any size is that the old guy leaves at 65, his younger number two, or someone else of that status, moves up to take his position and all the way down the line people move up and a vacancy is created into which someone else, possibly off of the dole or a school-leaver/graduate, gets a job. With this process constipated by the "stay-on" 65+ old greys, jobs are NOT likely to be created in the real word to say nothing of the frustration of those younger people who have been looking forward and have been lined up for a promotion, and the problems it will engender for Business Management in Succession Planning. The phrase "Dead Men's Shoes" will really mean what it says for those hoping to move up the corporate ladder.

There is another hidden problem here. Let us assume a 65 year old can stay on at their place of work under these new rules should they wish to but decides to retire. They can get their State Pension as the hike to 66 in the Pension Age will not occur till 2020 and they also have a rather small Occupational Pension to draw. This is not a lot so they apply to claim whatever Benefits the Social Security system, to which they have contributed during their working life, will pay them. Will they be told, "Sorry, we will not pay you Benefits as you could have stayed on in your place of employment but chose to retire at 65 so you are intentionally unemployed?" I feel that Ed Davey needs to answer THAT question which could be a very nasty surprise for OAPs in a few years time!

[david]

His argument is also similar to that used by Labour to justify more and more borrowing to fund more and more jobs in the public sector.

[robert]

In one European country a person can take early retirement on condition they never work again.
This gives an opportunity for a young person to step into the job.
Young people need jobs and older people still working after 65 are called blockers.

[Veteran]

Perhaps he can now explain how making it easier to sack staff without employment protection will improve the employment figures?

[David MacDonald]

It is just not possible for most people whose work involves physical labour to work beyond the age of 65. I suggest you try earning you living working as a bricklayer or even a carpenter, gardener or garage mechanic, Ed Davey, when you reach your late 60s.

Of course anyone who can find gainful employment at any age should be free to do so but it is ludicrous place a duty upon employers to employ such people. This is but one more way of sucking up to the aging middle class baby boomers who, by their selfish over-indulgence, have so damaged this country since the 1960s.

I am past retirement age and I continue to work, part time, for my own company. No-one is compelled to employ me or give me work and I earn but a small fraction of the salary I was paid in my mid 50s. This is how it should be.

[Martin Marprelate- A Man in the Street!]

"In one European country a person can take early retirement on condition they never work again.
This gives an opportunity for a young person to step into the job.
Young people need jobs and older people still working after 65 are called blockers."

Robert I totally agree! Very well put!

[michael mcgough]

Bedblockers don't boost vacancies IMHO but hey klet us see the Minister's evidence----so off to do a FOI.

[michael mcgough]

Given that libdem pensions minister Steve Webb reckons 10 million of us will live beyond 100 perhaps we all should retire at 99;that would give a massive jobs boost in Davey's la la land