Apart from trade union rigidity and politicians'
inability to take decisions, we ourselves are the biggest barriers to longer
working lives, argues Harry Smorenberg.
We are all getting older and
staying in good health for longer. But even though carrying on working for
longer would seem a logical next step, we've stayed where we are for decades,
with no change in the official retirement age. So many vested interests in so
many countries see the age of 65 as sacred and an acquired right that is not up
for negotiation. Indeed, one thing that helped François Hollande win the recent
French presidential election was his irresponsible promise to reintroduce a
retirement age of 60, after it only recently rose to 62.
In most Western countries, people stop work at
between 60 and 62, while the 'workability index' for most European countries is
75. According to the OECD, a retirement age of 70 would currently be realistic,
while working for longer has also been shown to result in people living longer
and remaining in relatively better health. In other words, society is letting
eight productive years go to waste.
Apart from trade union
rigidity and politicians' inability to take decisions, we ourselves are the
biggest barriers to longer working lives. Employers are doing too little to
anticipate longer life expectancies in their workforce, with salary structures
still based on rising salaries. Opportunities for retraining and updating
skills so as to make more flexible use of older employees are being used too
little and too late. Similarly, working environments are not being adapted to
accommodate older people, while pension, tax and insurance products are not yet
equipped for longer working lives. We need to rid ourselves of the perception
that 'old is expensive'.
But employees, too, are doing
too little to anticipate change. Few people are taking responsibility for
planning their personal financial future, whereas doing this properly is a way
of anticipating the need to continue working into the fourth quarter of your
life. The challenge now is to devise a series of cohesive measures to massage
society into making better – and obviously responsible – use of those eight
years of extra productivity. I can already hear politicians claiming a special
status for people in physically demanding jobs. There, too, anticipation – and
at a younger age – is vital. Although there will, of course, always be some
groups of people deserving special care, the fact remains that we need to
accept that working until you reach an average age of 70 should become the
norm.
The question now is what
employers should be doing to anticipate society's need for change. What is the
government actually doing? How flexible are trade unions being in helping to
devise solutions? Who is educating citizens – particularly young people – to be
more aware of the need for financial planning? The results of a recent
'stakeholder' survey disappointed me. People obviously see what is happening,
but there are absolutely no signs of any cohesive policies or combined efforts
to create the right conditions. There is not even any basic research into what
kind of action employers and employees could and would be willing to take.
I would suggest it's now high
time to get that done. The various stakeholders seem trapped in a web of
agreements, with the change needed in the retirement age simply being swapped
for another issue in the political game. No one dares take that vital first step,
with everyone looking at someone else to avoid having to step outside his
agreed circle of manoeuvre. Some people are happily looking at France and the
plans to reverse the increase in the retirement age, with 'growth' as the new
magic word. But who's going to invest and come up with the money at this stage
of the crisis? The missing eight years of extra productivity all too easily get
forgotten when policy for responsibly lengthening working lives is being
devised.
I sense there's little point
in waiting for action from politicians. Perhaps we should talk about 'making
existing pension plans more flexible' rather than 'increasing the retirement
age'. Insurance companies, pension funds and social security systems will need
to anticipate people wanting to work longer. That means coming up with new
products to allow delayed retirement on conditions that are satisfactory to all
parties. In other words, finding a way of rewarding people who contribute to
society for longer.
Perhaps those accepting hybrid
retirement will be able to persuade governments, employers, unions and others
that many people will be keen and able to remain in the workforce – providing
the conditions are right and efforts are made to accommodate the different
parties' wishes. There are also, of course, substantial numbers of older people
whose provisions for retirement are inadequate and for whom continuing to work
– possibly on a part-time basis – will simply be a necessity.
Harry Smorenberg is an independent strategist in the financial services
industry and chairman of the WorldPensionSummit.