I'm trying to get my head round it.
People who work until they retire at 65 don't need pensions they die 18 months later.
The statement "We all are living longer" needs unpicking.
The people who live longer are the people who retire early.
So is it right that people who work until their official retirement age of say 65 and then die very soon after, should pay for the retirement of those that chose to retire early.
One thing that helps me live longer, I am convinced, is 'work' - it keeps my mind and body active while I face new challenges.
So explain this!
Could it be that I chose to work at my own pace, all my life. I also mainly did work that I wanted to so I looked forward to it and enjoyed it. I still can work very hard because I want to - but I can also stop and put my feet up when my body or mind tell me to stop.
I perhaps am able to keep my wonderful body machine in good running order - while others are putting theirs under incredible strain.
I've not heard talk of enabling people to work until their 100 at a pace that suits them.
We treat work as undesirable and something to avoid - yet it provides us with a great sense of self esteem and 'togetherness'.
Do we need to help people enjoy their work, feel appreciated, and do the amount that they are capable of.
Can we encourage a society where people actually want to work?
We're well on the way with the great number of people involved in voluntary work - which people may be doing when they 'retire' form 'work'.
Can we redefine work?
Can we rethink the economic crisis we're in so that we all want to work together to solve it; rather running away from the work required and changes that need to happen in attitude.
A tall order, with many years of programmed thinking to try to rejig.
When does militant thinking come to a tired end? When we're exhausted and reflect that their must be an alternative that enables us to work together rather than against the other.
Are free enterprise and "laissez faire" good if those that pursue it give little thought to the needs of others and where money mania rules.
1 comment:
It certainly is a complex issue. When I worked in local govt. my terms included retirement on pension at 55 or 30 years service ,whichever came first. So I could have retired at 51 in my case on a decent pension . So what about the private sector who have to plod on till 65 - no wonder many people have no sympathy with teachers ,police etc. How many police retire at 50 and walk into good jobs ? if they are still able to work at that level why should the taxpayer subsidise them ? . There is no reason on earth for any public servant to retire earlier than the rest of us but they CAN because it is in their terms of employment - drawn up by other public servants. Now they are squealing because it has to come to an end.
Post a Comment