Of course we should work longer, but only if the "work" is done sitting at a desk, lightening up neural pathways.

Yes getting old can be costly, but only because of predatory big pharma and others who benefit financially (Billions) from managing symptoms?

While it seems self evident, that preventative medicine that prevents old age being accompanied by expensive infirmity, successful preventative medicine is routinely rejected by those with skin in the current game?

Even so, it doesn't mean we should simply accept their gratuitous advice!

But instead embrace preventative therapies like hyperbaric oxygen therapy, that revitalizes some stroke victims if applied soon enough?

Ditto many spinal injuries and subsequent cord injuries! And there is ongoing research into it as a adjunct treatment for cancer, or some viral infections?

And just because a spectacularly successful therapy has run out of patent or a patent is not applicable is not a reason to reject it out of hand (chelation therapy) and the benefits that it can endow.

However, some "doctors" will insist it is only a proven 50 year old therapy for lead poisoning. Conversely, we used it in the laboratory as a reagent that also precipitated arsenic, mercury, carcinogenic cadmium and others too numerous to mention.

And although there can be some unwanted side effects to HRT, lower medically managed doses that also include mandatory HGH, minimises them; even so, I believe, the benefits hugely outweigh any possible minimal side effects.

And given this therapy can and does reverse osteoporosis, much cheaper than the inevitable fractures that fill our hospital beds with oldies, whose fractures can and do take twice as long to heal!

As already noted, an ounce of cheap prevention is far better than a ton of enormously expensive cures!
Rhrosty.

Great article. But a bit chilling.

I'm alright jack! In my nether years I receive financial management advice and insurance from the:

Commonwealth Bank

Many of the problems associated with aging are because of reduced blood flow to important organs, heart, brain etc. And in effect reducing critical oxygen even when the blood is fully oxygenated and no evidence of cyanosis? Statins, the biggest money spinner for big pharma is claimed to overcome some of this as does a range of vitamins D, Q10, Omega oil and other essential nutrients? In a recent double blind study, all those not given the placebo, suffered some cognitive impairment? And hardly worth any claimed benefits, for just 9 extra months vegetating in a high care nursing home, and at a cost of $70,000.00+ per to the taxpayer.

Type into your search engine, the case against statins.

Conversely, medically managed chelation therapy with EDTA, over time cleans out hardened arteries? The cause of most of the diseases of aging!
Rhrosty.

Maybe for all you feckless baby boomers but the rest of us are going to be lucky to reach retirement age the way things are going.
Between an ever receding age qualification, climate destruction and the coming epidemics, least of which being obesity, the current generation of oldies will likely become the high water mark for longevity and privilege for quite a few generations.

Interesting article.

"What is our plan for funding a life where half of that life is outside work?"

I think the flaw in this article is that it assumes a top-down command-and-control solution. But there's simply no reason for this assumption. In fact government interventions have made, and will make matters worse.

"Do we simply suggest that seniors have to work longer?"

Who's "we"? If you mean the State, say so. We are not the State, and the State is not us. And don't assume superior knowledge, capacity and goodness on the part of the State.

There is no need for the State to suggest anything. The income and expenses of seniors will do all the suggesting necessary. If the State has made promises to support people that it can't keep, the problem is the State's false representations and defalcations, not people living longer.

If by "we" you mean the people of the world, there is no reason to think that some people are entitled to be supported at everyone else's expense for 30 years just because they are older.

I understand that when the old age pension was introduced, the ratio of workers to pensioners was something like 27:1. Now it's something like 3:1 and falling.

People can expect the State to pay their way all they like, but reality kicks in and eventually the State runs out of other people's money. This is going to happen all over the western world. All the welfare states have unsustainable and growing liabilities.

Anyone now working who is relying on the old age pension for retirement is going to be disappointed, and compulsory super won't be much better; and that's before Bill Shorten lets the unions use it as their plaything. There's going to be tears before bedtime.

I can't see what's wrong with people working to support themselves if they need to. There is no magic pudding.

(cont.)

That's why it's important for people to be free, as much as possible, to make a living and to build wealth, without having their efforts strangled in red tape, and the fruits of their labours confiscated, by the State with all its promises of a socialist utopia that always turn to ash.

The problem is not people living longer. This is just a typical statist socialist mindset that regards the existence of human beings as a problem, because their economic theory is incapable of the concept of harmonising supply, demand, and price.

The problem is the government expropriating people of the possibility of providing for their retirement by its thoroughgoing restrictions of productive freedoms, and confiscations of capital and income; and all on the basis of promises that government does not, or cannot and will not keep.

If the same prudential principles that the government imposes on private companies, were imposed on the social security system, the government would all be prosecuted for fraud.

Thirty eight years ? Says who ? I know plenty of people my age who did at least forty eight years. My Italian neighbour's father has been working as a tiler, a bastard of a job, on your knees half the time, and at 84, he's still at it, probably part-time by now.

Thirty eight years. Fair dinkum ? Surely women, even when they have retired, are still putting in the equivalent of half-time hours ? On top of their Baby Boomer full-time jobs for forty years and more ?

Is the writer from Gen Y, by any chance ?

Joe.

I tend to agree with mikk, and I probably wouldn't have commented except for his comment.

I think we probably are seeing the high water mark for the critical mass about now.
I think in coming years there will be more world wars, I think crime is going to be on the increase because of multiculturalism and segregating prisons by race.
I think there's going to be a much greater gap between the rich and poor and with talk of overpopulation it will soon be every man for himself, if it isn't already getting that way.

And as much as the baby-boomers did work really hard and they deserve their retirement they also had their blinkers on in the good years after WW2 and look at whats happened to our country now, the idiot politicians we have and the choices they made.

They have given the country to the Chinese.
You dont sell them the farm, you grow the food on the farm and sell that.
Were all going to starve in a few years now anyway so who cares...
Most of you wont be around for whats coming.

The family home will be factored into pension eligibility, as it should've been already. Why am I paying taxes so people sitting on real estate millions can have pensions, while I don't qualify because I was stupid enough to save into super for my retirement?

It'll be interesting to see how this affects house prices on top of any abolition of negative gearing on investment in non-new housing.

another piece of research that should be done is what percentage of overall taxes funded welfare back in the earlier days, and compare this to today. I think that's where the answer lies, less dependants.

Yes some do start working later, after education, but not many are retiring at all early.

Many are working much longer days, & harder than in my youth, back in the 60s. Apart from the odd trade nights & trade shows, people were rarely home late for dinner, unless they were still at the pub.

I have had a couple of positions where the office phone switched to my home after hours. I would be taking calls regularly to 9.00 PM, & starting them again at 6.00 or earlier. I am not unique in this type of thing.

In the marine industry a normal day was from 6.00AM to 6.00PM, with regular nights till after midnight. For those running accommodation vessels, the crew were effectively on duty 24 hours a day for considerable periods. Many work much harder today.

Yes we have a spending problem. So called public servants, unemployed, the so called disabled, & yes us oldies have all learnt to vote for a living. We put thousands of very dumb people through university, where they are taught by over paid, very dumb others we previously put through universities.

We bring in hundreds of thousands of basically useless people in immigration programs, & are expected to house them as well as our own too lazy to do it for themselves.

Of course this is not sustainable. We are at the "mobs of Rome" stage in our society, & we know what happened to Rome.

I give thanks that I have been lucky enough to avoid disastrous wars, & live through the pinnacle of western civilisation. I doubt my kids, or grand kids will be half as lucky.

Given that we earn roughly twice as much in real terms per average hour worked as people did in 1975, we should be able to comfortably retire at 1975 levels of affluence by working half as long. People who don't regard that as acceptable for themselves can opt to work longer and harder; but those who are happy to work less and have less should be encouraged to do so.

Most retirees are self-funded by superannuation. At present, the statistics are distorted by the large number of unsuperannuated retirees who started work before 1989, when Keating's compulsory superannuation contribution scheme was introduced.

By 2029, the superannuation pay-off will have happened and the number of aged-pension retirees will have drastically reduced. The current 'grey tsunami' scare campaign will disipate. What we will be left with (and what we are already starting to face) is the large number of workers who didn't fit snugly into Keating's vision - the self-employed, the long-term unemployed (who often turn to the extremely insecure and unsuperannuated option of freelancing to make a living), the long-term carers (of children, the disabled and the aged - most of whom are women), and those who are catastrophically disabled financially by bankruptcy.

At present, the 'grey tsunami' narrative focuses only on the arbitrary numbers of all workers who will be retiring over the next 15 years (regardless of their capacity to fund their own retirement through superannuation), to portray a catastrophic scenario that assumes all those workers will be relying on the aged pension.

This is not the case. Only those workers who fall through the superannuation cracks will be reliant on the aged pension.

Unfortunately, it is those workers who will be disadvantaged and destroyed by further efforts to curtail access to the aged pension. It is those workers who will be forced to work till they drop, while the lucky superannuated will be living the life of Riley.

Killarney: There's much in what you say, and I was one of those who worked till they dropped! I had income protection insurance and super!

I was also a victim of the legal profession in a claim for compensation that was strung out for 8+ years, as my modest resources were exhausted. Had my lawyer been working for me, my claim could have been settled out of court far sooner for a significantly higher amount than what the courts awarded me, leaving both of us seriously better off?

As a highly paid professional, I was in the top tax bracket that at one times exceeded 60 cents in the dollar, nor were there any tax breaks for contributing to my super back then.

And given the delays and drain on my modest resources, followed by the cost of the subsequent divorce! I was one of those who fell through the cracks! And through no fault of my own given I was one of the most industrious employees!

Now I live hand to mouth and tremble in financial trepidation with everything that breaks down needing repair.

The medication is not free yet, and I'm still making mortgage payments, even when you stop earning, none of the costs of living do! Even so, I stand by my statement that an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cures, or in the case of old folk extremely profitable till death do us part, "management"!

JKJ doesn't know how long he'll be healthy and able to work, given fate has a way of bringing us all down to size; motor car accidents, a impossible collision between trains or planes dropping from the skies, and unfortunately surviving.

And as usual, these I'm alright Jack types completely miss the point, that the cost to the long suffering taxpayer could be vastly reduced with a more sane approach to prevention and indeed keeping old useless folks out of nursing home and $70,000.00+ a year beds! As well as shaving billions from our medicine bill!

We start work later, don't work near as hard, live longer, yet won't accept that the retirement age must be increased in order to fund not only our retirement, but that of those who don't contribute, either intentionally, or unintentionally.

Hi Butch,

Yes, when the old age pension was introduced early last century, the average pensioner lived only two years past retirement age.

So of course - given that we are far, far less likely to be working in heavy, physical jobs than back then, the retirement age should be put up. As I approach 75, and expect many years of active life after that, I wouldn't mind if the retirement age, the pension age, was pushed up to seventy five by 2030. Maybe up to eighty by 2040. Eighty five by 2050.

Gen Y: throw a tizzy !

Joe.

Killarney, Rhostry

Your assumption that you were charged by God to tell common mortals what their values should be, has no basis in reality.

Take away your assumptions that you know what everyone else's values should be, and that government magically creates net benefits for society by forced confiscations, and all you have is a confused circularity.

Your argument would only make sense if people had no other values than providing for retirement, or if you automatically and intrinsically knew which values should prevail in case of a conflict. They do, and you don't.

If your assumptions are true, why not make the guaranteed superannuation 100% of salary? Why not 200%?. According to your theory, that would make everyone else even better off in retirement, wouldn't it?

You need to compare apples with apples - i.e. the constraints on the voluntary sector with the constraints on the coercive sector, in units of a lowest common denominator. All you're doing is pretending to pull rabbits out of hats, while not accounting for costs on one side of the equation.

JKJ

Rhrosty can speak for himself. MY point is that retirement has become a two-tiered structure - those who fall into the superannuation net, i.e. those able-bodied persons who are in permanent, secure jobs that make a regular contribution to superannuation over their working lives (with the added government contribution), can face old age as independent retirees. Whatever changes are made to the aged pension does not affect them.

Those who fall outside of that net - because of prolonged time outside the permanent workforce (through long-term unemployment, freelance self-employment, prolonged disability, bankruptcy or carer duties) must rely on the aged pension.

The welfare haters among us are determined to destroy the aged pension, because they see it as a vile burden on the public purse. They distort any reliance on the aged pension as a universal burden, as if the entire population over a particular age are lining up for it. This is not the case. Most people do not want to rely on the aged pension, as it is barely enough for anyone to live on. It really only affects a certain percentage of the aged population, who have no other means of support in their old age.

What I find interesting is that those who most fiercely attack the aged pension as being a burden on the public purse - and cite all kinds of statistics about increasing longevity - see absolutely NOTHING wrong with the fact that 40% of the government superannuation contribution (about $30 billion annually) goes to the top 6% of salary earners.

This comes down to the perennial right-wing disdain for the poor and vulnerable needing a social welfare net, while defending - indeed promoting - the right of the rich to reap the benefits of the public purse.

On that basis, don't preach to me about values, mate.

You appear to have no concept of wealth creation other than pursuant to some kind of government compulsion or confiscation.

For example you have ignored the third tier of retirees, who are neither on superannuation nor on the pension, because they have provided for their own retirement during their own lifetime by their own investments, hindered and gouged and castigated at every stage of the way by the meddling of the socialist know-it-alls.

It’s relatively easy to invest to outdo the super funds. I could, and would, have done better with my super money than my compulsory super funds did.

With the government gouging 40 and 50 percent of one’s income, and taking a further big bite through constantly inflating the money supply, the result is that many people, after a lifetime of working, arrive at old age broke. What account have you taken of these facts a) increasing the pension-reliant group you claim to be concerned about, and b) reducing the group who would otherwise be independent on their own investments?

The rich reaping the benefits of compulsory political wealth distribution schemes promoted by the economic illiteracy, or grasping, of socialists is a reason *against* such schemes, not in favour.

While ever you fail to take ethical account of the coercive nature of what you’re advocating, and fail to address the self-defeating economic dysfunctionality of your socialist grabbing schemes, I will challenge you to defend your “values” – mate.

Your concept, in lieu of economic theory, that human society is some kind of high-wire trapeze act, with people at risk of falling to their deaths without a 'safety net' (provided by government o'course - who else?), only shows sloppy and fuzzy thinking. You can't just conjure benefits by sleight of government. For your belief system to be rational, you have to take account of the same quantity on both sides of the equation. Without taking account of costs, anything will seem beneficial, durr, and you'll only end up with more of your own complaints that your own favoured schemes don't work *and* favour the rich.

Hi Killarney and JDJ,

I'm sure I'm not alone in not having super: we spent that a long time ago on putting a deposit on another house on the SA south coast where we intended to retire to. Neither do I therefore get a pension, since I now rent that place out. Nor do I have medical insurance, so life is quite exciting really. Yeah, a bit like being on the high wire without a net.

Compulsory superannuation didn't come in until the early nineties, about the time my contract with an Indigenous education organisation was scrapped: it's also an exciting thing to work for an Indigenous organisation, particularly if you disagree with them in any way. In anyway whatsoever. After all, loyalty to the clique is what counts, not performance. And certainly not initiative.

So if any Gen Y want my place, then - as my dear old English grandmother, such a refined Sussex lady, used to say - they can kiss my hairy arse.

Joe