As a 76 year old who has been retired officially at 65 but with no superannuation, I kept working in my business as a Consultant for about 5 more years part time.I had worked in manual jobs in my 30's and in a meat works I found an old friend of my father's who was still employed there as a mentor and a valued employee with experience to pass onto younger workers.In another Sugar Mill job I worked with a labourer who was sixty-five who taught me to learn to use a shovel in a measured and paced way to save my back when loading sand on a truck to use on the locos to spill on the tracks to stop slipping.There is no reason to lose the valuable experience of older workers in the manner in which they're employed.It is a need for employers to recognise that.As to white collar workers, if they are in senior positions they delegate much of the work and will tell you that working lives get easier the higher up in the organisation they reach.
Superannuation concerns would be the main objection for most workers I feel.There are many examples of the health of retired people deteriorating when finding the end of the routine of a job affecting them.I can cite retirement as a contributing factor in the death of half a dozen friends.If disability or medical problems exist they can be covered in the rules.

Hi Diploman
I am against raising the legal retiring age to 67 but believe that those who still wish to work should be able. Some people find it very important to keep working even if they downshift to part-time, others may want to retire at 60 to enjoy the benefits of retirement.

As with most things, one size does not always fit all.

The trouble is despite our ageing workforce there is still some discrimination against older workers.

Retirement age should be lowered not risen. How are the young (which are finding it harder and harder to get a job) suppose to get a job if we oldies keep working? We've done our bit, it's now time for them to look after us!

What's wrong with raising the retirement age to 67 ?

I worked manually in the building industry beyond that age and I believe it helped to keep me flexible and healthy. I have also made provision for my retirement without help from the government, in spite of lower than average earnings.

RawMustard “Retirement age should be lowered not risen. How are the young (which are finding it harder and harder to get a job) suppose to get a job if we oldies keep working? We've done our bit, it's now time for them to look after us!”

Ah that’s the same excuse which always gets paraded around.

It is a pseudo-truism, it is as real as “the paperless office”.

Or how “automation” was going to do us all out of jobs.

I work as a business consultant, I am pressing toward 60 but am contracted (not an employee) with a specific responsibility to change a group of companies business processes from those used in the first half of the 20th century to current standards, using ODBC and SQL and other advanced computer tools.

Along side me sits a fellow who is closer to 70 and has just had a hip replacement operation. He has a similar set of commercially specific skills. Trust me, the prices we charge are sufficient to ensure we are not “under-cutting” the younger competition.

The reason people of my “generation” are working is because, regardless of all the hype and spin, we have the skills (including breadth) which industry needs and is prepared to pay for and young fellows don’t.

As for being “looked after”…. Garbage… I make my own way in life, I do not expect anyone to shoulder my share of the social burden…

And the reason the “young” will not have jobs in the future is the luddite attitudes of one-eyed conservationists and greenies who get into political office and then make us all run around protecting the planet by developing inefficient cottage industries, promoting a subsistence lifestyle and doing nothing in terms of real trade and commerce because, “ships use fossil fuel”.

To myself, my super fund is presently insufficient to keep me for many years so I will still be working but I would do that anyway

RM:“Retirement age should be lowered not risen. How are the young (which are finding it harder and harder to get a job) suppose to get a job if we oldies keep working? We've done our bit, it's now time for them to look after us!”

Yes and females out of the work force until all the babies are in school. All pre-schools and day-care facilities shut down. No maternity leave. Nup, not joking.

My builder, who did a years worth of renovations in my house was in his seventies. Worked like a 24 year old. I don’t think I would have liked to tell him to go home and send me a 24 year old that would probably work like a 70 year old.

Bah! You's people are all workaholics. I have worked hard all my life, still am. Time for the young ones to take over so I can go fishing and camping while my bones still allow it!

** And the reason the “young” will not have jobs in the future is the luddite attitudes of one-eyed conservationists and greenies who get into political office and then make us all run around protecting the planet by developing inefficient cottage industries, promoting a subsistence lifestyle and doing nothing in terms of real trade and commerce because, “ships use fossil fuel”. **

Well that's one way of looking at it I suppose. But wouldn't you agree that we humans can't really sustain our current way of life, sucking the planet dry of all natural resources until there's none left? Do you believe we can continue on this current path for ever?

I'm not a greeny in the political, luddite sense, but a little conservation can go a long way to us enjoying nature and planet earth for all it's worth. Ten billions tons of concrete and tar are not what I call progress I'm afraid!

Perhaps the young ones have newer ways of seeing life that's not compatible with yours? One where they can have a life and some fun too. So many selfish people on this rock, sad really.

'to current standards, using ODBC and SQL and other advanced computer tools.'

That's pretty funny. You've surged into the late 80s!

"'to current standards, using ODBC and SQL and other advanced computer tools.'

That's pretty funny. You've surged into the late 80s!"

not at all... when I go around and see how relatively primative many businesses manage their data...

there is a massive difference between the "cutting-edge" of technology and the weight of applications behind that edge..

you may choose to scorn my comment but I am making more than a very healthy living from my "surge into the late 80's" and will doubtless continue until I myself am well into my 80's, if need be.

And I will still be seeing no competition from the "young-lions" who pretend to know all but have so little applied or practical knowledge about real business, that they can only exist in a vacuum of their self importance and subsidised by government handouts.

I found the raising of the retirement age liberating. I came to the conclusion some years ago that I wouldn't be retiring at 65 because it would be both boring, and not financially smart. But I am concerned that there is a widespread attitude that once you are past a particular age you are no good.

By increasing the retirement age the government may well lead to a change in mindset where we value older workers more because it's officially OK to be older and at work.

I think it will have benefits well beyond a small saving to the budget.

Aren't you guys mostly missing the point. Raising the retirement age has NOTHING to do with giving people the choice to keep working, which already exists as many of the posters answers attest.

No, raising retirment age is about preventing people from accessing either the pension or superannuation. That's all, and doing so at a time when simultaneiously giving a raise to current pensioners is really just stealing from the the voters of one generation (who won't feel that pain until it affects them) in order to buy the votes of those who feel the benefit now. What justification can their be that makes it fair for today's wanna retirees to be allowed to access the pension/super at 65 but not those born a few years later?

Absolutely, for obvious demographic reasons we need people to work for more of their lives, but the right and fair way to do it is to create incentives for people to do so voluntarily (both for the employees and employers), in the same way that people were given incentives to contribute to super, which is essentially aimed at solving the same problem (financing a decent standard of living for the elderly).

Shame on Rudd.

In posing the question I expected that views on retirement would be diverse but that's the point.It is dependant on the worker and his or her occupation, health, capacity to enjoy retirement and so on. But we have had the figure of 65 as a standard for quite a while.If a person wanted to retire earlier, he did.Forgoing the best outcome in the amount of his pension was the only penalty.I can't see that it makes much difference.