38 ms·

Denmark to raise retirement age to 70

• FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  *) by 2040. I hate it when titles are incomplete. How will this work realistically? How will you convince employers to keep workers employed till 70? Especially in fast changing fields like IT where a lot of old knowledge and experience gets considered obsolete by those screening resumes. Sure, people might survive longer, but that doesn't mean all workers will be equally mentally or physically fit to still perform well at some jobs at 70 as well as a 30 year old, especially if they're mentally or physically challenging jobs. I'm not talking about government paper pushing jobs, but private industry jobs with international competition where you need to be agile and up to speed to survive as a business. This system worked for the boomer generation in slow moving highly regulated industries like steel, rail and automotive, where you'd spend all your life at one company who'd promote you and invest in your training till retirement, but this isn't as common anymore. International companies now want things done faster and cheaper and can't be competitive keeping 70-year-olds on the payroll idling around waiting for retirement. For example, here in Austria, if you're laid off at the age of 50, the chances of getting another job at that age for many professions are already next to zero due to rampant ageism, so workers in some professions end up on long term unemployment till retirement, yet the government agencies are not talking about this major issue and just tell the 50 year olds on long term unemployment to "make a more colorful resume to stand out"(I shit you not). You're also not allowed to take your contributions out of that pot early or all at once to fuck off out of the system and be on your own if you want, proving it is Ponzi scheme in disguise.
  • bluefirebrand 1y ago
    I'm not sure this really changes the information? Ok, so if you're near retirement now you're fine But if you're younger, you can look forward to not retiring until 70, as if the younger generation hasn't been shit on enough Amazing stuff. One last ladder for the older generation to pull up behind them before they die, I guess
    • tossandthrow 1y ago
      In all fairness. the housing market in Denmark is approachable - you can get houses near major cities for usd 80k. Social security, you can go unemployed for years and still pay your bills. Government provided education with stipend - having masters degrees are common. And the economy is strong. Most Danes understand that this is inevitable - the big issue is that the politicians have given themselves more favorable terms.
      • polipus 1y ago
        Living in Copenhagen for the last 7 years. - housing for 80k USD is 525k DKK: no way you can find anything at that price anywhere close to cph. Not sure for other "major" cities, but in cph you can expect to pay 4mil DKK (600K USD) for a ~60 sqmt apartment, prices will fall outside the cities, but nowhere close to 80k USD. Where did you get that number? - you pay for your unemployment benefit, thought an a-kasse. Its not forever and it might barely cover your bills depending on where you live/your mortgage. If you have family its probably not enough and you need to add an insurance on your salary on top of that. Just wanted to give my 2 cents.
        • tossandthrow 1y ago
          That is why I explicitly said major cities and not Copenhagen. Look 20 minutes out of Odense, Aalborg, Randers, etc. Don't let yourself believe that a country is nothing but its capital - it is correct, that if you decide to live in a 4mil DKK apartment in the Copenhagen area, then you have also opted out of public help, and you are on your own.
          • sib 1y ago
            I think it's worth remembering that Hacker News is a global platform and if someone refers to "major cities" in Denmark, for many (most?) readers, the only name that would come to mind is Copenhagen. Copenhagen: ~1.4M people Odense: ~190K people Aalborg: ~120K people Randers: ~64K people
  • bossyTeacher 1y ago
    > How will this work realistically? A new category of jobs will be created: retirement jobs. People unable to work till their retirement age, will be given simple low paid jobs to earn enough work hours to hit their retirement. Think of all the simple jobs currently outsourced: content moderation for social media websites, training data tweaking, LLM training, teaching assistants, street cleaning assistants, etc.
    • Nathanba 1y ago
      But employees are not just pure net gains. If you hire a bunch of "retirement jobbers" you will still have to manage them. It sounds logical at first that you simply hire a few older people for lesser pay but in Europe the question is also why a 65 year old would accept a far lower paid job if he can simply go back on welfare and get paid the same? The reality will probably be that most old people will be unemployed so long that nobody wants to hire them even if they could hire them for a very low amount. People at that age will have a lot of pride built up, they are not going to want to stand in a supermarket for 3h a day either. Is society really going to force them? So far they are barely even willing to force young people to get jobs. Just because you can hire a 68 year old to do content moderation or be an assistant teacher... does not mean that anybody actually wants him around at that age and that he will be a net gain to the environment. His speed and ability at work is inherently going to limit other people's speed in some way or form,not even just that. Even his vibe, his impact on the team. These things are all things that people consider during hiring. It's the concept of "the chain is only as strong as its weakest link" I suppose.
      • bossyTeacher 1y ago
        The government itself could hire many of them at a lower price point. Similarly, firms relying on content moderation farms could use the elderly population. Low wages, social corpo cred and government support (see subsidies) are things they could get for using this. And this would be cheaper than outright paying for the full needs of an ever growing elderly population and an ever shrinking working population. Sure, no will force to take up the jobs but when the choice is heating up your home in winter or working a couple of hours per day, the decision will be obvious
• deanc 1y ago
  I’m not sure how I feel about this. I’m based in the Nordics and my estimated retirement age at the moment (where I can get my state pension) is 67y 4m. Whilst I understand the burden the aging population is having on society (lifespan) it doesn’t seem like there’s much proactive government input into people’s healthspan. Maybe instead we should try investing in this area (reducing the burden on services) instead of simply trying to reduce the quantity of folks claiming from the state pension pot.
  • HDThoreaun 1y ago
    It’s not just about expanding lifespans. The cratering birth rates are a huge reason why societies are going to need people to work until they’re older.
  • ryan93 1y ago
    Are you really claiming there is some big health issue in the nordic countries suppressing life span?
    • deanc 1y ago
      No. I am suggesting that governments invest more into ensuring their aging population is healthy instead of draining every bit of life from them by making them work later and later.
      • ryan93 1y ago
        no one is being drained doing nordic office work in their 70s.
  • WA 1y ago
    It’s the other way around: a few decades ago people retired only a few years earlier, had 5-10 years of retirement and then died. Now people live way longer, but the retirement age never got adjusted properly to the new reality. So 15-20 years of retirement is the new normal. In addition, way fewer young payers for the now old.
• dtgm92 1y ago
  This is because of their low birth rate primarily right? I think the system has failed at this point, when you are expected to work that long.
  • tossandthrow 1y ago
    It is. And this is the case in all western countries. It is just being realized in different ways. Fundamentalle there are 3 ways to cope 1. reduce pensions 2. Raise taxes 3. Decrease amount of benefit receivers. Denmark choose number 3
    • namdnay 1y ago
      The trap is the worse the imbalance gets, the harder (1) gets electorally
      • tossandthrow 1y ago
        Number 1 is likely the outcome of passivity - inflation will eat away the value of the pension.
        • namdnay 1y ago
          In many countries pensions are indexed on inflation… so there is no natural erosion unfortunately
    • CubsFan1060 1y ago
      Wouldn't the fourth way be via increasing either birth rate or immigration?
      • lostlogin 1y ago
        That’s collecting more taxes, 2, isn’t it?
        • 1y ago
• ionwake 1y ago
  The last great country in Europe, may their salvation come in their easy going friday afternoons and the general well being of the nation.
• constantcrying 1y ago
  It is important to keep in mind how these pension schemes are funded. Already now over 40% of Danish government expenses go towards social security a large part of that is pensions. With a growing population of pensioners and a declining population of taxpayers many EU countries are walking towards a future where it is abundantly clear that the state can not finance pensions. Especially when at the same time their companies loose their economic competitiveness. I do not believe that raising the retirement age in 15 years will be of any major help here. And it seems especially outrageous for the younger generation.
• lnsru 1y ago
  It's obvious, that there is no pension in Europe in 20 years anyway. Demographics are super ugly everywhere. Investing individually is the single way, that works if one does not want to retire in under the bridge. Sadly Germany does not help me caring about my retirement taking 18.6% away and heavily taxing the rest.
  • Retric 1y ago
    The math for pensions is fine as long as the maxes payout isn’t excessive and you don’t start too early. There’s a huge cost difference between a 30k/year pension at 70 and a 45k per year pension at 60. People also focus on a fixed percentage being returned while ignoring the long term increase in productivity and people’s standards of living. In real terms people in 2025 get way more out of pension systems than people did in 1925, that’s as central to the problem as any changes in lifespan.
    • lnsru 1y ago
      I will pay more than €600000 for this “retirement insurance” over my entire career. So with 30k/year pension and living under the bridge at 70 I must have superior health to break even at 90 and benefit from the “insurance” afterwards. Ok, it’s not that bad, there is some disability insurance included. Better than nothing.
      • Retric 1y ago
        The value you get is as an inflation and lifespan hedge. There’s no investment built into the system but the money being paid in by younger workers for people who are 100 is adjusted for inflation that year not whatever the currency was worth 75 years ago when they started. Similarly if you die at 55 you don’t benefit from retirement savings either. Historically payouts also benefited from rising productivity and populations but those assumptions are breaking down.
      • bachmeier 1y ago
        > I will pay more than €600000 for this “retirement insurance” over my entire career. So with 30k/year pension and living under the bridge at 70 I must have superior health to break even at 90 Let's see. If you pay 15000 euros per year for 40 years, and get 5% interest, that's 1,800,000 euros at retirement. Even if you held that in cash, a 30,000 euro/year withdrawal would last you to 130.
• secondcoming 1y ago
  UK-based here and despite it being one of the lowest state pensions in Europe, there are still complaints that it's too high. I fully expect to never receive a State Pension, and so contribute the maximum to my private pension. But even then it wouldn't surprise me if soon even those contributions got taxed too.
• mikewarot 1y ago
  I think that the long term consequences of cases of CFS/ME that are induced by Covid (and thus Long Covid) are going to take out a large amount of the top of the population pyramid well before their time, myself included. The increased medical costs as we go, however, might actually make it worse, faster.
• WinstonSmith84 1y ago
  In many EU countries, retirement age increase while the value of the pension itself decreases. It's about demographic of course but it's also the signs of a failed system. People understands this and are contribution more and more towards private funds which are meant to offset the loss - slowly shifting to a US system. The current system is just not broken but unfair. In many EU countries, people are not contributing for themselves, but for the previous generation being currently retired. In turn, it's supposed that babies born today will work for the pension of the currently active generation. This pension system is nothing else but a pyramide scheme and that scheme is now breaking due to a demographic issue - just like a traditional pyramide scheme would break because there are not enough participants to that scheme ...
• solnyshok 1y ago
  I'm 48 now, in Latvia, and expect that my retirement age will be 73+.
• neonate 1y ago
  https://archive.ph/xe4rC https://archive.ph/xe4rC
• alexpc201 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • mantas 1y ago
    Those who downvote you should find statistics from Denmark which migration sources are net positive and which ain’t.
    • jonathanstrange 1y ago
      No, you're reversing the burden of proof. People who make bold claims need to back them up somehow. If they fail to do so, their posts have no information value and should be downvoted.
      • mantas 1y ago
        Those who think migrants are positive should bring proof too. Or is it just trying to claim moral high ground by cherry picking?
        • jonathanstrange 1y ago
          The thread was about the work force and in Denmark the vast majority of migrants work. Go look it up on any statistics site, I certainly did but I'm not going to provide you with the link. It's very easy to look up. The Danish government publishes this information. Industrialized countries unable to accommodate and become appealing to a sufficient yearly inflow of migrants to rejuvenate the work force are doomed. The population statistics are crystal clear about that. That's just how it is. Those countries could have changed their pension systems 30 years ago to avoid this problem but didn't. Other than that, I don't care what you personally mean by "...are positive" about a whole group of people. Making such statements about hundreds of thousands to millions of people is an obviously gross generalization and not at a level worth discussing.
          • mantas 1y ago
• dueltmp_yufsy 1y ago
  Seems the US will have to do this soon. Just very very unpopular. Not sure which party will actually pull the trigger.
  • mattnewton 1y ago
    My guess - they'll just gut the benefits to anemic levels for everyone slowly rather than some big easy to point to maneuver like this.
    • energy123 1y ago
      What is the political incentive to do this ever?
      • mattnewton 1y ago
        My thinking was, cutting taxes via budget reconciliation (which is the only process the currently paralyzed legislature can do) requires some hand waving deference to the notion of being revenue neutral by the Byrd rule, so cuts to social programs or rollbacks of government spending have been increasingly included as a way to get tax cuts. Tax cuts fund your donors who fund your reelection campaign. But, I just looked it up again for this comment and that same rule says "No changes to social security" in reconciliation. It is specifically called out as forbidden to touch via reconciliation unlike almost every other program. So, maybe you are right, it will just be ignored because it doesn't seem possible to quietly change.
        • yborg 1y ago
          The income part of SS is more or less subsistence level, which arguably was its intention to keep the elderly from begging in the streets. But in the dystopian US healthcare system, Medicare is arguably the more important part of the social net. Without it, you are not going to afford any healthcare in old age. If this budget hits the PAYGO limits, which is basically guaranteed, that will trigger automatic cuts to Medicare, so they can backdoor cut the program without anybody voting for that.
• dainiusse 1y ago
  The best phrase I read by someone. "Retirement is a financial goal - it has nothing to do with age". And this makes huge sense...
  • nialv7 1y ago
    well in this context it generally means the age someone starts to receive state pension.
    • testing22321 1y ago
      And in many countries it defines the age you can withdraw money from your own retirement savings without paying full income tax.
    • dainiusse 1y ago
      Yes. But the wider meaning is - you are in control
      • LunaSea 1y ago
        But you're not because the country decides how much they take out of your wage for pension and at what age you can access it.
  • futureshock 1y ago
    I’d encourage thinking not just about yourself or your immediate circle when it comes to policy like retirement age. State run pension systems affect nearly everyone, not just the extremely fortunate few who can become financially independent at a younger age. And that is also largely an American phenomenon anyway. Salaries are much lower on average than in Europe and there is far less differential between minimum wage and what senior employees get paid. There’s also not the same culture of investing because European companies don’t have the same performance as the US stock market. Lower yield real estate investment is much more common in many European countries. And with strong social safety nets Europeans are generally less pressured to save a huge nest egg. So this raising of the retirement age will affect a huge portion of workers and 70 is OLD to be working full time for all but the most relaxed jobs. Most older folks I know have know being dealing with multiple chronic age related illnesses well before 70.
• jampekka 1y ago
  It's utterly insane that people need to work more and longer as technology increases productivity. A truly dystopian economic system. In 1930 Keynes projected that by 2000 their grandchildren could work 15 hours per week¹. Now the projection is that we will work more and longer in the future. And what is this labor supposed to even do? How much of even current work really increases wellbeing? Graeber's thesis of bullshit jobs becomes increasingly more convincing: work isn't about production, it's about social control². [1] http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf [2] https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
  • wtcactus 1y ago
    We don’t live with 1930s standards of housing, education, welfare, material wealth, services, etc, etc, etc. Compare the taxes you pay now with the taxes people paid in the 1930s.
  • luckylion 1y ago
    > In 1930 Keynes projected that by 2000 their grandchildren could work 15 hours per week. Couldn't they, having the same standard of living as in 1930?
  • zemvpferreira 1y ago
    If you wanted to live to a 1930s standard of education, healthcare, food, entertainment, interior decorarion, transportation, savings etc etc you could most definitely do it on very few hours of work. Lots of people associated with homesteading, tiny houses etc do so. That said I agree we should be further ahead in paving a way to paradise.
    • jampekka 1y ago
      It's not necessarily about the standard of living, but about production going into the zero or negative sum status consumption. Or as Keynes puts it: > Now it is true that the needs of human beings may seem to be insatiable. But they fall into two classes -- those needs which are absolute in the sense that we feel them whatever the situation of our fellow human beings may be, and those which are relative in the sense that we feel them only if their satisfaction lifts us above, makes us feel superior to, our fellows. Needs of the second class, those which satisfy the desire for superiority, may indeed be insatiable; for the higher the general level, the higher still are they. But this is not so true of the absolute needs -- a point may soon be reached, much sooner perhaps than we are all of us aware of, when these needs are satisfied in the sense that we prefer to devote our further energies to non-economic purposes.
• instagib 1y ago
  I would like to point to a topic about extending pilots’ mandatory retirement ages. Most pilots plus or minus retirement age are unable to pass the physical or mental demands of the job, so only 25-30% are able to work and not on short- or long-term disability. Some choose to work privately past retirement age. I don’t have any numbers for pilots who decided to leave, were forced out, or could not pass the training. Extending the retirement age doesn’t really help the situation much, as you need younger and cheaper pilots to fulfill the roles of pilots who are retiring. The problem is, becoming a pilot takes a fair amount of time, over $100k in training fees, low pay for a while until fully certified with hours in, a very mobile lifestyle, and now you are subjected to physical as well as mental demands of the job certification standards.
  • bombcar 1y ago
    There are quite a few highly paid professions where the main purpose of that profession’s union seems to be to prevent there being an adequate supply of the professionals.
    • aaomidi 1y ago
      Is that what’s happening here?
      • agilob 1y ago
        It's happening everywhere, and it's completely intentional.
        • 1oooqooq 1y ago
          happening everywhere, except Cuba.
          • autobodie 1y ago
            Yes, against all odds, Cuba has a great surpous of doctors. How do they do it, I wonder!?!?!?!?!?! (it has something to do with profit)
• YVoyiatzis 1y ago
  Seventy might feel like fifty in Scandinavian cities where cycling is part of daily life—but try that in the U.S., and the idea of retirement quickly becomes a parody.
  • bombcar 1y ago
    70 is already the “optimal” age to take social security (depending on various factors).
  • ghaff 1y ago
    The US already has a retirement age of 70 depending upon how you figure it. As noted in sibling comment, depending upon various factors, that's the age it's generally recommended to start receiving social security benefits unless you want/need smaller payouts sooner. Medicare starts at 65 however. IRAs don't require you to take distributions until you're 73.
• Vosporos 1y ago
  Burn everything down
• testing22321 1y ago
  This comes about due to incompetent politicians running things. Australia is spending billions on nuclear subs it doesn’t need, and even paying France $300 million for not buying their subs. Australia doesn’t have enough money for that? No problem, just make everyone work longer. As an individual if I don’t earn enough to cover my spending I have two choices. 1. work more 2. Spend less In all these discussions we never see politicians do anything about spending less, they just throw us under the bus to work more, while of course exempting themselves.
  • notfed 1y ago
    How did you get from Denmark to Australia?
    • testing22321 1y ago
      It’s happening all over the world
• JanisErdmanis 1y ago
  The birth rates have been low for a decade. I wonder if the change is triggered by US stock market downturn where majority of EU pensions are invested and expectation of a doom.
• JadoJodo 1y ago
  Without discarding the issue of the moving goalpost, I do wonder what the quality of life contrast looks like between a 70-year old in 2025 and a 70-year old in 1925. Note: I arbitrarily picked the latter date, as I wasn't able to (with a quick search) locate the year in which the original retirement age was established in Denmark. I also wonder what it would look like for the government to encourage (or even facilitate) "jobs for seniors" that only become available to you after you turn 60. They could be jobs that are, by design, low-risk, low-physicality, but medium-high mental stimulation.
  • mistrial9 1y ago
    around 1900 more than a quarter of the population of Denmark emigrated to the USA IIR
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • strange_aeons 1y ago
      Around 140k emigrated to USA in 1900-1930 (https://danishvoices.ku.dk/danish-in-north-america/ https://danishvoices.ku.dk/danish-in-north-america/) Denmark’s population was 2.4m-3.5m in that period (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark)
      • mistrial9 1y ago
        my sources : "a History of the Lutheran Church in America", and a personal history written at that time. If your records are accurate and unbiased, I would accept that answer completely and admit it.. but I am not convinced both of those are true. It is interesting and more clarity is welcome. Also your estimate of the population varies by 40% so the accuracy is in question.
        • strange_aeons 1y ago
          ku.dk is Copenhagen University, which I would regard as accurate and unbiased. Wikipedia cites Danmarks Statistik for the population numbers, the official government statistics. The 2.4m is in 1900, 3.5m in 1930.
• kypro 1y ago
  Why do people owe me a nice retirement? I never really got the idea of state-funded retirement. Perhaps I should feel I'm owed something if I'm too fragile/disabled to work, but I don't know why age alone should grant me anything? Appreciate this is a controversial view so interested in hearing why I'm wrong so I can stop holding it. I think retirement should just be replaced by disability welfare to be honest.
  • jillesvangurp 1y ago
    The state pension in most countries is simply a collective pension fund that you pay for during your working life (or your employer does on your behalf). The state owes you retirement because you paid for it. It's not a handout that others are paying for you; you actually paid for it your entire working life. So, Denmark raising the retirement age is kind of a big deal. I imagine the Danish might be less than thrilled about that.
  • izacus 1y ago
    Open a history book. Read upon why state pensions were introduced - by people who thought like you actually. (Spoiler: because alternative doesn't end well even for the wealthy.) Isn't 19th century covered by history classes anymore? :/
  • adamors 1y ago
    At least in Europe, you pay a percentage of your wage into the state’s pension fund. Details vary by country, but it’s not uncommon that you contribute automatically 10% of your gross salary. For your entire working life. The state then being kind enough to give you something back after 35-40 years of contributions is expected.
  • bachmeier 1y ago
    Just to throw out one reason - it's valuable to working people because they don't have to take care of their parents in old age. Can't speak to Europe, but Social Security in the US is definitely not enough for a "nice retirement". It may help a frugal person in a low cost of living area cover their basic expenses.
• dsign 1y ago
  There is an obvious solution to the problem of ageing population and declining birth rates. Furthermore, it's a solution everybody's secret soul wants very much: keep people younger for longer. Invent rejuvenation. But politicians would never dare go in front of cameras and say that they will put a dollar into R&D for such an outcome, because the wall of insults and disdain we would hurl, for no rational reason, at them, would be higher than a tsunami. There is something seriously broken in our collective psyche.
  • capitalsigma 1y ago
    I'm pretty sure that "lack of market opportunity" isn't the reason that nobody has yet managed to invent eternal youth
  • jl6 1y ago
    Get disdainin’!: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/adding-years-to-life-and-life-to-years-our-plan-to-increase-healthy-longevity https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/adding-years-to-life-...
    • dsign 1y ago
      Ha! Sweet! That's very much a (lot of) step(s) in the right direction.
  • jopsen 1y ago
    > keep people younger for longer. Is a lot easier than "rejuvenation", and a lot more attainable. And also something we do throw R&D money at.
  • martin-t 1y ago
    It might be the obvious solution but is it the right one? People are significantly more productive than say 50 years ago due to technological advancement. So where is all the money going? I am no economist but it is my understanding that all this extra money goes to the rich because they've entrenched themselves in positions where they can extract a portion of a person's income with no recourse. It's not normal that a single person can legally own tens of apartments and get a third or each tenant's salary without providing any value to society. It's not normal that companies can own residential properties, they have no use for them other than extracting money from people. I recall danluu blogging about how multiple times he made code fixes that saved the company more than his salary just in electricity. What I see is an incredible technical achievement but also I see how he's being exploited - the money saved is value he directly provided to society, yet he sees none of it. Where does it go? To people who are already rich.
• jt2190 1y ago
  So this means that eventually Danes will not be able to draw from their government pensions until the age of seventy? Is there a mechanism where people can stop working before age seventy if they save privately?
  • jopsen 1y ago
    Denmark has both private and public pension schemes. Well, I guess you're not required to have a private pension scheme. But most jobs come with one, most unions enforce it. I had one when I was sweeping the factory floor once a week at age 15 -- that was ridiculously because it all disappeared into administration fees. But the answer is yes, of course you can. It's a free country -- assuming we're not annexed by the orange monkey.
• tcshit 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • leidenfrost 1y ago
    Immigration is a form of organic growth. How do you think the US got its population?
  • hackyhacky 1y ago
    > That’s what happens when nations like Denmark and Sweden with extensive social wellfare system, does not grow organically and instead allow people to invade their countries and let them use the system without giving anything back. I am pretty sure that immigrants pay taxes.
    • tcshit 1y ago
      Some immigrants do a great job but way too many have no interest in integrating nor working, they are perfectly happy with getting money and social healthcare without giving anything back. They even get enough money to send to relatives not able to leave their shitty countries.
      • hackyhacky 1y ago
        > They even get enough money to send to relatives not able to leave their shitty countries. You're doing a great job satirizing the extreme positions and hateful attitude of nationalistic xenophobes.
• bossyTeacher 1y ago
  Why is this generating so much discussion? Implicitly, retirement age is not a constant but a function of several factors. This was inevitable and of course, it will increase several times over our lifespan.
  • seydor 1y ago
    because it seems like at 70 people won't be productive, hence the assumptions that humans are made of steel and retirement can stretch like rubber fail.
• gyudin 1y ago
  [flagged]
• gandalfian 1y ago
  Denmark, 6 million wealthy people, 4% economic growth, 1.5% inflation, 2.9% unemployment, national debt of 25% of GDP and budget in surplus. How did it all go so right?
  • anal_reactor 1y ago
    Sensible immigration policies
    • warunsl 1y ago
      Also, one of the highest taxes.
      • realo 1y ago
        So what? Their model obviously works well.
    • spicyusername 1y ago
      What are some examples of sensible immigration policies? How does the US compare / contrast?
      • paulddraper 1y ago
        US has highest immigration #s of any country. Canada is close in some respects.
        • nradov 1y ago
          The USA has the highest total number of immigrants but many other countries are higher on a percentage basis. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigration-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigrati...
        • Teever 1y ago
          Can you elaborate on your comment? What makes Canada's immigration policy sensible in your mind?
• username223 1y ago
  Screw that. No matter how healthy you are, you're significantly limited both physically and mentally at 70. "Enjoy your last 11.7 doddering years!" It's not so hard to save some money, do whatever you want in your 30s, then work until you're dead.
• firesteelrain 1y ago
  This is a global trend in order to keep pension and retirement systems fiscally stable. Same reason you will probably see the Social Security System raise their age too.
• manmal 1y ago
  Where I live, people have issues getting hired past age 50, and it’s near impossible past age 60. It’s a stroke of luck if you score a job then. So yes they can raise retirement age, but that will just create misery for all those who can’t cling to a job long enough. There‘s got to be a better way.
  • Robotbeat 1y ago
    Part of the reason employees are reticent to hire someone past 50 is before they worry they’ll retire soon, even if they’re mentally and physically in good shape. So increasing the retirement age might actually improve the ability of folks in their 50s to find work. Not saying this is a great trend, but it’s unavoidable due to the low fertility rate (already a problem everywhere in the developed world and soon to be a problem the world over, as by 2050–before I retire—the global average total fertility rate will have dropped below replacement.).
    • manmal 1y ago
      We already have 15y to go here, at age 50. That’s WAY longer than the median occupancy.
      • generic92034 1y ago
        Also, large companies go out of their way to offer early retirement packages to their workforce, often starting even with 55 year old employees. That does not fit the expectation of people working till they are 70. Politics and employer orgs need to talk about that.
    • tikhonj 1y ago
      Companies that have an average churn of more than 7%—which is most of them—have no place worrying about some 50-year-old retiring. Not that that stops managers, of course...
    • hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
      I don't buy this at all. I've hired many people in my career, and: 1. I've never had more than a max 2 year time horizon when thinking about a hire. 2. If anything, I've found younger people more likely to job hop than those 40+.
• charcircuit 1y ago
  What's stopping people from just saving up money and stop working before 70?
  • glxxyz 1y ago
    Nothing, 'retirement age' is typically when people qualify for a state pension. Sometimes it's used for mandatory retirement when that exists.
  • bachmeier 1y ago
    From the bit of research I did on the Danish pension system, workers pay heavy taxes during their working years, and some of that is paid back to them in the form of a universal pension. In addition, almost all workers are covered by mandatory occupational pensions, with contributions of 9-17% of annual earnings. That probably eats up the available savings for most workers. This change locks that money away until age 70. Contrast that with the US, where Social Security is designed to replace an average of only 30% of a worker's income (much more at the lowest income levels), and you can take it as early as age 62. The most common retirement plans are 401k, 403b, 457b, and IRA. You can pull from any of them without penalty at age 59.5, and from the retirement plan of the company you're working for if you retire at 55 or later. As I understand it, those ages would all be 70 in Denmark, and yeah it would be terrible. Not many people in the US are still working at age 70. Almost nobody doing serious physical work is still working at age 70. * My information about Denmark's system may be wrong.
    • simongray 1y ago
      There are several early retirement systems in place in Denmark for people who are unable to work.
      • bachmeier 1y ago
        Sure, but disability programs are different from what most people think of when they think of retirement. Forcing the majority of people to work until 70 means they burn through most of their healthy years. On the other hand, people in Denmark work on average 410 fewer hours per year versus the US. In terms of total hours, working from 22 to 70 in Denmark is the equivalent of working from 22 to 59 in the US, or from 22 to 52 in Mexico.
• mensetmanusman 1y ago
  Turns out not having kids has consequences.
  • crims0n 1y ago
    As someone who is having kids, I am both curious and anxious about the world they will become adults into. I am not sure if it will be a world of economic opportunities due to the inevitable labor shortage, or a world of suffering due to widespread economic collapse.
  • Kuraj 1y ago
    What is the real point you're trying to make here?
• OhNoNotAgain_99 1y ago
  [dead]
• zkmon 1y ago
  While the increase is not too bad, they should invest in having babies instead of making the old people work.
  • patall 1y ago
    Just saying, that will not have any positive effect until 2050. We are far to far in the incoming crash. And that is not even talking about the strain that will hit the health care sector, no matter what we raise the retirement age too.
• admissionsguy 1y ago
  Don't they know AGI soon?
• dr_dshiv 1y ago
  If it’s like The Netherlands, it’s the age when you HAVE to stop working. Like, you can’t be a professor after the retirement age.
• seydor 1y ago
  the boomers were so exceptional that their exceptionality should not be ignored in public discourse. We will never have such a big generation ever again, so all their dreams about endless welfare will go away with them. I dont know if anyone is planning the post-boomer world, it all seems to happen-as-you-go. The most hilarious policies are the ones aiming to force people to have more kids, by paying them or by attacking feminism and lgbt. Making the society unfree will make people less willing to put more kids in it.
• amag 1y ago
  This is truly sad. As a Swede I fear my country may follow suite. The retirement age in Sweden used to be 65 and now it's 67. Looking at older people around me, most lead a much less active life after 75. So, if we were lucky we used to have some 10 good years of doing whatever we wanted before old age and age-related diseases start affecting us so much we become limited to a much smaller world. But now we have maybe eight years and if we follow Denmark, five years. I think if you've put in 40-45 years for the man, you should be allowed to have some good 10 years for yourself. Travel, play golf, cross a continent in a camper or climb a mountain.
  • wyager 1y ago
    > I think if you've put in 40-45 years for the man, you should be allowed to have some good 10 years for yourself. Who do you think would "allow" this? God? This is a resource constraint imposed by reality itself catching up to an excessively idealistic set of policies; this policy decision is downstream of that, not arbitrary.
    • StopDisinfo910 1y ago
      It is entirely arbitrary. Society heavily favours capital above labour. That’s why we have very rich inheritors never working and people toiling until they are 70. It’s entirely a choice. This issue has solutions we collectively decide not to put in place.
      • godelski 1y ago
        Funny that we have a ton of people asking what people would do in a post scarce society. Stating that man needs work. Yet, it also seems to be said most by the people who have been free from the need to labor for generations. They still do, they still desire more, yet their lives are certainly post scarce. Hell, the whole goal of retirement is to become post scarce, and have a few years where you can live without the need to labor. Seems like we already have some decent evidence to what such a world would look like.
        • 1y ago
• moominpapa 1y ago
  Yes,people were living longer, but let's see how that looks in 10 years time. Who wants to be working in their late 60s anyway? And by working I mean having to work. If you are not working to feed and house yourself and dependents then you are not working you are choosing to work which is not work as far as I am concerned.
• kenver 1y ago
  I think it’s important to remember that you don’t have to wait until you retire to live your life. Finding a balance between your work and personal life is the most important thing to get sorted as early as you can. This looks different for everyone. Sure you can climb a mountain, or cram in life experiences at 60+ if you’re in good health, but I think it’s better to do it as you go and enjoy your entire life.
• nubinetwork 1y ago
  In Canada, the standard age for retirement is currently 65... I've been paying into pension since I was 20, and I have health conditions where I might not even live to 50, let alone 60 or 65... The arbitrary rules that prevent me from cashing in on the money I worked hard for is truly disgusting.
• TrackerFF 1y ago
  I mean, makes sense? I live in Norway, so quite similar socioeconomics. People become older, so makes sense they have to work longer. Imagine 50 years down the road, and the life expectancy is 90+ years. If people retired at age 65, that would mean you'd spend almost one third of your life as a retiree, living off a system which you paid into for 40-45 years. But with that said, you can't expect a plumber, roofer, kindergarten teacher, etc. to work until they're 70. Your body will likely be shot years before that. Chill office work, though? A senior colleague of mine just recently retired. He's 68, and wanted to work even longer - but had promised his wife that he'd retire for the past 5 years.
  • achempion 1y ago
    What is the point of having so huge government investment fund if it can't subsidise the retirement age?
• focusgroup0 1y ago
  Do you want infinity biomass or a sovereign country?
• seiferteric 1y ago
  Do people save their own money in Europe for retirement or do most people expect to rely entirely on pension? I honestly don't know, just curious.
  • crims0n 1y ago
    Also curious… in the US I don’t know any working professionals in my generation (millennial) that are counting on social security as part of their retirement planning. If it’s there, great - but if it’s not, not going to let it keep me from clocking out at 65.
  • crvdgc 1y ago
    In the UK, there is the basic state pension. The pension age depends on when you're born. For young people now, it's 68. However, the state pension pay is so low that almost everyone gets a commercial pension. Usually, it's a salary deduction and employer match contribution scheme, so you can choose how much to save. At the moment, you can start drawing your commercial pension at age 57 (increased from 55). See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/increasing-normal-minimum-pension-age/increasing-normal-minimum-pension-age https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/increasing-normal...
  • simongray 1y ago
    It's different in every country. In Denmark it is a mix: everyone receives a state pension (the Nordic model of universal welfare), but almost everyone also has a private pension account that they out money into.
• teleforce 1y ago
  Fun facts in some parts of the world professors have flexible retirement age and they can work until they choose not too work anymore for examples in US and Canada.
• Saul1998zx 1y ago
  6451937099
• hackernoops 1y ago
  This is why it's important to contribute as little as possible to others, especially the state. They will gladly take everything from you and then tell you you should be happy about it.
• cgio 1y ago
  On the one hand, we will all be replaced by AI, so jobs are lost. On the other hand, we have to work till we die or the system will crumble. Thus, the system will crumble, it’s just about who will end up with the hot potato.
  • bufferoverflow 1y ago
    If AI takes most jobs, the system won't crumble. If anything, the system will probably work much better. It's the transition period that I am worried about, when large percentages of the population are jobless, but safety nets aren't yet in place.
    • cgio 1y ago
      So the system will not crumble after it crumbles in transition.
      • bufferoverflow 1y ago
        That's the big question. Depends on what policies are implemented and how quickly.
• StillBored 1y ago
  This is what happens when your population isn't mathematically educated enough to be able to figure out how to plan a defined benefit pension, and there are politicians who are actively trying to destroy a social safety net. A bit of playing with chatgpt will dump the formulas required and even solve them for a given set of constraints. Basically one takes the average inflation adjusted of an investment vehicle, then solves for what percentage of income for a given timeframe, in order to return a portion of a persons income for another timeframe. Ex: given say the US stock market average return for the past 100 years, one wants to work for 30 years and retire for 30 years with a 70% of the final income, it works out to 8-9% of a persons income. Then shift the numbers to 40/20 years, cap the maximum payout at say the median income, and wow a pension system that grows faster than the rate of inflation, provides for a retirement age of ~60 and the percentage drops to ~5% or less. People complaining about demographic trends are buying into the idea that the input dollars have to equal the output dollars, and its dumb, and isn't even the way the social security trust fund in the USA works. Which shows that its possible to ride out population bubbles, much less actually providing a long term savings vehicle that if it were run correctly would eventually be indefinitely solvent. But at least in the USA one party has consistently stood in the way for the past 40 years of solving some of these financial problems, and in fact seems to make them worse by flattening the progressive nature of the federal taxes through tax cuts which overwhelmingly target the groups most able to absorb higher tax rates. And the result are cases where single individuals single handily hold 2% of the wealth of their entire generation and the country looks like its falling apart and there is artificial scarcity everywhere. PS: Now there are a number of ways this breaks, mostly around cases where inflation is eating up most of the compounding growth, but most sovereign governments are fully capable of solving these problems if they choose to.
• insane_dreamer 1y ago
  Technology is supposed to have made us more productive than ever. And yet, most people are having to work longer than ever. Why? Because all the productivity gains are being captured by the top ~10%. And now we're continuing to pour billions into AI that is going to boost our productivity even more! Hurrah! Progress!! Who do you think is going to capture those gains? We can argues over some of the details, but there's no question that Piketty is being proven right.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...
• MaxPock 1y ago
  The solution is pretty simple for the society. Either have three kids or you work till you are 70.
  • burnt-resistor 1y ago
    The society first has to provide for its citizens instead of giving socialism to billionaires instead of a proper social safety net, or they won't want to or can't have kids.
    • missedthecue 1y ago
      Most people would say Denmark has a proper social safety net. People aren't having kids because they don't want kids. And no amount of parental leave or childcare subsidies flips the switch when flights to *popular tourist destination* are a couple hundred euro.
      • MaxPock 1y ago
        This.Not even cash handouts have increased TFRs across Europe and East Asia. I think the solution might be in taxes. No kid;you are taxed at 60% , one kid 50% two kids 40 % and three kids 30 % . 20 % for anyone with more than four kids. VAT on people with kids 12.5 %
    • ryan93 1y ago
      you are being disengenous. you know that nordic taxes are quite high.
• discodonkey 1y ago
  This is perfectly reasonable. People are living and staying healthy for longer than they used to, while the overall population is aging disproportionally due to low birth rates. If they hadn't raised the retirement age, they would have to raise taxes very significantly. People should remember that retirement is about making sure the people who are too old to work can still live respectably. It's not an end-of-life vacation. Of course, it's still going to be massively unpopular. But the alternative is fiscal armageddon.
  • lovich 1y ago
    > But the alternative is fiscal armageddon Or possibly making a trade off on any number of other areas the government spends money on, or raising taxes. No wait I forgot, either pushing the burden onto labor or Armageddon, no alternatives
    • karmakurtisaani 1y ago
      > Or possibly making a trade off on any number of other areas the government spends money on, or raising taxes. A lot of heavy lifting was done here.
      • lovich 1y ago
        Yea, no shit. It’s called sarcasm.
        • karmakurtisaani 1y ago
          Oh. Well, carry on then.
  • ygouzerh 1y ago
    Peope are living and staying healthy for longer than they used to --> mostly impactful for middle/upper class and above. There is a correlation between life expectancy and job level/wealth: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7792745/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7792745/ . With retirement at 70, manual labours can already stop dreaming of taking a rest before dying.
• the_black_hand 1y ago
  I'm going to get downvoted for this, but it makes sense. People live much longer than in the past. Advancements in fitness and the decline in birthrates only make it fair for us to work a little longer. Ultimately, what I hope for is AI to take care of most of the heavy work and allow us more leasiurely time, but we are still decades away from getting their.
• PeterStuer 1y ago
  The idea since the early 80's was to prepare for the big boomer retirement wave by saving up in special retirement funds, aa demographic prohections were clear. In Belgium e.g. this was called the 'Zilverfonds'. But no politician throughout the decades could keep their hands out of the coockie jar, so now al those accounts are empty. Funny how when 'defence' creates fake emergencies there is no limit to how money can be found. But money for retirement? Oh no, we can't have that!
• Night_Thastus 1y ago
  Realistically, what are countries supposed to do? Almost every single industrialized country has a birth rate below replacement, so there's fewer younger people to help carry the burdens. Medical care means the elderly live on and on and on, draining enormous costs as they age. I'm not trying to be cruel, but from a pure numbers sense it makes perfect sense. Would you prefer taxes go up instead? Lessen spending on infrastructure and healthcare? Lessen child labor laws? There's no a lot of winning answers here. And overall, the problem is just going to get worse in every country for the forseeable future. Expect to see more of this as time goes on. It's a bandaid solution though.
  • close04 1y ago
    Realistically productivity increased by leaps and bounds over the past few decades. If leaders can’t figure out how to take advantage of that instead of taking advantage of the people then they have no business leading a country. The solution they are applying now is a dead end, literally. It doesn’t scale, the only place it leads to is people guaranteed to die “at work”. And elephant in the room, people in their late 60s aren’t even close to productive compared to the younger employees and if you lose your job in your 50s or early 60s you’re condemned to a decade or 2 of being supported by the family if you’re lucky. So a person in this position is a hidden “tax” on the tax payers in the family, or on the companies who still employ them, if any still have them at that age. Countries are better off just directly taxing the companies regardless of whether they hire 70 year olds. But that won’t happen.
    • alexey-salmin 1y ago
      1) Work less hours 2) Consume more 3) Have less kids 4) Live longer after the retirement age Productivity increased a lot but expecting it cover all four is way too optimistic.
      • close04 1y ago
        5) Real wages went down, in general. The productivity pay gap has increased significantly. Take a formerly stable country which is a good indicator of the progression. [0] Getting terminated at old age is already a huge problem made worse by delaying pension. And it will get even worse as families have to subsidize their elderly even more, making it even less likely to have more (or any) kids. The current crop of leaders put the entire burden on average Joe. Companies are insulated, always one restructuring away from solving their problem. And then we wonder why populists win everywhere... [0] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
• thordenmark 1y ago
  This is the problem with retirement systems built on Ponzi schemes. The low birth rate has accelerated the inevitable crash. If my understanding is correct, Norway has a system based on investment in the country's economy, in particular oil production in the North Sea. And they are not needing the same austerity measures to retirement benefits.
  • hijodelsol 1y ago
    I assume you are unfamiliar with how pensions in Denmark work. While there is an unfunded social security part that is paid for through taxes, >90% of Danish workers have "occupational pension plans" that they contribute about 15% of their salary to. By the time they retire, they have saved on average 2 million DKK [https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/formue/pensionsformuer https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/fo...], so about 300,000 USD. At that time, life expectancy is about 20 years, so that is about 15,000 USD per year from individual capital-backed schemes alone. For the 60% of Danes that are home owners, this alone could probably cover all basic living expenses outside of very HCOL areas. In that way, Denmark already strikes a good balance between purely tax-based schemes (that you are probably referring to as "Ponzi") and socially detrimental schemes like a pure Austrian backpack approach (which would leave people that cannot work in deep poverty).
• pjmlp 1y ago
  All this kind of decisions never come up with the answers on how to get a job, when everything is getting replaced by robots (see supermarkerts and gas stations for example for decreasing low wage jobs), and the health issues related to old age. Thus one is not able to collect retirement, because they are "young", while they keep trying to find a job, because "they are too old". Meanwhile the politicians that decide these laws are enjoying their comfy life.
• ph1lw 1y ago
  I'm 29 and honestly skeptical that life expectancy will keep on rising as it's assumed. With all the toxins, stress, rising heat deaths and crap in our environment, will most of us even be healthy enough to work till 70? Could it be 75 when I approach retirement? I think it's important to keep up some positive prospects for our generation - otherwise I can think e.g. of a higher suicide rate which then also shrinks the workforce
• metaPushkin 1y ago
  The real truth is that politicians promised that refugees would help fill jobs. Raising the retirement age makes no sense if that was really the goal. Now their lies are obvious.
  • guywithahat 1y ago
    It's worse than that; most middle eastern immigrants qualify for early retirement. Not only do they not contribute as much in taxes, but they then access retirement funds earlier than everyone else.
• Jean-Papoulos 1y ago
  The only real solution to this is world-wide wealth taxing. We have enough productivity to support old age, even as said old age cohorts grow ever larger.
• MagicMoonlight 1y ago
  The majority of retirees I know, retired around 50. They’ve been retired longer than they ever worked, on pensions which are similar to their original wages. It’s hard not to feel like we’re all being shafted in comparison.
• thefringthing 1y ago
  If Denmark wanted to fund the same number of retired years per person as the US did when Social Security was established, the retirement age would be about 68, based on the 1935 and 2025 actuarial life tables for the USA and Denmark respectively.
  • jeanlucas 1y ago
    But you also need to account for the changing ratio of contributors to beneficiaries, how many workers are supporting each retiree. What would the age be to keep the same "ratio"?
• account42 1y ago
  Absolute shameful to see western societies regress like this.
• hoseja 1y ago
  Retirement started as state charity for the very oldest and most infirm and grew into unsustainable pyramid scheme bribery operation. Nineteenth century unwillingness to let uncared-for metuselahs die in squalor doomed us all. "In 1881,[3][4] the conservative German chancellor, Otto Von Bismarck, in a maneuver against Marxists who were burgeoning in power and popularity, announced that anyone over 70 years old would be forced to retire and that he would pay a pension to them.[1]" Ah.
• stackedinserter 1y ago
  Recipe to fail: - force your women to work 9-5 (sell it under "liberation" label) - force young people into crammed cities with $4k rent - be relaxed on crime, don't prosecute or enforce anything where victim is another person - observe that people don't replicate anymore - import people from other (primarily 3rd world) countries - become a 3rd world country What happens to the West is insane to me, it's literally a case of social suicide in slow motion.
• gilbetron 1y ago
  AI & robotics is a primary hope here, honestly, but it will be a bumpy road.
• rrgok 1y ago
  What if we changed how retirement works with just two clear options: Option A: Take your well-earned pension and enjoy traditional retirement. Option B: Choose a dignified exit when life no longer feels fulfilling. I've been thinking about this because retirement scares me. What's the point of reaching old age if your body and mind won't let you enjoy the freedom you've worked decades for? Between health problems, limited mobility, and sometimes poverty, many seniors seem to just... exist. Not saying everyone feels this way! Plenty of people have amazing retirements. But shouldn't we have more control over our final chapter? Other countries already have compassionate end-of-life options. What do you all think? Is having this choice reasonable, or am I missing something important about the value of those later years?
• guywithahat 1y ago
  I'm not entirely opposed to raising the retirement age, however what's unfortunate here is the money is needed primarily to cover for spending on immigration. 2/3rd of muslim immigrants have qualified for early immigration (starting at 50), and this has put strain on the system, forcing the retirement age up. There are problems in Denmark but the retirement age isn't the issue in this case
• timonoko 1y ago
  [dead]
• EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 1y ago
  Don't worry, the concept of people working is slipping into oblivion. Retirement age will be 18 for everyone.
• hcfman 1y ago
  Someone’s got to pay for the billionaires.