# Retirement age

#### Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Hello.

So here is a link to the retirement ages for men and women in European countries, not just EU countries. But lets talk about EU countries.

Norway, Iceland and Greece (surprisingly) have the highest retirement ages for men and women at 67. followed by Italy at 66. But the average life expectancy for all these 3 countries but the life expectancy is usually around 80.

Under me there will be links to 2 sites, one wiki for retirement ages and one ONG worldwide healthcare watch with data from numerous nations. My question is, what do you think the algorithm between retirement age and life expectancy should be? and what factors should come in? Lets take norway as one example. We can see that in Norway, people are expected to live without disabilities due to old age until 72. Yet they retire at 67 and the life expectancy is 81.

I would think the best algorithm should be this:

(avg life expectancy+ (avg no disability age-10%avg no disability age))/2 = retirement age.

Given the example of norway.

You have: 81+(72-10/100*72)= 72.5
Retirement age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Country ageing data | Global AgeWatch

I put this in Europe subforum because initially I was considering talking about the UK, since it has massive debt issues and some time ago it has considered raising the retirement age because of the huge social security burden. But all are free to pitch in.

ofc, there should exemptions for people who work in perilous enviroments like mining and such. This retirement age alogorithm is mostly an idea of how the majority of the population should retire. People are living longer in the civilized world and have better healthcare standards. if we couple this with physical fitness, our life expectancy, free of disabilities and such, is pretty high.

Last edited:
The UK lets women retire 5 years earlier than men? What a bunch of sexist bull****.

Isn't that just an avg. number?

I thought people retired when they thought they had enough money that would last the rest of there lives. Which would be different on a person by person basis, as some people can make due with less and other 'require' more.

Hello.

So here is a link to the retirement ages for men and women in European countries, not just EU countries. But lets talk about EU countries.

Norway, Iceland and Greece (surprisingly) have the highest retirement ages for men and women at 67. followed by Italy at 66. But the average life expectancy for all these 3 countries but the life expectancy is usually around 80.

Under me there will be links to 2 sites, one wiki for retirement ages and one ONG worldwide healthcare watch with data from numerous nations. My question is, what do you think the algorithm between retirement age and life expectancy should be? and what factors should come in? Lets take norway as one example. We can see that in Norway, people are expected to live without disabilities due to old age until 72. Yet they retire at 67 and the life expectancy is 81.

I would think the best algorithm should be this:

(avg life expectancy+ (avg no disability age-10%avg no disability age))/2 = retirement age.

Given the example of norway.

You have: 81+(72-10/100*72)= 72.5
Retirement age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Country ageing data | Global AgeWatch

I put this in Europe subforum because initially I was considering talking about the UK, since it has massive debt issues and some time ago it has considered raising the retirement age because of the huge social security burden. But all are free to pitch in.

ofc, there should exemptions for people who work in perilous enviroments like mining and such. This retirement age alogorithm is mostly an idea of how the majority of the population should retire. People are living longer in the civilized world and have better healthcare standards. if we couple this with physical fitness, our life expectancy, free of disabilities and such, is pretty high.

First off, the Greek retirement age is not surprising. It was 65 before the crisis.

There is one major problem... you and others are thinking about the text book economic implications solely based on retirement funds, but miss the big picture.

Once you hit age 50, it gets harder and harder to get a job if you loose it.. and the older you get the harder it gets. So chances are that anyone over age 60 will never find a job, and have to live off unemployment benefits.. which often are higher than retirement benefits.

So raising the retirement age from 67 to 72 will actually cost more money, and wont do any good because no one will hire a 70 year old.

And also most people tend to forget, that retirement age is not uniform. It depends on what job. Some jobs are physically damaging and prevents them from working after a certain age, so raising the retirement age for these people is impossible... unless you start juicing them up

Isn't that just an avg. number?

I thought people retired when they thought they had enough money that would last the rest of there lives. Which would be different on a person by person basis, as some people can make due with less and other 'require' more.

A country's retirement age is really just the age at which its citizens are entitled to receive payments from the government under various old age and retirement income plans. In Canada, as an example, that age was 65 with the possibility of early acceptance, at a reduced rate, at 60. That is now being gradually increased to 67 over the next few years. People, however, based on their own financial situations and workplace retirement plans do retire earlier. For example, I retired at 55 on an indexed pension that supplements me until I'm 65 and am eligible for government pensions. I'm a person with simple needs so it works for me - for others, as you say, they want to retire with the same income and lifestyle as if they were working - I was tired of that.

Government retirement programs require a steady, increasing stream of young people entering the workforce and paying into the systems in order to finance the retirements of generations before them - after the baby boom and with reduced birth rates since, there's distinct pressure on such plans and increases in the age of eligibility are a natural outcome of that in addition to the increasing life expectancy.

Isn't that just an avg. number?

I thought people retired when they thought they had enough money that would last the rest of there lives. Which would be different on a person by person basis, as some people can make due with less and other 'require' more.

That's how it should be.

Retirement shouldn't be a REQUIREMENT.

i'm pretty good with a retirement age of 65 for everyone. there aren't enough jobs to go around, and there is no point in having everyone work until they die.

When Bismark invented pensions I doubt if he ever had in mind the ridiculous monster that we have now. :roll:

Retirement means different things to different people. To most it means when you get that government check every month I guess but if you work hard and play your cards right and throw in a little luck you can retire far earlier than that. It's always sad when you see someone work until they are old, retire and quickly die, what a waste.

Many people continue to work after their 'retirement' not only for a few extra bucks in their pocket, but to keep connected with society and enjoy the routine of being somewhere that they count for something.

I'd like to think that someday, I'll be able to make that choice.

Many people continue to work after their 'retirement' not only for a few extra bucks in their pocket, but to keep connected with society and enjoy the routine of being somewhere that they count for something.

I'd like to think that someday, I'll be able to make that choice.

Many retirees also do volunteer work for the same reasons you've outlined. Volunteers do some great work that isn't always recognized.

Retirement should certainly be a personal thing. I know people that retire in their 50's and manage to potter around the home and property, go on vacations, etc...but I could not ever see myself doing that. I may shift gears but I plan on working til I die. I think it gives people a purpose and keeps them healthy. When I hit 65 I plan on starting my final career...opening a restoration garage. I will work because I want to, not because I have to.

If the topic is retirement as in SS compensation or receiving back from the government what you have put into it, thats another topic as well. For those of means, they should be able to start taking out payments but at a reduced percentage anytime after 60 they want. Others that may not have planned as well for their future may ant to ride out their employment as long as they can to receive later payments but at a higher percentage.

We have changed with our life expectancy. Someone that takes care of themselves should expect to be able to live actively well into their 90s. Those can ALL be productive years. You may not want to be 80 and out kicking forms or pouring concrete, but you will be healthier and happier if you have a reason to get up every morning.

Retirement should certainly be a personal thing. I know people that retire in their 50's and manage to potter around the home and property, go on vacations, etc...but I could not ever see myself doing that. I may shift gears but I plan on working til I die. I think it gives people a purpose and keeps them healthy. When I hit 65 I plan on starting my final career...opening a restoration garage. I will work because I want to, not because I have to.

If the topic is retirement as in SS compensation or receiving back from the government what you have put into it, thats another topic as well. For those of means, they should be able to start taking out payments but at a reduced percentage anytime after 60 they want. Others that may not have planned as well for their future may ant to ride out their employment as long as they can to receive later payments but at a higher percentage.

We have changed with our life expectancy. Someone that takes care of themselves should expect to be able to live actively well into their 90s. Those can ALL be productive years. You may not want to be 80 and out kicking forms or pouring concrete, but you will be healthier and happier if you have a reason to get up every morning.

I personally plan not to be dependent on state pensions for my retirement.

Many retirees also do volunteer work for the same reasons you've outlined. Volunteers do some great work that isn't always recognized.

They make terrific volunteers. Life experience, knowledge, time and usually patience. :thumbs:

First off, the Greek retirement age is not surprising. It was 65 before the crisis.

There is one major problem... you and others are thinking about the text book economic implications solely based on retirement funds, but miss the big picture.

Once you hit age 50, it gets harder and harder to get a job if you loose it.. and the older you get the harder it gets. So chances are that anyone over age 60 will never find a job, and have to live off unemployment benefits.. which often are higher than retirement benefits.

So raising the retirement age from 67 to 72 will actually cost more money, and wont do any good because no one will hire a 70 year old.

And also most people tend to forget, that retirement age is not uniform. It depends on what job. Some jobs are physically damaging and prevents them from working after a certain age, so raising the retirement age for these people is impossible... unless you start juicing them up

Good points. Another thing being largely missed in the U.S. is that as you raise the "full benefit" age for SS from 65 to 69 (some are discussing raising it to 72), you also get more folks that qualify for disability prior to reaching that "full benefit" age, thus they retire "earlier" (than planned) and draw significantly higher lifetime SS retirement benefit amounts.