At a time of declining economies, people losing life savings and a severe reduction in the income of older people, the government of Finland is proposing to raise the retirement age from 63 to 65. We can assume the rationale behind this move is extending the work life of people which supposedly brings in more tax money and the other facet is delaying when people gain access to their retirement money. Finland does allow some agricultural workers to retire at age 56 as they pass on the farm to the next generation. The issue of retirement may well become one of the most significant during the coming years as governments balance economic pressure from paying retirement and seek to keep people working.
Life expectancy has been increasing and a person who retires at age 65 may well have anywhere from twenty to thirty years of productive life. This suggests the need to rethink the nature of what constitutes “retirement.” At the other end, delaying retirement means corporations are delaying promotion of younger people and making companies older in terms of who works. Is this beneficial to society? Do we need to open top echelons of government to younger people with new ideas.
If we only focus on economic ramifications of delayed retirement we lose perspective on important social components of the new concept of being retired.