unbeliever Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 A problem is that if we have people working longer but the number of jobs doesn't increase then there is even less work for younger people. Why would the number of jobs not increase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Heath Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Most employers I deal with are very keen to employ people over 50. Now that people are living longer due to healthier work conditions and better medical care, diet etc surely they should want to carry on working, contributing and achieving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Why would the number of jobs not increase? What possible link can there be between people living longer and number of jobs? Of course they might increase but that's not linked to life expectancy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) If someone works from, say, 20 until they are 60, and puts away 10% of their pay, and then lives in retirement from, say 60 to 100, then that 10% will not go far towards keeping them in the standard to which they would like to be kept. I agree its a problem to fix. IMO, successive governments have continued to ignore the problem. We will need to work until we are older to support ourselves. That will put even bigger stress on employment levels, as more people want the same jobs. There is only one answer to all the problems that are cropping up all over the place. Money. Continuous cuts in living standards and social services will eventually turn us and many other places into third world countries. But there is more money sloshing around the world than ever before. But people aren't getting richer, just a few individuals are. It's the distribution that's all wrong. The gold standard went, and now the long accepted link between work and reward (money) is being undermined, both by the growing gap between the super rich and the rest, computerisation, and the new models of working. The super rich, as always, are dictating the terms. That has to change. And I'd rather not see mass disruption via revolutions or a third world war. Capitalism / Consumerism is not sustainable. We need a citizens income. Or quantitative easing for the people. We need a way of equitably sharing the wealth. Edited March 2, 2016 by Anna B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 There is only one answer to all the problems that are cropping up all over the place. Money. Continuous cuts in living standards and social services will eventually turn us and many other places into third world countries. But there is more money sloshing around the world than ever before. But people aren't getting richer, just a few individuals are. It's the distribution that's all wrong. The gold standard went, and now the long accepted link between work and reward (money) is being undermined, both by the growing gap between the super rich and the rest, computerisation, and the new models of working. The super rich, as always, are dictating the terms. That has to change. And I'd rather not see mass disruption via revolutions or a third world war. Capitalism / Consumerism is not sustainable. We need a citizens income. Or quantitative easing for the people. We need a way of equitably sharing the wealth. When has this worked? Anywhere in the world? It's been tried over and over and all it brings is death and hardship. You understand surely that a lot of QE has been lent to the state and used for public services. Is that not "people's QE" anyway. Hey. You know that alternative economic model. The one that's always failed before. Always seems to involve brutal dictatorship. Makes everybody poor and all that. Let's try it again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoney Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 how many people are being paid a state funded pension,who where not born in the country,and have never paid tax or NIS,nothing is free and the money as to come,from some where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 What possible link can there be between people living longer and number of jobs? Folk who live longer carry on eating, drinking, buying cars and clothes etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Folk who live longer carry on eating, drinking, buying cars and clothes etc. Exactly. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 The state pension retirement age of 65 was introduced in 1925 when the average life expectancy was 63. In 2016 the average life expectancy is 83 and retirement pension age is 67. You've never had it so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilldig Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 It does make you think. The government prattle on about obesity, diabetes, smoking, drinking, and heaven knows what, on the one hand, and then people are living longer and longer on the other hand ? It almost makes you wonder if some bright spark at Westminster has thought, hang on,if people have been boozing excessively and puffing away for years perhaps that's why they are living longer, so if we tax booze and fags to the hilt we will also at the same time save on pensions. Crazy thought, but some of the stuff they come out with down at Westminster, the mind boggles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now