Mandatory Retirement Ages

[Taliesen]

I.

Older people are simply not as good at working. It's the sad fact, the main instance of the bitchiness of reality, that when you get old, you get weaker, sicker, clumsier, and less likely to have the sharpest senses, reflexes, and faculties.

This is a common myth. There is a large body of available evidence that this is not true
On the whole, older workers are more reliable, less frequently absent from work, use fewer sick days and have fewer accidents than their younger counterparts. See, e.g. http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/ac ... =RESOURCES

In fact, and in direct contradiction to this myth, the most successful entrepreneurs are generally OLDER workers who decide to work for themselves. While the “young gun” who creates a multi-million dollar start up may get the press coverage, in fact the most innovative group are those who are over 55. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/inno ... rkers.html

II.

Therefore, there's more necessity for insurance,

2. To the extent you are referring to accident or liability insurance-see item 1, above. Older workers have fewer workplace accidents than younger workers.

To the extent you are referring to health insurance/benefit costs, this is another common myth. In fact, because older workers generally have no dependents and in many instances have access to Medicare or similar programs, the cost to business for insurance benefits for older workers is frequently no higher than it is for younger workers. See, e.g. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/arti ... cleid=2644 See alsohttp://www.employer-employee.com/september2001tips.html

III.

...shoddy performance....

This is also a common myth. As a rule, older workers with equivalent training perform as well or better than their younger peers. According to Michael Campion of Purdue University, job performance does not decline with age.

Peter Capelli of Wharton University states that older workers have less absenteeism, less turnover, superior interpersonal skills and deal better with customers. According to Dr. Capelli, "The evidence is unbelievably huge...Basically, older workers perform better on just about everything".

One of Germany's largest companies recently performed a study which found (much to their surprise apparently) that innovative ideas from older workers generally resulted in a better return for the company than the ideas they received from younger workers. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/inno ... rkers.html (Note-they also eliminated their early retirement plan subsequent to this study. )

Older workers are also better able to deal with emotional stress in the workplace and less likely to suffer from job burnout. http://www.mbs.ac.uk/newsevents/07-02-2011.aspx

IV.

Jobs are harder to come by

I am assuming this portion of your post is based on a claim that the employment of older workers makes it harder for younger workers to find jobs. This is another common myth. One of the key findings in "A Comparative Study of International Approaches to Mandatory Retirement" (Wood, Robertson and Wintergill, 2010) was that there was no clear link found between mandatory retirement ages (or the lack thereof) and the employment of younger people.

In addition, I have to add that I find this concern somewhat confusing. It appears to be based on a belief that older workers are "taking jobs away" from "younger workers". Now, assuming we all compete for jobs based on our qualifications, is it your hypothesis that older workers are taking jobs away from younger workers by out-competing them for the positions? And if so, doesn't this in some sense contradict your prior statements about older workers being less able to work? If I've misunderstood, my apologies, but I cannot seem to reconcile how older workers can outcompete younger workers in the job market if, in fact, "older workers are "less able to work" (and therefore presumptively less qualified) than younger workers.

V. Ultimately, the concerns raised about the older worker and the need for a "mandatory retirement" appear to be based on a small number of apocryphal, single item "horror stories" (which can equally be told about younger workers) and on negative stereotypes of older workers. The available evidence demonstrates that these stereotypes are inaccurate and do not reflect reality. Mandatory retirement would not be beneficial, but in fact would simply eliminate capable, competent, talented individuals from the workforce based solely on an arbitrary standard of "age".

[TxCat]

Please keep the discussion civil. If you absolutely must attack anything, please keep it to the idea and not directed at the poster. Phrases like "That's baloney" and "Oh, god, this thread is hilarious" are NOT allowed. They are not conducive to intelligent discussion, add nothing to it, and imply ridicule.

That said, I'd like to address some of the points raised in the thread.

TalisRaye said:

As long as they do not need the finances to cover a comfortable (not extravagant, but basic needs) lifestyle that pensions or benefits do not.

Who makes the determination of what a 'comfortable' living might be? If society is going to make that determination, why should it not also be applied to all workers who make more money than what would be needed to live 'comfortably'? I would think this would, after a time, create an oppressed and alienated class of people regardless of age. If someone is forced into retirement and pension and other benefits don't cover a newer vehicle, for instance, it isn't right to deny them a job based on age and because someone has arbitrarily decided the person does not need a newer vehicle. I could just imagine the outrage if the same laws were applied to college students who had access to public transportation and didn't need a vehicle at all but wanted one.

The point is, it wouldn't be done. In the US we're allowed to achieve, do, and buy what we will. The elderly are no exception. Once we start curtailing others' freedoms it sets a precedent and doesn't stop.

The world is aging. The baby boom has already created a greater percentage of older Americans in just the U.S. alone that is placing unprecedented stress on medical supplies, programs like Medicare and Medicaid, as well as creating a greater need of senior-related facilities and conveniences. There's an increase in senior living homes, senior communities, and an increase (at least in my personal observance) of senior-related amenities in businesses and such that were never there before.

We'll address the statistics of aging first. Take a look at this chart here:

World's Population by Age and Sex for 2011

The chart shows over 6 billion people in the world. Of those, roughly 3.6 billion (just a little over half the earth's population) are under age 30. Compare that to the number of people 65 or older (approximately 544 million). By plain inference one can see that the claim that the elderly take up more of the world's resources is false. Even if one factors in things such as increased medical care (which I would deem equivalent considering the growing number of special needs children under the age of 18), the larger number of people will use more resources than the smaller.

The USDA has a cost calculator showing expenditures by family according to the number of children and their age. For instance, it costs approximately $13,000 a year to feed, house, clothe, and educate a 17 year old child in a rural area. For the sake of argument, assume that this would be average (it's probably low, since things in cities tend to cost more not less). Multiply that by the number of people on the planet in that age bracket as given in the chart at the link. The amount of money expended would be in the billions, again assuming that all those children are provided for in the same manner and that at least basic needs are met.

For an adult in my area, the average cost of living is about $900 a month, not including niceties such as upgraded cable packages or eating out or entertainment. That's for gas to and from work, a one bedroom apartment rental, and utilities. Again, assuming that every adult between the ages of 17 and 64 has those basic costs, the expenditures are in the billions.

So much for the elderly using up more resources.

Meanwhile, those who do collect federal monies certainly aren't getting rich on it:

SSI Monthly Statistics for February 2010-February 2011

This chart also demonstrates that a growing number of fully insured persons taking Social Security are NOT retirement age:

Population in the Social Security 2006-2010

The three categories of persons by age under age 65 total up more than half of those receiving payments. Those 65 and older comprise only about 25,000.

SSI is typically given to people who are not old enough to receive Medicare payments or who did not make enough money to receive such payments. As you can see from the chart, the average pay-out is about $500 a month. It simply isn't possible for anyone, even a retiree, to meet basic needs on that.

As for the remainder of the claims --- that it's causing an increase in need for senior facilities --- that is certainly true but I don't see how that impacts your average citizen. Most of the assisted living places I have visited or seen were built by private companies and are funded privately. Families or retirement plans pay the cost of moving into such places. The big one here is sponsored by the Moose Lodge. Another, the first of its kind in the US, was built in 1926 by JC Penney. Its facilities, all privately maintained, range from retirement homes to assisted living to nursing care. I have yet to see a senior center, living community, or medical group which was NOT funded privately. If that is where private businesses want to sink their funds, that is their choice. Some of those places do receive federal funds...but then, so do many low income housing projects meant for young families.

I'm talking about policies and equipment being overhauled to accommodate older employees that were never necessary before.

Does anyone have a solid example of such an accommodation which was done specifically for the aged? In 1993 the US passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. That law, which specifically impacted businesses, transportation access, and employment conditions, states that any business which has more than fifteen employees and does not reside in a historic building MUST be accessible to any and all potentially disabled people, whether it's a customer or an employee. That did mean that many businesses had to overhaul their buildings. The most common access issues were stairs with no ramps, doors that weren't wide enough, and bathrooms which did not have the handrails or enough room in which to put a wheelchair. Other possible accommodations included changing out the lights (because some frequencies can trigger seizures) and not segregating disabled employees or customers. These benefit a wide variety of people, not just the aged.

Work accommodations are generally done on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with the employer, supervisor, and the worker. The law states that the person must have one of the conditions covered by the ADA (being elderly isn't one of them), that the person must be willing to produce documentation for the need, and that the accommodation should not put the business under undue hardship (meaning it would cause the business to go bankrupt). Most accommodations are simple: allowing more frequent rest periods, snacks at the desk where there's a policy against it, allowing people with service dogs to bring them in and keep them with them, moving office furniture so there's a clear corridor of access for a wheelchair or for a blind person's guide cane, etc.

The claim that the jobs are being held simply for 'something to do' has already been addressed. The average Social Security or retirement plan does NOT pay enough for anyone to live on. Additionally, speaking from personal experience, I don't know many people capable of working jobs at Wal-Mart or the fast food places who would do so. I have often heard those same people, who are between the ages of 19 and 30, say that even though they need money to cover their debts and cost of living they will not work at a menial job. They also spend well above their means; these friends cannot buy food or pay rent but they have the latest video games and a high end cable package and a brand new computer and the latest cell phone. It's about priorities. I can and have worked in fast food, factory piecemeal work, and as a janitor...and I have a bachelor's degree in English with a certificate in education that would have been good in most places west of the Mississippi. Most places are more, not less, reluctant to hire someone with a disability. I literally couldn't get a job to save my life precisely because there are fewer jobs available and more people looking for them. Why hire someone who MIGHT have health issues if you can hire someone else perfectly healthy to do the same job?

The link posted by fredsmith bears looking at and consideration precisely because it demonstrates that even if these jobs ARE available, it's simply not possible to make ends meet with them.

This link shows Wal-Mart salaries for various positions. The highest paying salary belongs to the pharmacist, which is a job requiring college education, training, and often experience. They top out at $131K. A cashier gets paid only $7-11 an hour. None of these jobs, except those requiring a college education and experience and those involving management, offer benefits such as health insurance.

I could find no reliable data regarding the average age of Wal-Mart employees. From personal observation, I can see that they tend to employ the elderly, disabled, and single mothers and fathers most often. There doesn't seem to be an overabundance of any one age group at any of the Wal-Marts I frequent.

One of the other posters already linked to several articles which disprove the notion that older workers are poorer choices for businesses but I'll consolidate those here:

Employing Older Workers

Research shows that older worker productivity does not usually decline, at least up to the age of 70, where these workers have received the same level of training as younger colleagues. Older workers also tend to have fewer accidents and take less short-term sick leave.

Older workers do not tend to block opportunities for younger workers. Evidence indicates that there was no positive effect on youth employment from measures which allowed older workers to retire early. Some employers believe that removing older workers to make way for younger workers can damage productivity with the loss of existing skills and experience. This can lead to increased staff turnover and increase the cost of recruiting and training new workers.

The Golden Age of Innovation

It turns out that many of the most common stereotypes about aging are dead wrong. Take the cliché of the youthful entrepreneur. As it turns out, the average founder of a high-tech startup isn’t a whiz-kid graduate, but a mature 40-year-old engineer or business type with a spouse and kids who simply got tired of working for others

Why Older Workers Offer Better Value than Younger Ones

Data show that people over the age of 55 find it harder to land jobs than their younger counterparts, even though age discrimination is illegal in many countries. On the other hand, some far-sighted companies around the world are working to recruit, retrain and otherwise engage older workers.

Such workers bring a lifetime of skills to their jobs and can be highly motivated and productive members of the workplace, according to Wharton professors. Many of the stereotypes that prevent employers from hiring and making good use of older workers are merely myths, they say.

Hiring Grey Haired Employees

The first myth that comes to mind to an employer is that an older worker might have health problems; therefore, an older worker will cost the company too much money in terms of health care premiums. It is true that older male employees do utilize more health care dollars than younger male employees; on the other hand, older male employees generally do not carry as many dependents on their health policy as younger male employees do. Therefore, any increases in health care costs older workers might generate, are likely to be offset by having fewer dependents. In regards to older female employees over age 50, they generally use less health care dollars than younger female employees because they are past childbearing age.

If absenteeism rates determine health, then older workers should be healthier than younger workers. Research has shown that absenteeism rates are lower for employees' 50 to 65 years of age than employees between 33 to 44 years of age.

Older Workers Better Able to Cope With Stress and Burnout

Research from Manchester Business School shows that older workers are better at coping with emotional stress and burnout than their younger colleagues.

Building on previous studies - linking stress and burnout with reduced productivity and increased absenteeism - the new MBS research showed it was particularly the case in customer service industries, where employees often face high levels of conflict and stress.

In this environment, older workers find their roles less emotionally draining and have less cynical attitudes towards customers than younger employees.

In a perfect world, job employment and performance would be based solely on whether or not the person was qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to do the job for which he or she was applying. Job evaluations would ensure that those who were still able to do the work could do so and that those who were coasting didn't remain. I'd wager that far more jobs are tied up by people who don't do them properly out of ignorance, negligence, or just plain laziness than by the disabled and the elderly.

Singapore's solution to the problem of retirement seems a rather elegant and workable one but I'd really like to see some statistics about standards of living and living conditions. Do they, for instance, still live in extended family situations (which would cut down on expenses and thereby able them to live on contracts)? Is there a public health care standard or is there insurance like in the US (again, it makes a difference regarding how much you have to spend out of your savings or other monies)? What's the public transportation situation --- can you pretty much get by without a vehicle (they're expensive)? Is the standard of living acceptable (ie: not living in overcrowded conditions without essentials like heat, water, and food)?

Some things to think about.

[Taliesen]

With respect to the intersection between the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and performance issues, I would just like to emphasize a couple of points-and I am speaking now as an independent human resources consultant who has been specializing in workplace discrimination issues for well over a decade.

I frequently encounter the belief that the ADA and ADEA somehow "force" employers to retain employees who cannot perform their jobs. That is not the case. Both laws recognize that where an employer has legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons for it's actions (i.e. reasons unrelated to age or disability, like performance issues) then the employer may take any action that it would take with respect to any other employee-be that action evaluating, coaching, training or disciplining the employee. Neither law requires an employer to retain an employee who cannot perform the job.

In my experience, when I encounter situations where an employer is retaining a non-performing employee and blaming the law, it is not usually the law that is to blame. As a rule the law is being used as a scapegoat for the employer's failure to manage its workplace issues.

[Selinea]

Going from a more economic standpoint:

Older people "taking away jobs" from younger people implies that labor operates on a zero sum principle. "The [French] government lowered the maximum workweek from thirty-nine hours to thirty-five hours; the supposed logic was that if all people with jobs work fewer hours, then there will be work left over for the unemployed to do" (page xix of Naked Economics). A mandatory retirement age is assuming the same thing. By taking older people out of the work force, you'll have jobs left over for younger people. However, the French policy failed, because the bottom line is, there isn't a fixed number of jobs you can ration. The economy is fluid and constantly in motion due to changes in supply and demand.

And if you think of it as supply and demand, forcing the current older population to stop working would decrease their wealth, and therefore, decrease their demand for new products. This initial decrease in demand would lead to companies cutting back on their production and therefore labor, which means layoffs. That would put the US back into a deep recession, in which the US would then have to give more money to retired people who are not working at all in order to try to stimulate the economy.

So even if older workers are incompetent (which I personally don't think they are), the economy would be unable to maintain a forced retirement age, because then the government, instead of getting tax dollars from wages (regardless of whether the wages are deserved or not), has to give out subsidies to older people instead. If you think the deficit is bad now, it will only get worse with a mandatory retirement age.

Also, business are out for just one thing, to maximize profits. They simply wouldn't hire/keep someone who is unable to do sufficient work. If a business did keep inefficient workers around, it would be out-competed by other businesses with efficient workers.