Mandatory Retirement Ages

[Airasyraye]

Already I know that my view point is likely to bring negative feedback, but please do me the favor of reading all my reasoning before tearing into me.

Personally, I'm for mandatory retirement. Within reason.

I think people aged 65 and over (or whatever the government's current "senior" age is, I think it's 67 1/2?) should be forced to retire from jobs. 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.

My reasonings are:
-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. I'm not talking about whether we should have handicap parking or wheelchair accesses or handrails-- of course we should, and not just for seniors. I'm talking about policies and equipment being overhauled to accommodate older employees that were never necessary before. Add to the fact that it's not just America that is aging but also places with baby-caps like China or places with suddenly lower mortality rates where having a family generally means six-eight children like India and Africa (and they aren't losing as many, thankfully, to childhood morbidity), and the whole world is aging.
-Jobs are harder to come by. Not just for America again, but also England, France, Japan, Germany, Canada, and basically anywhere that was hit by the economy collapse which is to say everywhere. People who are graduating college are graduating to crushing debt and part-time jobs at McDonald's if they're lucky. Back in even the '50s and '60s, a college degree opened a world of opportunities in the business sector, health sector, or computer programming sector. Even those without degrees could pretty easily get jobs in skilled trades and be taught on-the-job. Now, employers aren't looking to hire people they have to pay to train, because they know there are still many, many older people who already have the training still in the job market past when they were likely to keep those jobs thirty years ago. So now, college kids and young adults, even high schoolers, are struggling to find gainful employment to get themselves out of their parents' houses, pay their debts, raise their families, and have their own lives. Those who are in their 30s, 40s, and 50s are even having to GO BACK to senior parents because they've lost their jobs and can't find others. Meanwhile, while a paycheck as a Wal-mart cashier or a BK manager might be a slap in the face to dignity for many adults, it's still money to put food on the table, but those jobs are being held by Golden Agers who want "something to do" and "to feel useful" and "not be bored at home." Which is all well and good, when there aren't people struggling to feed their five-year-olds.
-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. You can point out people like Jack Lalanne, like that 115-year-old in Mexico, or the woman who gave birth at 72 in India. But you know, those are literally freaks of great genetics. You can eat right and exercise heartily from age nine all your life and still get done in by cancer, heart disease, liver disease, and plain old "free radicals" in the air. People like Jack Lalanne, who worked out for two hours every day at NINETY ONE are very few and far between. Therefore, there's more necessity for insurance, greater risk of injury or negligence (like a local dentist here who gave people hepatitis because he had lax cleaning procedures because he couldn't do it properly anymore but didn't want anyone to know and also hadn't renewed his license in a long time because he forgot about it). Granted, stuff like this can happen with any age, sometimes intentionally. But we could still remove a percentage of risk of age-related injury, shoddy performance, and likelihood of sick days/medical leave. I don't like having to pick up the slack of another person's job because they're unable to do it themselves, but still get paid the same regardless, and, yes, this does go for the disabled, too. I am sorry, very sorry, you're disabled in whatever form, but I shouldn't be paid one salary to do two or three jobs (and I am.)

So, let's here how terrible I am, but I am totally for mandatory retirement ages, unless there's a clear and documented need that this person work to pay the bills. If you're bored in your golden years, take up knitting, photography, or a collection. Don't take a salary from someone just starting fresh who actually needs it.

[MistyoC]

I am against a mandatory retirement age. I am for regular performance reviews, though, and for paring back duties and/or hours as needed for those not performing to standards. Whether or not a person needs a job to pay bills, they can be a valuable resource to their company. Yes, it is harder for a young person to get a job these days. Technology is as much to blame for that as are older personnel. With more automation, there are going to be fewer jobs.

[GrowlingCupcake]

In Singapore, we have mandatory retirement ages. However, after that age (I think it's 65 or 62 or something) if a person wants to work, they can work like consultants or get contracts which are only year-long. It seems to work fairly well here since they can still get some work if they want. Most people work past it since we also do not have pension/retirement schemes.

[Airasyraye]

Mandatory retirement ages is a horrible idea. If a person wishes to work until he or she can no longer do so, then they should be able to do that. Company management determines whether or not a person is good at his or her job regardless of the age of the employee. If you know of anyone who works at WalMart to put money on the table you might also know that this is a dreadful company to work for and there are many sources to document this such as http://berkeley.academia.edu/BarryEidli ... d_Benefits

I would like you document the assertion that WalMart actually hires more seniors than younger people. One sources tells me that approximately 70% of employees at WalMart are women with children, so I assume that this group is in the 30 to 40 years of age group, not seniors. See http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is- ... t-employee

Not only did this post come off to me as a political soapbox intended to wedge in your views where they weren't intended to be, you also insinuated I said things I didn't, so let me point that out to you.

I did not say Wal-mart hires only old people. Or even more old people. I said jobs are being held by seniors and they are. I also never said anything about the quality of work, but the necessity of having a paycheck, so your views on wal-mart don't really fit in here. That just comes off as a "wal-mart is an incarnation of the devil, see here!" which isn't the point of this topic.

If you think management determines whether or not someone is up to snuff, you're right. If you think it's that easy, you have no idea what you're talking about. I am a manager, and there's a ton of red tape and political bullshit keeping people who don't deserve a job or who cannot perform their duties getting paid regardless of their usefulness. At my location, we have three handicap disabled employees, two mentally disabled employees, and a man on dialysis. None of them can fulfill their duties on a day to day basis. Other employees are constantly having to shoulder the extra burdens, undo the mistakes they make, or we get yelled at by customers who are tired of the slow and/or shoddy service or the fact that something wasn't done at all. Each of these employees has been at the company at least one year. Do you know what happens when we send in performance evals? We get, "That's too bad. Find something else for them to do and have another employee cover." Meaning that employee gets to do two jobs for one paycheck. No extra hours, no bonuses, no compensation.

It's the same with senior employees, which I've worked with. Management walks on eggshells around them because suddenly it's ageist or some other bullshit to call someone up on their failings. Never mind the extra money it takes to insure them. Never mind the extra time it takes for them to do their job or for someone else to redo their job.

All in all, this comment didn't really respond to mine, only made their own view against one company they clearly have a beef with.

GrowlingCupcake, your input was more in line with what I'm talking about. It's a pity there's no retirement plans there. Mandatory retirement ages don't seem to work well when there's no back up, like there is here. In America, I think mandatory retirement ages are a great idea, because there's pension nets. Or assistance plans.

They can get their money without taking it from 20-somethings struggling in their first-ever apartment fresh out of college and they can get their amusement with something other than a job. It's true, Misty, that automation is taking away the need for employees, and that's a shame, but it's also progress. Those same automations help keep people from back-breaking and dangerous labor that in the eighteen hundreds often meant you were as good as mangled or diseased in many factory, lumber, and mining jobs. That's a different topic, really. I agree that jobs shouldn't be given to machines when they can safely be done by humans, because the companies don't want to pay the human a paycheck, but this is only about retirement ages based on jobs only humans can do that aren't being done by people who need them.

Again, people, don't make me out to some villain just because you want to whine about how evil corporations are. My ONLY point is that jobs are being held by those who don't need them and/or can't do them properly and they need to be taken out of them and given to people who do need them and can do them.

Let's read my entire statements before you go off on me, okay? Otherwise, what the hell is the point of an adult conversation area?

[TxCat]

Not only did this post come off to me as a political soapbox intended to wedge in your views where they weren't intended to be, you also insinuated I said things I didn't, so let me point that out to you.

And you're mini-modding. If you have a problem with someone's response in a thread --- it breaks the rules of MS or the HoS --- then the proper procedure is to hit the report button or to contact the responsible moderators. You DO NOT call them out in the thread; that is directly against the HoS rules. Because you feel you were insulted is NOT cause to be rude back.

I looked over the aforementioned post. Please re-read the HoS rules. Asking for documentation or challenging someone on a statement they have made or implied which has no supporting information is NOT the same as proselytizing or getting on a soapbox. You did not structure this discussion; you simply proposed the topic and asked people to state their views. In so doing, particularly here, you are not going to get simple agreements. Not everyone will agree with you and I'm not going to moderate someone simply because they do not agree with the answers you thought you should get.

I did not say Wal-mart hires only old people. Or even more old people.

Actually, you did. Here's the quote from your own first post:

, while a paycheck as a Wal-mart cashier or a BK manager might be a slap in the face to dignity for many adults, it's still money to put food on the table, but those jobs are being held by Golden Agers who want "something to do" and "to feel useful" and "not be bored at home." Which is all well and good, when there aren't people struggling to feed their five-year-olds.

It's implied in the statement because you stated 'these jobs' without any sort of clarification (such as most, some, or many).

your views on wal-mart don't really fit in here. That just comes off as a "wal-mart is an incarnation of the devil, see here!"

His points are relevant. You made a claim, implied or otherwise stated, that Wal-Mart hires primarily older people and that those jobs could go to people who are younger. The links and the statements he made address that by refuting it. I do not see anywhere in those statements where it is implied or stated that Wal-Mart is an evil corporation for which to work. The one link addresses the fact --- which you stated or otherwise implied --- that someone could make a living wage if these jobs were vacated by the elderly. The statistical links he posted show otherwise. The other link, while not as strong because it comes from a biased, undocumented source still refutes the claims you made about Wal-Mart specifically employing more senior citizens.

If you think it's that easy, you have no idea what you're talking about.

These kinds of statements are specifically NOT allowed in the HoS. If you disagree with a person's views, you need to do without attacking the person directly. You don't know him and he doesn't know you. For all you know, he could be a manager with differing experiences. That is why, aside from rudeness, we don't allow such statements in these discussions. If you must attack at all, attack the idea, not the person.

Again, people, don't make me out to some villain just because you want to whine about how evil corporations are.

THIS is proselytizing. You're basically stating that you don't want anyone to disagree with your opinion and that anyone who does has a non-valid view and is also engaging in unacceptable behavior. This, by the way, is also a soapbox which --- by definition --- means that the person only wants to state his or her opinion and is not open to hearing anyone else's. It's also not allowed here in the HoS.

My ONLY point is that jobs are being held by those who don't need them and/or can't do them properly and they need to be taken out of them and given to people who do need them and can do them.

You also failed to prove your point or to provide any plausible support for it. That is a requirement for engaging in discussion here. If you state an unsupported opinion, especially one which is unresearched (I will post in the thread later with the information I've got and the statistics to refute some of your claims), you can expect to be asked to clarify or to be called on it. Disagreement is NOT harassment.

Now go back and re-read the rules for this forum. If you don't understand them or have a question about them, then you can ask a moderator, but I think they're fairly clear cut.

[DreamingOfIslands]

Oh god, this thread is HILARIOUS. I mean, really, I'm actually sitting here laughing.

WHERE ON THE GOOD GREEN EARTH is the MONEY for mandatory retirement going to come from? Oh yes, it's a LOVELY idea. If only my father could retire at 67 and a half, or 65, or whatever the age is. But you know what? He (and my mother, and I'm sure MILLIONS of other Americans hitting retirement age) JUST HAVEN'T GOT THE MONEY, and neither has social security. In fact, he just got a statement saying that social security could be out of cash for all the hardworking Americans who paid into it all their working lives by 2037. Yes, that soon. You know what else that means? Uh huh. No disability and no welfare either.

And you know what? I am damn proud of the disabled at your job, and they deserve it every ounce that you do. Sure, maybe you should get a little bonus for picking up some slack- but the fact remains that these people are working and not leeching off of disability (which is more than I can say about some people). Hell, if I were you I'd be patting them on the back instead of complaining.

Really, how many old people do you think are working just for shits and giggles? My grandparents "work"- my grandmother volunteers (so no one was going to get paid by that job, anyway) and my grandpa is president of his closed community thing (also not a paying job). My retired uncles also volunteered until they became too sick to. I've only ever heard of one instance of an elderly person working because they were bored. Just one. And Virginia is like, retirement central.

[MistyoC]

The original post did mention waiving mandatory retirement if the money is needed for bills. That's why I didn't go into that aspect. Ideally, everyone would have a decent retirement fund or family who could support them. Reality is, of course, not like that. Frankly, some of the people I work with at McDonald's are retirees who cannot make it on their pensions. Several work limited hours so as not to disrupt Social Security payments, but they cannot pay bills on SS alone.
I have known people who worked past retirement age just because they enjoyed working, not because they needed the money so badly. They, however, were not just hanging around filling up a space that could be better filled by a younger person. They were valuable members of a team and their input would have been missed had they been forced out of their job by a number on a page.

[DreamingOfIslands]

The original post did mention waiving mandatory retirement if the money is needed for bills. That's why I didn't go into that aspect. Ideally, everyone would have a decent retirement fund or family who could support them. Reality is, of course, not like that. Frankly, some of the people I work with at McDonald's are retirees who cannot make it on their pensions. Several work limited hours so as not to disrupt Social Security payments, but they cannot pay bills on SS alone.
I have known people who worked past retirement age just because they enjoyed working, not because they needed the money so badly. They, however, were not just hanging around filling up a space that could be better filled by a younger person. They were valuable members of a team and their input would have been missed had they been forced out of their job by a number on a page.

In reality, I can't see a mandatory retirement age making any kind of dent in the availability of jobs. I guess I was trying to get at the fact that the vast majority of Americans are working because they have to. Then again, I've never actually had a job (Yes, go ahead and berate me for it) and the only work experience I have is as a volunteer. Laziness and having to pick up slack isn't just a problem among the elderly and disabled. I volunteered at a local arts and crafts fair because it was required for a scholarship I received. I busted ten times more ass doing it than all of the other young folk volunteering put together. In fact, my hard work is probably the only thing that kept the scholarship for me when my grades dipped a little below than what they were expected to be. Every other scholarship awardee was young (college age) and totally able and they still slacked to no end. Realistically, with social security disappearing fast, there's going to be an even greater need for the elderly to work. Which totally moots this point, IMO.

[Ruffian75]

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. ... Granted, stuff like this can happen with any age... But we could still remove a percentage of risk of age-related injury, shoddy performance, and likelihood of sick days/medical leave. I don't like having to pick up the slack of another person's job because they're unable to do it themselves, but still get paid the same regardless, and, yes, this does go for the disabled, too. I am sorry, very sorry, you're disabled in whatever form, but I shouldn't be paid one salary to do two or three jobs (and I am.)

And how many people are being paid to do one job but have to cover the duties of more than that? People are having to pick up the duties are not being done by someone else anymore simply because the other worker(s) were "downsized" out. Not because they are NOT young enough and/or healthy enough (read: Too "needy").

Your premise is that every time that someone is having to do more work than they used to is because there is someone else who cannot or will not do their jobs. And that most of those people are disabled, chronically ill, or old and really must retire.

What a bunch of baloney!

So, let's here how terrible I am, but I am totally for mandatory retirement ages, unless there's a clear and documented need that this person work to pay the bills. If you're bored in your golden years, take up knitting, photography, or a collection. Don't take a salary from someone just starting fresh who actually needs it.

Oh, I see. The right of anyone to work for a salary who is not young and healthy needs to be subjected to a means test? That guy in a wheelchair, Chronically Sick Sally or Granny in her golden years, for instance, would have to prove they need the money.

As if they were applying for welfare!!

Since when are employers' main duties to act as outsourced welfare agency with a workfare provision? I thought the idea was for private employers to make profits, not to provide full employment and job security for young people, especially those with kids that need to be fed, and nobody else. Even the Government as employer does not "do" that (guarantee full employment for anyone); "civil service" requirements, anyone? (Yes, those do exist, believe it or not.)

As for your statement that the disabled and/or aged are incompetent simply because they are old and/or disabled is also ridiculous. Competence--and productivity--at any job does not rely on age and/or perfect health; experience contributes heavily to both competence and productivity and older people are more likely to have that experience.

And employers are willing to pay for it, even if that outlay is in allowing for the flexibility to get around other limitations. So why make employers jump through even more hoops in hiring than they have to already by making them have to take financial statements as part of the application process and/or as part of the annual evaluation?

And is it your business anyway why the older/disabled person is employed for a salary? If the older/disabled person chooses to not make known that they are taking the job for the money and to stay out of bankruptcy court, it's their business.

It's also their business if they just want to keep working and get paid for their efforts and are willing to say just that when asked.

Period.

[HobbitFeet]

If your employer is forcing you to take on the workload of a person who is employed, yet disabled, then it's the fault of the employer, not the disabled. The post stating otherwise sounds more like a disgruntled, very personal example. There are able-bodied, middle aged folks at my job that sometimes try passing their work off on me and others as well. If it's not nipped in the bud, then it can become a problem, but the boss generally tries keeping each person to their respective work.

As I have a boyfriend who is disabled, to the point of barely being able to work, I'd be over the moon if he were able to hold a job. And indignant should anyone tell him to bugger off and get off the pay roll. You don't know what the situation's like until/unless you're in it.

As for older folks... Mandatory is an unfavorable word. I'd prefer job performance reviews periodically, to ensure that the person(s) in question can continue to produce the same amount of work as he or she has been able to previously. If the person is no longer productive, then being let go should be considered. With the current retirement age being so high (and it's slowly being upped) I wouldn't think the elderly would like to have to work, unless of course they need the money, or if they need to feel productive. It happens. As it is, my parents are just touching into their fifties, and they're physically falling apart. My father in particular. I fear he won't make it to the age of retirement, and then what? He may not be eligible for many of the benefits offered for those that make it. He might need them, should he be physically crippled after years of hard work.

To me that's the more bothersome issue. This is nearly the same reason why there were protests in France very recently - the retirement age was bumped up.Then again, this is another argument entirely. Again, I'm not fond of the term "mandatory." There should be a reason beyond age to remove someone from their livelihood.