is retirement a plan?

[ecuworrier]

years ago ... pensions were introduced with the great fiscal observation and expectation that the hope would keep folks going while the reality would be that the uptake would be manageable...

personally i do not especially have any problem with an increased age of retirement in principle....  but i do note that an awful lot of folks take early retirement... some work till they drop long after retirement age....   so it seems some get the benefits of enjoying life to the full while some never quite get going......   


with the pension age about to be stretched... i feel concern for those whose lives have been broken by work or never really got started by work having another five years of something that is gradually killing them.... i am particularly concerned for those who never really have had much choice ...

i am concerned about that folks be able to contribute without it killing them.... does that make me a wooly liberal ?or should it be accepted that some folks are going to work till they drop and they will be paying for the luxury or not so luxury choices of the others?    should this be a matter of concern... and again what would be a fair way of dealing with this?

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndyHB]

The most obvious way to make this fair would be to make everyone retire at an exact age - such as 65 or 66.  However, this is clearly impractical, because someone who is doing a physical job is likely to 'wear out' quicker than a sedentary worker (notice, though, that not all sedentary jobs are necessarily 'white collar' jobs, nor are all physical ones, 'blue collar' jobs).

In a way, that is the value of personal pensions, since they allow each person to retire at a time most appropriate to them, except that there are many people who - for whatever reason - are unable to build up a large enough 'pot' from which to take an income following retirement.

I still feel that, as with many other benefits, state pensions ought to be given only to those who actually need them to live - there is no need for the above-average person on an above-average income to think that they can spend their income now and then rely on the state when they retire.

[Boudi]

When I was 30 a lorry ran into the back of my car, causing considerable back problems.  When the specialist prodded and pulled he said that at my age wear and tear was to be expected, cosidering my job.  I'm expected to stay in that job until my mid sixties at least.  As a public sector worker i get a gold plated pension, apparently.  I wonder how may people out there have gold plated jewelry, and how often they've worn it?  Police retire at 50, I rarely see teachers work beyond 55, and yet they don't have a more physically difficult job than mine.  There may be people who can retire later, and have their health, yet I see colleagues with bad joints, bad backs and generally worn out.  i've had 26 years of it..winter aches and summer sneezes.  I think that if I get to 65 I'll have an old age I don't want,even if I have got a pension in a gold envelope that's considerably less than people think.....

[AndyHB]

... , I rarely see teachers work beyond 55, and yet they don't have a more physically difficult job than mine. 

So much so, Boudi, that I can think of many who carried on until 65 and, in all my years of teaching, I can only think of a handful who took early retirement at the age of 55.  Some at 60, yes; many, by actually being made redundant, through school amalgamations and creative accounting by LEAs who wanted to shed staff.  Sadly, many of the early retirees were the good teachers who knew that they could get good jobs elsewhere for the last few years of their working lives.

[Boudi]

known many who have retired early, then done supply teaching.

Not as physically damaging either, which is the point I was making

[Jan]

I think retirement is a plan yes - whether or not it is the only plan is another thing. Sometimes it can just be a change in occupation.

Some of my teachers were old already when I got to high school. Some were still there years later. I guess it is a personal choice or sometimes it can be down to needing to work to pay the bills or out of boredom, or wanting to contribute further. Sometimes teachers become photographers (or vice versa)

[AndyHB]

known many who have retired early, then done supply teaching.

Not as physically damaging either, which is the point I was making

Having done both, I'd question the suggestion that supply teaching is less physically damaging.  Coping with several different sets of children who you don't really know, day in day out is amazingly tiring and nerve-racking.

Interestingly, one of the reasons why the 'cover supervisor' role has grown recently is because schools have discovered that having people who are permanently attached to the school, are known by pupils to be on the staffing strength and tend to see classes on a more regular basis than the one-off visits made by external supply teachers is helpful for both the students and the adults involved.

[Boudi]

try gettinmg drenched at 10 in  the morning and stay working in those clothes till the end of the shift....while your job is under threat.......and no-one holds you up as a pillar of society....

never known a teacher get vibration white finger, pneumonocosis etc

[AndyHB]

never known a teacher get vibration white finger, pneumonocosis etc

But I have known teachers get nervous breakdowns and other stress-related health problems.  I've known several (myself included) who have been attacked physically by pupils (it was the only time I've ever intentionally hit a pupil - right-hand jab to the stomach, IIRC - to stop his attack on me: the rest of the class told the deputy head when called that I was acting in self-defence).  The various things that happen to teachers may not be 'physical' in the same sense as getting drenched - though even this does happen sometimes when one is on break- or dinner-duty and the skies open unexpectedly - but they often have physical outworkings.

[Boudi]

expected response...but the point was that many teachers choose to retire early, and on the whole their bodies are fine.  The point that was being made is that for those with more physical jobs their bodies may well be more worn out  and they may need to have an earleir retirement, yet in my experience it is teachers who retire at 55, mainly because they can afford to becvause they have been on higher wages and get a good pension, not because their bodies have had enough.  The notion that because the population as a whole live longer so people can do physical jobs for longer doesn't stand up. The body has limitations, so people may well be living in pain for longer.

[AndyHB]

expected response...but the point was that many teachers choose to retire early, and on the whole their bodies are fine.

As I understand it, Boudi - and don't think I'm getting at you - some research has shown that it is often teachers and civil servants who seem to die quicker following retirement.  Can't remember exactly where I read this, but it was in one of the Welsh newspapers several years ago - and was based on responses from Welsh healthcare providers.  I think the assumption was that it was this kind of person who tends to 'turn off' quicker, whereas those who have been accustomed to physical work tend to keep up with it, by gardening or other such activities.  Often, according to the research, teachers were dying within 5 years of retirement.

[Boudi]

That'll be at 60 then......