Skip to main content

Changing pension age is missing the point

I am reminded of a discussion I had recently about future welfare costs and why something had to be done now to 'prevent it spiralling out of control'. One lady in the group repeated something we regularly hear from politicians of all parties.

"We are all living longer!" She said. As if this itself was a problem.
We were in the middle of a discussion about pensions and raising the age of retirement.
"No, we are not!" I replied.
"Yes, we are, on average!" She persisted. Oh dear, I thought, here is that 'average person' again.
"Yes, but I don't live 'on average'" I responded. I've yet to recognise an 'average person' at, say, a bus stop or waiting for a train. I have no idea whether I have sat next to one, ever, in a plane.

There is something absurd about the general panic that seems to be settling in. The fear that the welfare budget is about to be overwhelmed by pensioners. The working population is getting smaller as those in retirement gets bigger with images of vast numbers of aged dependants crushing the rest. An ever-growing burden; more care homes; more carers, hospitals with little old ladies on trollies in corridors in an NHS bulging at the seams. The incontinence of it all! Demented grandparents looking for shops that once lined the high street all unable to cope with the burdens of modern life. There is even a phrase invented for it: 'old-age dependency ratio'.

The problem is that there isn't a problem; or at least not the problem in the public imagination. We are not all about to become modern-day Noahs and live for hundreds of years. Far from it. I suspect that with the growing ravages of increasing poverty, it is more likely 'we', many of us in the future, will have shortened life expectancies rather than increased longevity. The 'average' of the population doesn't take account of differences in socioeconomic status. As the life expectancy of some might be increasing, for others there is little change or it might begin to fall. We have yet to see the long-term effects of obesity and obesity-related diseases. We have yet to witness the outcome from growing poverty.

On average (oops now I'm doing it!) a man retiring in 1981 had a life expectancy of  14 years; in 2011 that has increased to a little over 20. For women, those retiring in 1981 would have a life expectancy on average of 22 years. Now that has increased to 28. But it isn't projected to go on increasing at the same rate. And the more important question is health rather than simply longevity. A healthy population is less likely to increase the 'burden' on health and care services.

The problem of health is unlikely to be solved by simply increasing the state pension age. It can only be tackled by addressing those issues that relate to the health of the population. And it is still the case that the cycle of poverty and ill-health matters more. Breaking that cycle is a better strategy than worrying about increased life on retirement. Furthermore, a healthy population is more likely than not to go on working, to be able to go on working, beyond the statutory retirement age; and healthy people are more likely than not to want to go on working.

Increasing the statutory pension age is mere tinkering. If we are really concerned about the future 'burden', then it is better to tackle health, housing and diet and fitness now. It is better to tackle poverty. This is why cut-throat austerity is so foolish and blind to its consequences.









Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,