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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As