As the UK reviews the pension age again, could more time off when you’re young compensate for later retirement?
- Written by Malte Jauch, Lecturer in Management and Marketing, University of Essex
The retirement age keeps creeping up. In the UK, the state pension is currently paid to people at 66, but that’s set to rise to 67 in the next couple of years, and a move to 68 might come sooner than previously planned after the government launched a review[1].
Gradually increasing the working lifespan is never going to be popular. But one way of making this policy more palatable could be to give people early access to some of the free time that retirement promises.
After all, sometimes that promise fails to deliver, because many people die before[2] they reach retirement age.
Globally, about 27% of men and 18% women die before the age of 65[3] (although this proportion also includes deaths before working age). In wealthy countries, the number of people who die prematurely is lower than the global average, but still significant. In the EU, 16% of men and 8% of women die before 65.
For these people, the promise of free time and leisure in old age never materialises. There will also be many whose physical and mental health will have deteriorated by the time they retire, so that they are less capable of enjoying their free time.
So perhaps slogging away until retirement is not an ideal arrangement.
But what if you could transfer some of the time off that retirement promises to an earlier stage of your life, when everything is a rush, crammed with the demands of work and domestic responsibilities?
Luckily, the stark contrast between a time-poor middle age and a time-rich old age is not unavoidable. Governments can choose different approaches that directly affect how free time is distributed across our life stages.
Japan, for example, is a country which has opted to focus on delaying leisure time, and encourages[4] workers to postpone that enjoyment of free time until old age. It does this in part by rewarding workers with wage increases – known as “seniority-based pay” – if they don’t take career breaks.
Japanese employment law also permits companies to force employees[5] to retire at the age 60. As a result, on average, Japanese workers work 1,680 hours[6] per year and retire at 63.
In the Netherlands by contrast[7], people work less (1,433 hours per year) and retire later – at 67. Labour laws make it easier for employees to decrease their hours, by going part time, for example.
Discrimination between workers based on work hours is prohibited, so that those who opt for part-time work are guaranteed equal treatment with regard to wages and other benefits. But the high legal age of retirement discourages Dutch workers from early retirement.
So how should we assess these different approaches?
One way to look at retirement is that it compensates us for our previous hard work. The prospect of compensation might lead us to adopt a relaxed attitude toward long work hours. Once we’ve stopped work, we’ll be rewarded with a large chunk of leisure.
But for those who don’t make it to retirement, this promise of a life of leisure turns out to be a cruel joke. Early deaths are also more prominent among those who have already suffered from poverty and other disadvantages[8].
The same is true for ill health. The disadvantaged are much more likely[10] to suffer from a variety of conditions that prevent them from being able to fully enjoy retirement.
Another risk for those who are healthy when they retire is that relatives or friends may have died. This reduces the value of the retirees’ free time because the loved ones they hoped to share that time with are no longer around.
So perhaps some of that free time could be better used when workers are younger. Raising a family, for example, is extremely time consuming, and there can’t be many parents of young children who don’t wish for a few extra hours a week to call their own.
Even devoting time to hobbies when we’re younger might be considered more efficient than waiting until we have retired. After all, if you learn a new language or how to paint when you’re in your 40s, you may have much more time to enjoy your new skill over the ensuing decades.
My research suggests that for all these reasons, the state should help[11] people take some of their retirement early.
None of us knows how long we will live, or how healthy we will be in the future. Faced with this uncertainty, it makes sense not to gamble with our opportunities for free time and leave it until it may be too late.
Even those who enjoy their work have strong reasons not to postpone a large proportion of their time off, and governments should help us access more of it while we’re younger.
References
- ^ government launched a review (www.independent.co.uk)
- ^ die before (www.oecd.org)
- ^ die before the age of 65 (ourworldindata.org)
- ^ encourages (www.jil.go.jp)
- ^ force employees (japan-dev.com)
- ^ 1,680 hours (data-explorer.oecd.org)
- ^ Netherlands by contrast (link.springer.com)
- ^ poverty and other disadvantages (www.thelancet.com)
- ^ Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
- ^ more likely (www.ageinternational.org.uk)
- ^ should help (journals.sagepub.com)
- ^ Sign up to our daily newsletter (tcnv.link)
