That's what's being suggested here in this newspaper piece from Oz. But I guess you could use the same arguments in just about any "developed" country right now. Seems that our superannuation entitlements & savings just aren't going to cover the costs of "oldies" living longer, so why not expect them to work longer?
How do you feel about that?
Feel up to it?
Does this seem a fair solution to the situation to you?
The high cost of those final days in the sun
By Michael Duffy
November 19, 2005/SMH
T'S time to lift the retirement age to 70. The age of 65 for men was set in 1908, the idea being you'd have a while in the sun before (ideally) being relieved of all worldly cares by pneumonia, the old person's friend. But now we live at least 10 years longer: the average life expectancy for baby boomers is about 84.4 years for men and 88.8 for women. And yet the pension age for men hasn't changed.
This means the average man, who retires at about 61, will have more than two decades of leisure. For much of that time, he'll be healthy and active. And quite often bored.
The situation for women is, if anything, worse. Not only do they live longer, they retire earlier. Their pension age, which used to be 60, is gradually being increased: it is just under 63, and will reach the men's level of 65 in 2014. This is commendable, if somewhat slow: different pension ages are among the worst examples of institutionalised sexism in Australia.
The problem is not just how to fill in two decades of free time at the end of one's life, but how to afford it. Several economists have told me they believe raising the retirement age could be the single most important financial reform we could have, although most add: "No government would ever do it." ... <cont>