On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:26:05 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Ah right. So you obviously think people are all capable of working
and age makes no difference. Bully for you.

Umm, how does that differ for people under retirement age?

Age makes no difference?

Age makes a difference, of course it does. A sliding scale difference.
Some people are past-it for their careers in their 20s and 30s. Others
are perfectly hale and hearty and capable of working into their 90s. Yes,
the numbers are small at either ends of the graph, of course they are.
But there is no sharp cut-off at 60-for-women-65-for-men.

Not everybody over retirement age is fit to work, no. But many - an
ever-increasing percentage - are.

It depends very much on the work.

Indeed. Yet a single retirement age doesn't take account of that.

That won't change much if the retirement age changes. The proportion
will move a bit, yes, but not much.

Have you got any figures for this? Many age related illnesses are
becoming more common. Not less so. Some things on the body can wear out
at the same sort of time - but may not prove fatal.

Yes, they are - in people's 80s, not 60s. They're becoming more common
primarily because people aren't dying of other things first.

And since when was 60/65 such a magical change-over point, anyway?

It was a figure arrived at from experience.

It was a figure arrived at from experience at a time when the medical
profession had very different tools, and gave very different outcomes.