Mustachian take on enforced retirement

[Kimera757]

Link: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/workers-past-65-should-do-the-right-thing-and-retire/ar-AAyYxRr?ocid=spartandhp

I read an article complaining about mandatory retirement, or rather how it vanished in Canada.

Mandatory retirement began to disappear more than 10 years ago as province after province voted to end the ability of employers to compel workers to retire when they turned 65, followed by the federal government in 2012.

Workers should retire at age 65, if only to create a new job that a young worker can fill. I can promise that I will retire before I turn 65

The article was a little whiny, IMO. There was no mention of what workers need to do to ensure that they can retire when they reach 65, much less earlier. (One reason they got rid of early retirement was because people couldn't afford to retire.) The writer simply said they would retire early, without any mention of the savings and lifestyle changes necessary to do so. Was it just a wishful prediction? Perhaps the writer is a Mustachian, I don't know, but if so they missed the opportunity to teach about the lifestyle.

I wanted to know what Mustachians thought about this. I figure most of us wouldn't care; we all plan to retire early anyway.

[jlcnuke]

There are really only two reasons a labour leader does not retire by 65. They are either so arrogant that they think no one else can do their job, or they have not done the work needed to prepare the next generation to take over.

The third reason that is missed is that the leader cannot afford to retire.

The basic premise, that failure for older workers to leave the workforce results in the inability for younger workers to move up in the workforce, is basically sound (ignoring the whole "create your own position" possibilities that most workers won't do anyway).

There are only so many senior roles in any given organization, and only so many middle management roles, and only so many front-line management, and only so many senior workers, and only so many intermediate level workers, etc.... the number of any given position in any given organization is finite. If the upper management never leaves, no one can replace them. You're not getting 10 CEOs just because none of them feel like retiring. A department won't have 6 different directors in charge of the same things and same people. I don't know that suggesting people should retire by 65 would count as "early" though, since most worker (in the US anyway) retire earlier than that in reality.

[Kimera757]

The typical Canadian retires at 61. If someone retires earlier than 65, I usually see this as "retiring early".

The Canada Pension Plan (mandatory but self-funded retirement system) can pay you as early as age 60, but if you work later, you can keep increasing your CPP payments, up to age 70. (Or maybe 75 some time soon, according to this article: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/retirement/article-you-hated-the-idea-of-starting-cpp-at-70-now-how-about-75/ )

Old Age Security does not pay you until you reach age 65, minimum, and governments have tried to raise this age. It generally pays very little. A person with low net worth will want to work until they reach age 65, although of course things like opportunity and health can restrict this.