Contrary to coverage in the popular media, retirement isn’t a thing of the past.
“If you read the headlines…you get the impression we’re seeing huge changes in the retirement patterns of Canadians,” said Malcolm Hamilton, a principal with Mercer Human Resource Consulting, at the CPBI 2007 National Conference in Winnipeg. He cited numerous news headlines and studies proclaiming that aging baby boomers are opting to stay on the job past 65 or changing careers instead of taking a traditional retirement.
The fact is, despite living longer, Canadians are actually retiring earlier than in previous years, said Hamilton. The average retirement age of 65 in the late-1970s dropped to 61.1 between 2000 and 2004, he said. He also pointed to a BMO Retirement Trends Study that showed only 1% of Canadians want to continue working in retirement.
“Where are these armies of people who are saying I want to retire so I can start a different kind of work,” he said. “There’s a remarkable shortage of normal people in normal jobs who want to keep working.”
Rather, he said people will simply retire earlier or later, depending on what they can afford. “That’s how it’s always been. That’s not a ‘new retirement.’”
In order for retirement as we know it to disappear, people must be capable of working longer, they must want to work longer and employers must want to attract or retain older workers, said Hamilton. But while nutrition, public health and advances in medicine have boosted Canadians’ longevity, they haven’t stopped the aging process, he said. And organizations won’t necessarily want to keep their employees past traditional retirement age, he argued, referring to a survey of employers published earlier this year showing that the minority have a plan for doing so.
Despite the fact that employees want to retire and their employers want them to retire, Hamilton pointed out that the government is sending signals that it wants to keep people on the job longer in order to fill labour shortages and keep the income tax dollars coming in. That, said Hamilton, leads to a slippery slope in terms of public policy. Governments can allow people to work past 65 by abolishing mandatory retirement, they can persuade people to work past 65 with incentives, they can encourage people to work longer with penalties for early retirement or they can compel people to stay on the job longer. He said he has no problem with the first step, but that he has concerns about the others.
“As a matter of public policy, Canadians should not be expected to retire later simply because they are living longer and having fewer children.”
To comment on this story email don.bisch@rci.rogers.com.