Introduction

Increasingly, it is being claimed that we need to ‘rethink’ retirement. Ros Altmann, recently appointed UK Pensions Minister, has stated that:

In the UK, such arguments have led to the introduction of a ‘Redefining Retirement Division’ in the Department for Work and Pensions. The argument is clear and is found in other countries, such as the US. Retirement in your mid-60s, or earlier, may have made sense in the past, when life expectancy was much shorter and people worked in more physically arduous jobs. However, this is no longer feasible, it is argued, because of population ageing and the fact that these individuals will have to be supported financially for a longer period of retirement. In 2000, 16% of the population was aged 65+ in the UK; this has been projected to rise to 20% in 2020, and 25.6% in 2040. The US has a younger population but will also see a rise in the share of over 65s, from 12.7% in 2000, to 17% in 2020 and to 22.4% in 2040 (Bonoli and Shinkawa, 2005: 4).

Working longer is a positive development, it is argued, because it will keep individuals active and be beneficial for their health and mental well-being (Altmann, 2015: 18). In the US, this has been linked to generational debates about baby boomers, those individuals born after the Second World War. These individuals, who are now approaching or over age 65, are different from previous generations. They are more active and educated and they positively resist the notion of taking full retirement at a fixed age. Rix (2008: 77, emphasis in original) sums up the argument that is made: