As the IMF recommends that fit and sharp older workers delay retirement to offset ageing population trends, but who really benefits?
There’s a growing chorus from institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) suggesting that older workers should stay in the workforce longer—possibly until the age of 70. Their argument? We’re living longer, staying sharper, and public finances can no longer bear the weight of early retirement. In theory, it sounds pragmatic. In practice, it risks being profoundly disconnected from the lived experience of working-class people across the UK.
The IMF’s latest proposal leans heavily on health data that paints a flattering picture of life in your seventies: today’s 70-year-olds, it says, are as fit and cognitively capable as 53-year-olds were in 2000. Based on this, it argues that governments should consider delaying pension ages and reducing early retirement options to cope with the pressures of an ageing population and spiralling public debt.
But here’s what that vision ignores: the real world.
For many, the idea of staying in work until 70 isn’t just unrealistic—it’s unthinkable. It’s easy to nod along to the idea of working longer if your job involves emails, meetings, and a laptop. But for delivery drivers, care workers, construction workers, retail staff, cleaners and countless others in manual or high-pressure jobs, ageing on the job means aching joints, flagging energy, and, often, worsening health.
Government health data shows that by age 70, only around half of UK adults are disability-free. That alone should throw cold water on any blanket proposals to shift the pension age upwards. It also fails to recognise regional and income disparities: someone who has spent decades in physically demanding roles may feel the weight of their labour far earlier than someone in a cushioned professional post.
Even the steady rise of older workers in employment is not the result of people joyfully opting to stay busy. It’s driven by necessity. The cost-of-living crisis, insufficient pensions, housing insecurity and delayed retirement savings are forcing people to keep working, not because they want to, but because they can’t afford not to.
Yet the conversation, again and again, seems to be driven by the perspective of policymakers, economists and think tanks—not the workers at the sharp end. It’s framed as a “sensible economic adjustment” when in fact, it risks stripping people of dignity and rest at a point in life when both should be guaranteed.
As usual, the proposed “solution” to financial pressures is being placed on the shoulders of those who’ve already spent decades holding society up. Rather than addressing corporate tax avoidance, rising executive pay, or spiralling shareholder profits, the pressure falls instead on pensioners, public sector workers, and low-income earners to “do their bit.”
Calls to extend working life should be met with a serious question: working longer for whom? Who benefits? Who suffers? And most importantly—who gets to choose?
If policymakers genuinely care about sustainability and fairness, they need to start with a reality check. Not everyone can work until 70. Not everyone should be asked to.
And no one should be forced to because our system refuses to ask the wealthy to contribute more.
UWA stands for a future where rest, retirement and respect aren’t privileges—they’re rights. Learn more about our work, join the movement, and know your rights. Join today http://unitedworkersalliance.co.uk/join-us
Original Article: “Older workers: would you be able and willing to stay in work until you’re 70?” The Guardian.