The moderator's opening remarks
June 16, 2009
Barbara Beck
Special Reports Editor, The Economist
Barbara Beck joined The Economist in 1965 and held various editorial posts, mainly on the business side. In 1974 she became European editor, a position she held until 1980. From 1981 to 1991, she was Secretary General of the Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society, a bilateral, government-funded think-tank. For the next three years she was Editor of International Management magazine. In 1993 she became Head of Communications, Europe, for Andersen Consulting. She then returned to The Economist in 1995 as Special Reports editor.
01
If you were hoping to retire in comfort, you should have bowed out 10 or 20 years ago. The late 20th century was the best time ever to become a pensioner. The developed countries had become rich enough to pay state pensions that were mostly decent, and private occupational schemes were usually the defined-benefit, final-salary kind that provided people with a predictable retirement income for as long as they lived. To make things even more cushy, lots of people were being positively encouraged to go early.
02
No longer. With the huge post-war baby-boomer generation now beginning to retire, governments have looked at their future pension liabilities and recoiled in horror. Many private pensions have already become much less generous and more uncertain. Because people, at least in the rich world, are having ever fewer babies and living ever longer, the proportion of over-60s around the globe is due to double between now and 2050, from 11% to 22%. In the rich countries the figure is likely to rise from 22% to 33%, meaning that around one person in three will be a pensioner.
03
The potential liabilities are immense. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently measured the fiscal costs of the financial crisis against that of ageing populations and found that in the advanced G-20 countries the adverse impact of ageing on the fiscal balance would be ten times as big as that of the crisis by 2050. In most rich countries the bulk of that will come from pension spending, which by 2050 will typically equate to 10% of GDP, and often more. The fiscal impact of the crisis, says the IMF, "thus reinforces the urgency of entitlement reform".
04
But what exactly should be done? Two noted experts in the field are laying out the arguments to kick off this Economist online debate. The proposer, George Magnus, is a senior economist at UBS and has recently published a widely acclaimed book, "The Age of Ageing". He contends that the current design of retirement policy is outdated and inefficient. The main planks of any future policy must be for people to work for longer to reflect their much-increased life expectancy, and to make the transition from work to retirement far more flexible. That way older workers will not only pay taxes and social-security contributions for more years and draw their pensions later, thus easing the pressure on the public finances; they will also continue to contribute their skills and experience-and may well enjoy doing so.
05
George Magnus's opponent is Christian Weller, an associate professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC, a progressive think-tank. He has co-authored a book on retirement income, co-edited another, and produced a list of articles on the subject much longer than your arm. He says that retirement systems in the rich world do need an overhaul, but that in principle the current three-legged model—a public pension to cover the basics, with occupational pensions and individual savings to top it up—remains valid and affordable.
06
So there you have it. Retirement needs a complete rethink, says one. No, it just needs a bit of tweaking, says the other. What do the readers of The Economist think? I hope that many of you will pitch in from the floor to support or refute our protagonists and our online guest speakers—and enjoy the battle.
Reaching 65 - "This house believes that retirement in its current form should be abolished.".
Visitors are invited to vote in favour or against the motion or give their opinion on the motion.
On June 16 evening, Ravi Chawla, Editor, Seniors World Chronicle, was one of those who had voted YES in favour of the motion. He posted this comment:
Dear Madam,
In ancient Indian traditional fourth stage of life, normally beginning at age 65, a Hindu gave up all business or commercial activity and devoted the rest of his life for the betterment of "the family"…. Hindu scriptures say the whole world is one family. In Sanskrit, the language of our scriptures this thought is termed as "Vasudaiva Kuttumbakkam". One has to return to "the family" what it gave one in the first 65 years of life. My interpretation is that one must devote the remaining productive part of his life - after 65 - to activities which are not directed towards commercial or economic activities - but one must remain productive till his dying day.
Ravi Chawla, Editor, Seniors World Chronicle
posted on 16/06/2009 14:56:24 pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No 64:
kensai wrote:
Dear Madam,
Let's face it. People nowdays live longer, healthier, and better lives. The life expectancy has risen dramatically in the Western world. The current retirement age limit of 65, especially in the public sector, is ridiculous and counterproductive. We are creating ourselves an army of "incapacitated elders" where we could have invested in thei experience and productivity.
Moreover, neuroscientific evidence shows clearly that the best prevention and therapy against senile dementia is by exercising the brain. Use it or lose it, they say. Is there a better exercise than practicing your own profession for profit? Is it so bad.
Last, it is an ethical matter. 65+old persons who continue to work are less of a burden for the social system since they don't need the same pension as mandatory retired ones. [rc]
Click here for an overview of the debate.
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2009
June 17, 2009
UK: The Economist Debates - Reaching 65 - "This house believes that retirement in its current form should be abolished."
.
LONDON, England / The Economist / Debates / June 17, 2009
THE ECONOMIST’s online debate on the following proposition “This house believes that retirement in its current form should be abolished,” went live yesterday, June 16 with George Magnus, Senior Economic Adviser at UBS Investment Bank, agreeing with the proposition and Christian E. Weller, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Professor of Public Policy at the University of Massachusetts Boston, providing the opposition.
* Defending the motion is George Magnus, Senior Economic Adviser, UBS Investment Bank
* Against the motion is Christian E. Weller, Snr Fellow, Center for American Progress & Prof of Public Policy, University of Massachusetts Boston
The moderator's opening remarks
June 16, 2009
Barbara Beck
Special Reports Editor, The Economist
Barbara Beck joined The Economist in 1965 and held various editorial posts, mainly on the business side. In 1974 she became European editor, a position she held until 1980. From 1981 to 1991, she was Secretary General of the Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society, a bilateral, government-funded think-tank. For the next three years she was Editor of International Management magazine. In 1993 she became Head of Communications, Europe, for Andersen Consulting. She then returned to The Economist in 1995 as Special Reports editor.
01
If you were hoping to retire in comfort, you should have bowed out 10 or 20 years ago. The late 20th century was the best time ever to become a pensioner. The developed countries had become rich enough to pay state pensions that were mostly decent, and private occupational schemes were usually the defined-benefit, final-salary kind that provided people with a predictable retirement income for as long as they lived. To make things even more cushy, lots of people were being positively encouraged to go early.
02
No longer. With the huge post-war baby-boomer generation now beginning to retire, governments have looked at their future pension liabilities and recoiled in horror. Many private pensions have already become much less generous and more uncertain. Because people, at least in the rich world, are having ever fewer babies and living ever longer, the proportion of over-60s around the globe is due to double between now and 2050, from 11% to 22%. In the rich countries the figure is likely to rise from 22% to 33%, meaning that around one person in three will be a pensioner.
03
The potential liabilities are immense. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently measured the fiscal costs of the financial crisis against that of ageing populations and found that in the advanced G-20 countries the adverse impact of ageing on the fiscal balance would be ten times as big as that of the crisis by 2050. In most rich countries the bulk of that will come from pension spending, which by 2050 will typically equate to 10% of GDP, and often more. The fiscal impact of the crisis, says the IMF, "thus reinforces the urgency of entitlement reform".
04
But what exactly should be done? Two noted experts in the field are laying out the arguments to kick off this Economist online debate. The proposer, George Magnus, is a senior economist at UBS and has recently published a widely acclaimed book, "The Age of Ageing". He contends that the current design of retirement policy is outdated and inefficient. The main planks of any future policy must be for people to work for longer to reflect their much-increased life expectancy, and to make the transition from work to retirement far more flexible. That way older workers will not only pay taxes and social-security contributions for more years and draw their pensions later, thus easing the pressure on the public finances; they will also continue to contribute their skills and experience-and may well enjoy doing so.
05
George Magnus's opponent is Christian Weller, an associate professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC, a progressive think-tank. He has co-authored a book on retirement income, co-edited another, and produced a list of articles on the subject much longer than your arm. He says that retirement systems in the rich world do need an overhaul, but that in principle the current three-legged model—a public pension to cover the basics, with occupational pensions and individual savings to top it up—remains valid and affordable.
06
So there you have it. Retirement needs a complete rethink, says one. No, it just needs a bit of tweaking, says the other. What do the readers of The Economist think? I hope that many of you will pitch in from the floor to support or refute our protagonists and our online guest speakers—and enjoy the battle.
Reaching 65 - "This house believes that retirement in its current form should be abolished.".
Visitors are invited to vote in favour or against the motion or give their opinion on the motion.
On June 16 evening, Ravi Chawla, Editor, Seniors World Chronicle, was one of those who had voted YES in favour of the motion. He posted this comment:
Dear Madam,
In ancient Indian traditional fourth stage of life, normally beginning at age 65, a Hindu gave up all business or commercial activity and devoted the rest of his life for the betterment of "the family"…. Hindu scriptures say the whole world is one family. In Sanskrit, the language of our scriptures this thought is termed as "Vasudaiva Kuttumbakkam". One has to return to "the family" what it gave one in the first 65 years of life. My interpretation is that one must devote the remaining productive part of his life - after 65 - to activities which are not directed towards commercial or economic activities - but one must remain productive till his dying day.
Ravi Chawla, Editor, Seniors World Chronicle
posted on 16/06/2009 14:56:24 pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No 64:
kensai wrote:
Dear Madam,
Let's face it. People nowdays live longer, healthier, and better lives. The life expectancy has risen dramatically in the Western world. The current retirement age limit of 65, especially in the public sector, is ridiculous and counterproductive. We are creating ourselves an army of "incapacitated elders" where we could have invested in thei experience and productivity.
Moreover, neuroscientific evidence shows clearly that the best prevention and therapy against senile dementia is by exercising the brain. Use it or lose it, they say. Is there a better exercise than practicing your own profession for profit? Is it so bad.
Last, it is an ethical matter. 65+old persons who continue to work are less of a burden for the social system since they don't need the same pension as mandatory retired ones. [rc]
Click here for an overview of the debate.
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2009
The moderator's opening remarks
June 16, 2009
Barbara Beck
Special Reports Editor, The Economist
Barbara Beck joined The Economist in 1965 and held various editorial posts, mainly on the business side. In 1974 she became European editor, a position she held until 1980. From 1981 to 1991, she was Secretary General of the Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society, a bilateral, government-funded think-tank. For the next three years she was Editor of International Management magazine. In 1993 she became Head of Communications, Europe, for Andersen Consulting. She then returned to The Economist in 1995 as Special Reports editor.
01
If you were hoping to retire in comfort, you should have bowed out 10 or 20 years ago. The late 20th century was the best time ever to become a pensioner. The developed countries had become rich enough to pay state pensions that were mostly decent, and private occupational schemes were usually the defined-benefit, final-salary kind that provided people with a predictable retirement income for as long as they lived. To make things even more cushy, lots of people were being positively encouraged to go early.
02
No longer. With the huge post-war baby-boomer generation now beginning to retire, governments have looked at their future pension liabilities and recoiled in horror. Many private pensions have already become much less generous and more uncertain. Because people, at least in the rich world, are having ever fewer babies and living ever longer, the proportion of over-60s around the globe is due to double between now and 2050, from 11% to 22%. In the rich countries the figure is likely to rise from 22% to 33%, meaning that around one person in three will be a pensioner.
03
The potential liabilities are immense. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently measured the fiscal costs of the financial crisis against that of ageing populations and found that in the advanced G-20 countries the adverse impact of ageing on the fiscal balance would be ten times as big as that of the crisis by 2050. In most rich countries the bulk of that will come from pension spending, which by 2050 will typically equate to 10% of GDP, and often more. The fiscal impact of the crisis, says the IMF, "thus reinforces the urgency of entitlement reform".
04
But what exactly should be done? Two noted experts in the field are laying out the arguments to kick off this Economist online debate. The proposer, George Magnus, is a senior economist at UBS and has recently published a widely acclaimed book, "The Age of Ageing". He contends that the current design of retirement policy is outdated and inefficient. The main planks of any future policy must be for people to work for longer to reflect their much-increased life expectancy, and to make the transition from work to retirement far more flexible. That way older workers will not only pay taxes and social-security contributions for more years and draw their pensions later, thus easing the pressure on the public finances; they will also continue to contribute their skills and experience-and may well enjoy doing so.
05
George Magnus's opponent is Christian Weller, an associate professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC, a progressive think-tank. He has co-authored a book on retirement income, co-edited another, and produced a list of articles on the subject much longer than your arm. He says that retirement systems in the rich world do need an overhaul, but that in principle the current three-legged model—a public pension to cover the basics, with occupational pensions and individual savings to top it up—remains valid and affordable.
06
So there you have it. Retirement needs a complete rethink, says one. No, it just needs a bit of tweaking, says the other. What do the readers of The Economist think? I hope that many of you will pitch in from the floor to support or refute our protagonists and our online guest speakers—and enjoy the battle.
Reaching 65 - "This house believes that retirement in its current form should be abolished.".
Visitors are invited to vote in favour or against the motion or give their opinion on the motion.
On June 16 evening, Ravi Chawla, Editor, Seniors World Chronicle, was one of those who had voted YES in favour of the motion. He posted this comment:
Dear Madam,
In ancient Indian traditional fourth stage of life, normally beginning at age 65, a Hindu gave up all business or commercial activity and devoted the rest of his life for the betterment of "the family"…. Hindu scriptures say the whole world is one family. In Sanskrit, the language of our scriptures this thought is termed as "Vasudaiva Kuttumbakkam". One has to return to "the family" what it gave one in the first 65 years of life. My interpretation is that one must devote the remaining productive part of his life - after 65 - to activities which are not directed towards commercial or economic activities - but one must remain productive till his dying day.
Ravi Chawla, Editor, Seniors World Chronicle
posted on 16/06/2009 14:56:24 pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No 64:
kensai wrote:
Dear Madam,
Let's face it. People nowdays live longer, healthier, and better lives. The life expectancy has risen dramatically in the Western world. The current retirement age limit of 65, especially in the public sector, is ridiculous and counterproductive. We are creating ourselves an army of "incapacitated elders" where we could have invested in thei experience and productivity.
Moreover, neuroscientific evidence shows clearly that the best prevention and therapy against senile dementia is by exercising the brain. Use it or lose it, they say. Is there a better exercise than practicing your own profession for profit? Is it so bad.
Last, it is an ethical matter. 65+old persons who continue to work are less of a burden for the social system since they don't need the same pension as mandatory retired ones. [rc]
Click here for an overview of the debate.
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2009
