The Cost to Retire Comfortably Around the World

[PPCLI Guy]

Where I work there is a ton of layoffs. I can’t believe some of these boomers who refuse to retire.

I get it if you need the money and need to work but there is guys refusing to retire who have 4 income properties, have no need for the money, and theres young guys with families needing to work losing their jobs because those boomers refuse to give up their social club.

Morally reprehensible behaviour even if it is all 100% legal.

Retirement is a long shot for me, the defined benefit pensions were done away with and now it is defined contribution pensions which are severely underfunded (someone did the math we would need about 10$ a hour into our pension to get the same, but we only get 3.50$).

There is a retirement crisis coming up in a couple decades, unfortunately there isn’t any good fix coming.

Have you offered to leave your job so that others less fortunate than you can work?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

They may have earned their seniority but it shouldn’t mean holding down everyone under you just for the sake of it.

Some of these guys are the most vindictive people I have met, just screwing people over for no reason other than they can.

The older management is a curse, refusal to adapt, insistence on older less efficient processes just because they don’t understand newer ones. Resistant to change even in the slightest way possible.

Simple example I asked if we could get the schedule sent to our work email. Refused. Even though it is made digitally, emailed to management, then printed and stuck in the office. This isn’t cutting edge recommendations, this is just bringing us in line with 2004.

Completely agree it's a curse. I work in a data intensive industry. System proficiency is extremely lacking in certain portion of the workforce and it actually costs us big $$$. ⁰

 

[Brad Sallows]

Some people just enjoy their work.

For some their work is part of their identity and sense of self-worth, and of those some are aware of it and therefore reluctant to retire; the ones who don't anticipate it are the kinds of people who end up expressing feelings of loss and whatnot after retiring.

Some might actually need the money. High income isn't necessarily a guarantee a person has been saving enough for retirement. Well-off and even wealthy people often enough live right at the edge of their means.

There is a reverse image problem that exists in some places, especially where people have DB pensions and max pension eligibility is determined by a sum of age and years worked. Organizations bleed competent experienced people as soon as they hit the number for max pension. It's not the behaviour that is the problem; it's that the target number should often be greater so that people are putting in a few more working years to pay for their retirement years.

A rule of thumb I think rings true is that you need to save at least 20% of your gross income for your entire life, assuming RoI will be somewhere near 7% on average, to retire with an income that allows you to continue living approximately as you lived during your working years. That is money that you can't touch, ever, so your savings for emergencies and vacations and whatnot would have to be above that.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

And they are backed by human rights legislation that says no one has to retire... ever...

News Release​

Ottawa, Ontario, December 14, 2012—A year ago tomorrow, Parliament passed the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act which provides additional protection to older workers who wish to remain in the workforce. On December 15, 2012, the prohibition of mandatory retirement for federally regulated employees comes into force.

“Many Canadian seniors are living a healthy and active lifestyle and wish to remain active in the labour force,” said the Honourable Lisa Raitt, Canada’s Labour Minister. “Our government took action and removed potential barriers faced by older workers who enrich the workplace with their accumulated knowledge and experience.”

Specifically, the Act amended the Canada Labour Code to ensure employees receive severance pay upon involuntary termination regardless of age and pension eligibility.

“Canadian workers don’t come with ‘best before’ dates stamped on their foreheads,” said Mr. David Langtry, Acting Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. “These amendments protect the important principle that age discrimination is prohibited under the Canadian Human Rights Act and that retirement is a personal decision,” he said.

Government of Canada highlights prohibition of mandatory retirement - Canada.ca

A year ago tomorrow, Parliament passed the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act which provides additional protection to older workers who wish to remain in the workforce. On December 15, 2012, the prohibition of mandatory retirement for federally regulated employees comes into force.

www.canada.ca

And ultimately it's the employers responsibility to get rid of dead weight.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Have you offered to leave your job so that others less fortunate than you can work?

1st there is no one to back fill my position, the joys of being in the skilled trades. So even if I left (which I have been looking for alternate jobs anyways) there won’t be someone moving into my spot as much as it is needed.

2nd I am no where near retirement, still have at least 30 years to go. I am one of those young guys with a family to take care of (more so than most with a severely disabled child and being forced to be the sole income earner thanks to that fact).

I have no issue with people working, or people not wanting to retire. I just think it is morally wrong not to when you’re financially set, and the people around you who do need the job are being laid off. They even offered 25k for those guys to take retirement and they still wouldn’t.

Go find a volunteer organization if they want to feel important and needed, most those groups are desperate for volunteers and they can pick a cause they agree with.

 

[daftandbarmy]

And ultimately it's the employers responsibility to get rid of dead weight.

Like the client I talked to recently who took over a Branch that had several people in their late 60s, and one guy who was 80 years old, so they cleaned house and opened up several new positions for the long suffering ‘junior’ people in their 40s and 50s.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

1st there is no one to back fill my position, the joys of being in the skilled trades. So even if I left (which I have been looking for alternate jobs anyways) there won’t be someone moving into my spot as much as it is needed.

2nd I am no where near retirement, still have at least 30 years to go. I am one of those young guys with a family to take care of (more so than most with a severely disabled child and being forced to be the sole income earner thanks to that fact).

I have no issue with people working, or people not wanting to retire. I just think it is morally wrong not to when you’re financially set, and the people around you who do need the job are being laid off. They even offered 25k for those guys to take retirement and they still wouldn’t.

Go find a volunteer organization if they want to feel important and needed, most those groups are desperate for volunteers and they can pick a cause they agree with.

Morally wrong to not step aside? That is quite the specific moral code. In this moral code, who is the arbiter of when one is "financially set". Is it a tribunal? A simple figure? Government regulations? the judgement of co-workers? a Lottery?

I understand why you might be upset. Not sure that is reason enough to establish a new Moral Code that enshrines youths right to work, and the requirement for those who are "older" and "financially set" to not be permitted to work.

I would also hazard a guess that this generational conflict over "the good jobs" is as old as human history.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Morally wrong to not step aside? That is quite the specific moral code. In this moral code, who is the arbiter of when one is "financially set". Is it a tribunal? A simple figure? Government regulations? the judgement of co-workers? a Lottery?

I understand why you might be upset. Not sure that is reason enough to establish a new Moral Code that enshrines youths right to work, and the requirement for those who are "older" and "financially set" to not be permitted to work.

I would also hazard a guess that this generational conflict over "the good jobs" is as old as human history.

When you have a paid off house, maxed out pension, 4x rental properties, and don’t need the money from work rather your coming to work for a social club your financially set.

No, I wouldn’t enshrine that moral code into law, but that doesn’t mean you’re not a POS to keep working well people who need the job are being laid off. Especially when offered a buyout. Individuals should have enough good judgement to make that call on their own.

You can legally be in the right but still be a terrible person.

 

[mariomike]

Not a pension SME , but from what I understand, by removing the 35 year cap, OMERS is encouraging members to stay on the job longer so they can continue contributing to the pension plan, rather than drawing from it.

OMERS has a Supplemental Plan for municipal police officers, firefighters and paramedics. This allows them to retire earlier, thereby creating vacancies sooner , rather than later , for young applicants to start their careers.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not a pension SME , but from what I understand, by removing the 35 year cap, OMERS is encouraging members to stay on the job longer so they can continue contributing to the pension plan, rather than drawing from it.

OMERS has a Supplemental Plan for municipal police officers, firefighters and paramedics. This allows them to retire earlier, thereby creating vacancies sooner , rather than later , for young applicants to start their careers.

I think that longer lifespans is another factor.
In 1976, being 65yrs old was pretty old - the decades of drinking, smoking, poor eating and such took a pretty heavy toll on the body.
Fast forward to 2026 and today’s 65yr old may drink lightly, have never smoked or been around second hand smoke, is physically fit, exercises regularly, eats well and has little stress. Put a picture of that 65yr old next to one from 1976 and see the difference.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I can think of 4 or 5 guys - easily - who are Gen X or Boomers who are excellent professionals, well paid and generally well advanced in their careers but will never be able to retire. Divorces, bankruptcies, lawsuits, medical expenses, no employer pension plan, stock market losses, unemployed children or grandchildren. All of it or any if it, it’s not the business of anybody to manage, interfere, coerce or pressure people like that. In fact it should be a crime to do so. A responsible adult minding their affairs and performing their business has the right to be left alone, a principal that used to be sacrosanct and indeed respected in this country.

Plus, in principal, nobody can or ever should ever be forced, coerced or socially pressured to leave their employment to make way for somebody else no matter what that other persons dire situation.

Finally, a lot of people have come to define their existence and way of life by and through their profession and that’s also just fine. I encourage it if that’s what a person wants. I learned this from my own life experience over 3 careers. Leave good people alone. Help the others when they need it, if you can and if they can be helped. But you never cross the line of interfering with good people just to help out another good person. You don’t even ask, that’s not right, as hard as it is for some people to accept that principle.

Why would any employment law, social theory or other notion of so called fairness want to force a fellow doing his job, off the payroll?

There are still millions of people in this country over the age of 60 who still need to work full time as a matter of survival maybe until the last few months of their life, and it’s a crazy notion to kick them to the curb if they can still work.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We knew a couple, he made 160,000 a year and she worked as well. They were perpetually broke, as they had no ability to budget or save.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Morally wrong to not step aside? That is quite the specific moral code. In this moral code, who is the arbiter of when one is "financially set". Is it a tribunal? A simple figure? Government regulations? the judgement of co-workers? a Lottery?

I understand why you might be upset. Not sure that is reason enough to establish a new Moral Code that enshrines youths right to work, and the requirement for those who are "older" and "financially set" to not be permitted to work.

I would also hazard a guess that this generational conflict over "the good jobs" is as old as human history.

I do agree with you of course. My issue is that there is a lack of meritocracy in some cases. Many people mistakenly believe time served = skill. There isn't necessarily a correlation.

Tenure does not make someone competent. Yet we often organize our businesses, employment models, hiring practices, etc around this.

This is also way worse and more pronounced in Unionized environments, which I believe @Eaglelord17 is probably referring to/employed in. Traditional Labour Unions are the literal anthesis of a meritocracy.

 

[dapaterson]

I do agree with you of course. My issue is that there is a lack of meritocracy in some cases. Many people mistakenly believe time served = skill. There isn't necessarily a correlation.

Tenure does not make someone competent. Yet we often organize our businesses, employment models, hiring practices, etc around this.

This is also way worse and more pronounced in Unionized environments, which I believe @Eaglelord17 is probably referring to/employed in. Traditional Labour Unions are the literal anthesis of a meritocracy.

Traditional C Suite behaviours aren't meritocratic either.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Traditional C Suite behaviours aren't meritocratic either.

They aren’t supposed to be, or friends will be lost.

 

[mariomike]

Traditional Labour Unions are the literal anthesis of a meritocracy.

I was only in one bargaining unit. It was inaugurated in 1917. All applicants since then knew what they were getting into when they hired on.

Some postings within the unit were filled on a Senior Qualified basis.

Some postings within the unit were filled on a Relative Ability basis.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I do agree with you of course. My issue is that there is a lack of meritocracy in some cases. Many people mistakenly believe time served = skill. There isn't necessarily a correlation.

Tenure does not make someone competent. Yet we often organize our businesses, employment models, hiring practices, etc around this.

This is also way worse and more pronounced in Unionized environments, which I believe @Eaglelord17 is probably referring to/employed in. Traditional Labour Unions are the literal anthesis of a meritocracy.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I do agree with you of course. My issue is that there is a lack of meritocracy in some cases. Many people mistakenly believe time served = skill. There isn't necessarily a correlation.

Tenure does not make someone competent. Yet we often organize our businesses, employment models, hiring practices, etc around this.

This is also way worse and more pronounced in Unionized environments, which I believe @Eaglelord17 is probably referring to/employed in. Traditional Labour Unions are the literal anthesis of a meritocracy.

In a traditional labour union environment. It has its pros and cons. Con is no matter how hard you work your basically just doing it for self satisfaction. Pro is more job security in general.

For those of you who have never gone through layoffs consider yourself fortunate, it is nasty business, especially when it is large scale (the two main ones I have been involved in have been half the workforce both times).

My point is if someone is able to retire comfortably morally they should when there is layoffs. Much like you should give up a seat on a full bus/train for a pregnant woman if your able to. No one requires it, but it is still the right thing to do.

 

[mariomike]

I think that longer lifespans is another factor.
In 1976, being 65yrs old was pretty old - the decades of drinking, smoking, poor eating and such took a pretty heavy toll on the body.
Fast forward to 2026 and today’s 65yr old may drink lightly, have never smoked or been around second hand smoke, is physically fit, exercises regularly, eats well and has little stress. Put a picture of that 65yr old next to one from 1976 and see the difference.

Maybe employers can help their retired members get more years out of their pensions.

P.A.C.E. is something our dept. offers retired members.

Our Promoting Activity Creates Energy ( PACE ) team meets at Emergency Services HQ.

The purpose of the team is to support current and retired staff through physical wellness-focused initiatives, including promoting holistic health, strengthening resilience through healthy practices and enhancing overall workplace wellness. Membership is free to current and retired members of the dept.

There is a short indoor fitness session, followed by a 30 minute outside walk.

There's free swag, games, challenges and prizes.

Workshops on nutrition, stress management and injury prevention.

I'm in my 18th year of retirement, but It makes you feel connected to the current organization.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Morally wrong to not step aside? That is quite the specific moral code. In this moral code, who is the arbiter of when one is "financially set". Is it a tribunal? A simple figure? Government regulations? the judgement of co-workers? a Lottery?

I understand why you might be upset. Not sure that is reason enough to establish a new Moral Code that enshrines youths right to work, and the requirement for those who are "older" and "financially set" to not be permitted to work.

I would also hazard a guess that this generational conflict over "the good jobs" is as old as human history.

Yes, I believe there is a moral obligation to step aside eventually.

A healthy society cannot allow one generation to indefinitely occupy positions of power, influence, wealth, and opportunity while younger generations wait on the sidelines. Every generation has a responsibility not only to build for the future, but also to make room for those who will inherit it.

Many of today's seniors came of age during a period of unprecedented economic growth and opportunity. Housing was more affordable, education was less expensive, and it was often easier to build wealth and establish a career. They were given opportunities that many younger people can only dream of today.

I sympathize with those who, despite those advantages, were unable to achieve financial security. Some experienced hardship, bad luck, illness, or circumstances beyond their control. Compassion for those individuals is important.

However, public policy cannot be built solely around preserving the status quo for one generation. If maintaining the comfort and influence of the old comes at the expense of the prospects of the young, then we are sacrificing the future to protect the past.

At some point, leadership, authority, and opportunity must pass to the next generation. That is not ageism. It is the natural and necessary cycle of a healthy society. A society that refuses to make room for its youth eventually stagnates, because the people who must live in the future are denied the chance to shape it.