In many countries there is a mandatory retirement age. The benefits for workers include that older people in more physical occupations are more vulnerable to injury and the guarantee of advancement for younger, evenly skilled workers. But it can also be argued that the negatives of a smaller and less experienced workforce outweigh these benefits. In the same sense, compulsory retirement can be restrictive to the worker when they are able and willing to keep on working.
One side of the argument reasons that the risk of older workers experiencing work-related injuries is too high. As workers age the physical demands of a job can become too much of a burden. This is often the case in situations demanding physical labour, e.g. in construction or manufacturing. Thus, the older workers are on sick leave more often and intra-firm advancement by younger workers is stifled since the position cannot be permanently reoccupied. This is the second main argument: forced retirement guarantees possibilities for younger employees.
On the other hand, a compulsory retirement at a certain age leads to a smaller and less experienced working population. The retirees tend to be the most knowledgeable members of the workplace. In addition, the rationale for forced retirement runs into contradictions if applied to many concrete situations. By way of example: many office jobs don’t require much or any physical effort. They can be practiced up until high age when the worker decides to call it quits. In this case retirement at a certain age lowers the workforce in sectors that are usually not prone to physical risks and deprives firms of valuable human assets.
In summary, while some argue that the risks of injury and the possibilities for advancement are key reasons for a forced retirement, the other side of the coin is the shrinking of the maximally experienced working population, especially in non-physical employment.