Many people say that the mandatory retirement age should be raised because global life expectancy is rising. They argue this is the only way to ensure the financial health of public pension systems. However, I strongly disagree with this view, as I believe such a policy overlooks significant social and physiological realities. This essay will explain why forcing individuals to work longer is neither practical nor fair.
Firstly, focusing solely on longevity ignores the physical and cognitive toll of aging, which affects everyone differently. As individuals enter their late sixties, their physical stamina and mental agility naturally decline, making highly demanding roles increasingly unsuitable. For instance, my own father, now 65, suffers from chronic back pain and simply cannot stand for long periods. Although he was a healthy man who worked tirelessly for his family when young, he now deserves to stay home and relax. Extending his working life would be deeply unfair, particularly for those in manual labor roles whose bodies break down sooner.
Secondly, while older people possess a vast amount of good work knowledge from their long careers, this does not automatically justify prolonging their full-time employment. We can certainly ask them for help to learn from their experience, which benefits the younger generation. However, their ability to perform daily tasks requiring sharp focus and high energy may diminish. For example, I have found that some university lecturers over 60 often struggle to explain the lessons clearly in class, forcing students to rely on self-study. Their knowledge is immense, but the energy required for effective full-time teaching may be lacking.
In conclusion, I maintain that prolonging the retirement age is a flawed approach. Older people have earned the right to rest and relax in their later years. A better solution is to encourage them to share their experience through part-time mentoring or consulting roles, rather than obligating them to continue in demanding full-time positions.