Five-year licences harm island, says review
Wednesday 4th November 2009, 2:30PM GMT.
GUERNSEY’S housing licensing system should change to end uncertainty when five-year licences expire, a new report has said.
Lord Hunt of Wirral’s strategic review of Guernsey’s banking industry was presented to Commerce and Employment board members yesterday.
In it, the chairman of the financial services division of Beachcroft LLP made 18 recommendations.
These included promoting a diversity of business models, moving away from deposit gathering and towards a mix of high value-adding banking services, but most notably a shake-up of housing licences.
Lord Hunt (pictured)said there was too much uncertainty for employers and employees when five-year licences were due to expire and that Housing, along with Commerce and Employment, needed to review the system.
He suggested licences of seven to nine years and even creating a market where competitors could trade a few extra licences for certain classes of business.
‘This could both ease the strain to which the banks refer and create price signals with which the Housing Department could better understand the demand.
‘It would also raise some extra revenue, some of which might pay for the extra administration and monitoring.’
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
This licence problem comes up time and time again, but as ever no action is taken to resolve it.
It creates unrest for employers and employees, extra costs and employees do look at this and think is it worth going to Guernsey just for 5 years?
Why can’t the states make the licences longer? Exactly no reason! All they need to do is ask people that are on licence to sign an agreement making sure they never apply to become resisdent as that is really why the states don’t like people staying on the island.
All very short sighted really. If you have an employee working and living in Guernsey and their licence expires, why can’t it be extended? All that happens is they leave, experience is gone and a employer is left with a expensive gap to fill!
Report abuse
I’d be happy to import finance professionals on one, two or three year licences. Indeed, as an employer I’d be more comfortable, as there’d be less chance for my expensively recruited staff to jump ship after a year.
It would appear that Hunt has only talked with the banking sector and their apologists.
There may be some merit in TS’s declaration idea, but I’d prefer a Visa, where anyone not in the job they came here to do; who commits a criminal offence while here; or who exceeds their allotted time can be deported.
As for this problem being raised time and again and not sorted out – what real problem is there?
If banks are paying £60k plus for these “essential” workers, let them eat open market cake in the bank’s extensive, subsidised housing portfolios. If they aren’t paying that sort of money, they can hardly argue essentiality, now can they? Front line teachers, nurses, doctors, policemen are more essential than the lower end bank employee that could probably be outsourced.
Report abuse
This farce, namely an entirely NON independent report that CMB’s own Committee commissioned, certainly makes it obvious who’s pulling the strings, and in whose interest this has been created for.
So, C & E, oops, sorry, ‘Lord Hunt’ proposes that C & E take care of all licences in future (ok, maybe..) but then (just coincidentally) C & E, oops, sorry, ‘Lord Hunt’ suggests that there should be a representative of the 2700 strong workforce (in an island of 60000) – namely, FINANCE – actually ON their Committee….
that’s the SAME industry that wants more extended licences…..
wow! Now that IS an coincidence, isn’t it?!
Ok, so that’s the 2700 represented there, so, how about the other industries who employ the rest of us?
Are the Hotels going to have a place on the Committee, too? Growers? Electricians? I’m sure they’d all like a say in this, just to keep a balanced view, like, and perhaps see what’s actually discussed at these meetings. I bet we ALL would.
Really, this woman and her Committees attempts to score brownie points with her peers – that’ll be the finance industry, NOT the Government or the people they’re supposed to represent – are so transparent, that dressing it up as a ”report’ simply insults the average islanders intelligence.
Report abuse
Very strange isn’t it?
They don’t like the 5 years ruling in Guernsey: yet turn a blind eye to their own ruling in their country.
Don’t do as I do, just do what I say.
Report abuse
As far as I see it, you lenghthen the license to 7 – 9 years, renew it once and hey presto, there are a whole heap of new locally qualified residents. Who are then able to drive up house prices even further and drive locals out of the market even more. Why not invest in local education? It will result in a more stable population, won’t it?
There are plenty of locals who, given the opportunities, could fill these “expensive gaps”. If experience is so valued, why not focus on qualified residents? Are we really all too ignorant to pass the CFA? Aren’t Guernsey exam results typically better than those in the UK? Am I missing something?
Report abuse
TS
The whole point of having a limited license period is to ensure that people who come to work in Guernsey do not become permanent residents and there should be no unrest amongst employees as they are aware of the conditions and length of license before they arrive in Guernsey Hundreds have come and gone over that period, training local people during their period here so they don’t have an expensive gap to fill. We now we have a situation where 90% of those who work in the finance and related sector are local or locally qualified people (in housing terms) Employing local people cuts the costs to employers. The system is as I have said before is no different from many other countries that have restrictions on residency. I would also remind people that the huge economic growth that the island has experienced over the last 40 years has taken place with this strict housing law in place, so the 5 year license period has certainly not been a barrier to growth. If we had not had such restrictions hundreds of people together with their families would have been brought in and we would have had many more local people looking for work. We do extend some licenses in exceptional circumstances and the system we have has undoubtedly gone a long way to help keep Guernsey’s population at manageable levels. However we are still heavily over populated and we have one of the highest density of people per square mile in the world and the quality of life has suffered as a result which is why the States keeps this policy.
Report abuse
I sincerely believe that 5 years is the maximum that should be allowed (I would prefer less) however if a Guernsey person cannot learn whatever the job in five years then it a poor show,
To me TS letter is a ruse for more and more of the other lot to occupy our Island.
We the Islanders should have more say in our Island’s running and future.
Once these havens are stopped (and they will be) then there will be general flight of these people.
KEEP THE 5 YEARS, (Or less).
Report abuse
Eric if it was less then five years then there would be so many fewer nurses, doctors, teachers etc that Guernsey would find itself in a lot of trouble very quickly. You can’t tar everyone with the same brush and talk about “the other lot” when it’s not non-locals who are the problem. The system is flawed on so many levels. I think you will find that “the other lot” are the ones interested in the jobs that Guernsey offers and very few locals apply. An example for you, a job at the OGH’s spa and beauty centre that was advertised in the Press (and nowhere else) had no locals apply for it, only English people. Locals need the qualifications to apply for these jobs otherwise you will have a local, yet substandard, workforce. The system does need to change, keeping it at 5 years or less is not the answer.
Report abuse
Irrespective of what length of time any housing license is for, be it 5,7 or 10 years, you might as well split it right down the middle. The reality is that most professionals cannot take the risk of waiting the full period of time of any license in the knowledge that at the end of the stipulated period of the license they may well still have a job, but nowhere to live.
Custom and practice would suggest many, particularly ones with children, make the decision to move on half way through their license period to the frustration of both themselves and their employers.
There are no easy answers to this ongoing problem; it may well be that, in time, human rights law dictates the path local housing laws must follow, and then there will possibly be a free-for-all, which will be no more beneficial than the current system. This will probably mean that local people are excluded even more because homes will then go to the highest bidder, irrespective of their origin.
Report abuse
In the health service so many people have to leave after 5 or 7 years and leave a big gap as, in certain services, it is difficult to build relationships of trust and these are just developing nicely when the professional must leave, or chooses to leave early because they dare not wait for their license period to be up. Also, the market for health service jobs (in the UK as well as here)is such that people must take opportunities when they arise, rather than waiting until their time is up.
The cost to the HSSD in bringing people over for interview is horrendous, involving air-fares, hotel accommodation, taxi services etc, and never seems to get a mention, and obviously the shorter the period of time someone works here the sooner the need to re-advertise and interview for that post.
Re-finance industry – I find it hard to believe that 90% of staff are local people! And horrifying that many people in the finance industry are given 15-year licenses and yet in the HSSD this is a relative rarity, and is more likely to involve management than front-line staff.
Who is likely to benefit the local person most? Who is more likely to push up the cost of local housing?
Report abuse
Belle, I agree there should be provision for allowing good nurses (and other health workers) to remain on the island longer term. I would be happy to be treated by highly skilled African or Asian nurses who have the security of knowing they are here long enough to feel part of our community.
About the 90% figure provided by Dave Jones in regard to finance, that included local AND locally qualified, i.e. people who aren’t locally born but are qualified to live here without a licence. I’m assuming he is including Open Market residents and people who have married islanders in that number – that being the case I don’t find it particularly difficult to believe that 10% of finance industry workers are licence holders.
Report abuse
Actually the States policy does state that licences should be kept to five years or less in the majority of cases, of course there will always be applicants who will fall into the 15 year category but housing do try and keep within policy.
As far as nurses are concerned who live in H&SSD nursing accommodation, they don’t need licences and yet this sector in health shows that this is where the biggest turnover of staff is.
I can’t explain it and you can see therefore, that it certainly has nothing to do with licences.
I would also say that H&SSD have had the baulk of all the 15 year licences issued to the public sector for Mental Health professionals, Doctor’s, Senior radiologists, senior theatre nurses, Childcare professionals the list is quite comphensive so it is not true to say that 15 year licences in health are a rarity. We recognise that these health specialists are not to be found locally on many occasions and because of that housing issue the relevant licences accordingly. The Teacher argument is also an interesting one, only a few years ago we used to issue housing licences to junior school teachers, we no longer do, as we have enough local teachers to fill those posts, in fact we have a handful of local teachers looking for jobs in the junior sector of education. The secondary schools are more difficult to recruit locals to, however Housing & Education are working hard to make sure more local teachers can return to take up these posts where they are available, which again is why we do not extend or give longer licences to all teachers as both Housing and Education have no wish to block jobs for local people who wish to return to their island home and teach in local schools. The same with police officer the majority are local recruits locally trained.
I can also tell you that our housing laws are tested under the HR law and the courts do recognise that small communities have a right to control their populations. I doubt very much weather the States will ever vote for a “free for all” but we will have to see when any new law comes back to the States for approval. P le P is correct on the issue of percentages and they do include people in open market.
Report abuse
Deputy Jones – many thanks for the information about the nursing accomodation and licences, I wasn’t aware of that.
Nevertheless, although it’s not a licence issue I still wonder whether accomodation arrangements play a significant part in high nursing staff turnover?
- We are placing people in an environment where it is extremely difficult to integrate into the community.
- They live in accomodation surrounded by people in exactly the same boat from other nations who will naturally be nervous coming to a new place.
- They work unsociable hours which, although part and parcel of the job, only adds to the difficulty as they have less time to get involved with a community.
I can imagine it creates a something not too dissimilar to a ghetto mentality where they feel isolated from the rest of the community. In fact I would say that without a “ready made” community such as a church (we are fortunate to have many African nurses at our church) it must be almost impossible to feel part of the local community. I can imagine this being especially difficult for African nurses where a sense of community is such a strong cultural characteristic.
I can’t comment on the standard of accomodation as I haven’t seen it personally, however even with excellent accomodation standards that kind of living environment is still inconducive to a lengthy stay.
Report abuse
Re: Healthcare workers. I know a few who would love to stay but many more come here with no intention of staying more than a year or two – using Guernsey as a stepping stone for travelling. For those that are given licences (even 15 year licences) many leave after their rent allowance is stopped after 2 years stating that they cannot afford to live here! Locals have to find a way to buy or rent on the salaries they are given and are not allowed to live in HSSD subsidised accommodation so in a way they are discriminated against.
We will never have enough local workers (and i include those married to locally born staff). We will always need to recruit from elsewhere and i think the balance is probably correct. Dave Jones uses the example of teachers to prove that there are more local school leavers training to be teachers now who want to come back – perhaps that will also increase with other healthcare workers. The trouble with giving 15 year licences to senior staff is that a glass ceiling is then imposed and local staff will never be able to get promoted as the senior posts are taken by licence holders. Perhaps giving 15 year licences to staff who have proved themselves after 5 years to be good workers and who are working their way up may be the way to go.
There is no easy answer but i think housing have got it about right. They will never win.
Report abuse
In addition to reasons on my post, Florence is also correct that many healthcare workers come here and use Guernsey as a stepping-stone for further travelling – they have no intention of staying.
As Florence concludes the situation is complex and I agree there is no easy answer.
Report abuse
Paul
The standard of nursing accommodation is very high, as you will be aware the States a couple of years ago spent over 8 million on nurses accommodation at the PEH that is in addition to the small hotels that have been purchased over the years and refurbished for nurses and other health workers. In addition to that we have just handed over the first new key worker development (Ambala) to H&SSD run and managed by the GHA for health workers up by the roundabout at Ruette Braye. So you can see what is being done. My own personal belief is that there should be a massive local recruitment drive to get back the hundreds of locals that once worked for our health service who now do not anymore. It might help if Health offered the local people the same employment package and rent allowances they offer to off island health workers.
Florence
I am grateful for your understanding for the difficult job Housing has, it is always a question of balance. The glass ceiling is a real problem and it is something we have been in discussion with both Health and Education to make sure that the career path of local people looking to move up the promotional ladder is not unnecessarily blocked by long term licences.
Report abuse
Paul le Page – it is conducive to exceptionally long stays. Because these occupiers of HSSD staff accomodation are usually single, it has led to many of them marrying (or cohabiting with) locals over the years.
Once residentially qualified, though, they may well leave HSSD as they are then no longer subsidised, and may need to finance a family and a mortgage.
Report abuse
It’s about time these So called Lords mind their own business. look at the way you run the country YOU lot call England,
Maybe if you looked after your own people instead of being Pinocchio (sticking you nose in) then it might, just might be feasible.
But how you treat your own is a disgrace.
Report abuse
The Government should take better care of their own local people and money put into training programmes for all. Why bring in so many outsiders when there is a valid workforce on island. Cost of living and accommodation (rentals) drove me away from Guernsey and it’s impossible for any of my family to buy a property, in fact, they struggle weekly to find the extortionate amounts for their rents. Locals have been treated abominably and I saw this all coming many years ago, writing frequently to the Press but no-one took any of my comments seriously or were willing to fight the States to prevent the crisis. Still the island is grossly overcrowde, far too many cars on the roads, flights etc; off island far too expensive, making any holidays elsewhere incredibly expensive. Non local nurses find it hard to go home for visits due to the costs of flying etc so get fed up and leave. guernsey has become the most greed fuelled place I have ever seen. The states sold us out through pure avarice.
Report abuse
One major problem that everyone has overlooked is the demographic timebomb that Guernsey faces. Its all well and good having a housing licence system which limits the number who gain full residential qualifications, and indeed that system has generally worked very well to date, but in 20 years time our ageing population will be unable to be sustained by the working population. Its no good waiting until we get to 2030 before addressing the problem as its by then far too late. Very soon, and I suspect within the next 5 years, we will have to start actively growing our working population with people who will form the core of our workforce 15 years later. That probably means recruiting lots of people in their 20s and early 30s, which in turn means building more apartments and small units. The demand for 3 bedroom and 4 bedroom homes will reduce as the older population downsize. We ignore this inevitable trend at our peril.
Report abuse
When we are forced into the EU they will become irrelevant.
Report abuse
David,
The demographic timebomb is not being ignored. But trying to alleviate it through population growth would be self-defeating and damaging.
Outside of a few city states – which I don’t think most people here would wish to emulate – Guernsey’s population density is already among the highest. We’re nearly 30% more densely-populated than Jersey, two-and-a-half times more than England, and seven times more than the Isle of Man.
If one assumes a broad correlation between growth in the economy and growth in population, there exists a significant danger that pursuing foolhardy policies today could put us on an unstoppable population escalator tomorrow. While Guernsey remains generally prosperous, there will be calls for population growth – but I am doubtful that we could reconcile continuing population growth with social and environmental sustainability and quality of life.
The Policy Council did propose population growth as recently as February 2007. Thankfully, the States threw out their proposals and supported the objective of population stability.
The Policy Council proposed population growth of around 4,000 over a period of years. The perceived benefits were all superficial. Their proposals wouldn’t even have made any material difference to the looming demographic timebomb, but they would have extended the ‘bulge’ in population that causes the timebomb and compromised our quality of life at least to an extent.
Unless we are prepared to accept population growth of literally tens of thousands – and I don’t think we are – we just have to accept that we can’t stop the demographic challenges ahead. They will have a serious effect on all of us, but I’m sure we are sufficiently creative and resilient to overcome them without the self-defeating prospect of population growth.
There are two bits of good news on this front. First, the demographic timebomb will be temporary. Second, this States has already approved most of the reforms necessary to Social Security contribution rates to address probably the most serious aspect of the demographic timebomb – ensuring that the island’s pension pot remains sustainable for the next several decades.
And that was done on the basis of population stability, not population growth.
David, I agree with your point about the seriousness of the demographic problems ahead, but I cannot agree with the solution of population growth that you propose.
Report abuse
Matt
Sorry but you are being very naïve. By 2030 the proportion of retired people relative to the working population will have soared. There will not be enough people of working age to generate the taxes and social security revenues to pay for the running of the island, or to pay for the pensions and nursing home costs of the soaring elderly. Its no good waiting until 2025 before dealing with the problem.
The elderly will not be driving in their cars all day, crowding the island’s roads. They won’t be filling our schools. They will be residing in sheltered housing, semi-sheltered housing, nursing homes, hospitals and hospices, of which we will need to build many more (maybe a few primary schools will be closed and converted).
The total island population would rise but the island would not be more crowded in “normal” terms.
I’m not saying that we should abandon housing controls today, although I am saying that we could do a lot worse than grant 15 year housing licences to teachers, nurses and other public sector workers because in 15 years time the fact that some of them have settled here permanently with their own children will be only a fraction of the problem that it is today.
Report abuse
Ask the American Indians what happens when you don’t control immigration
Report abuse
David
Are you some kind of know it all? as i`ve seen here and on other posts that when your OPINION is questioned you come back with things like “naive” or that one doesn`t know what their talking about as you suggested to Stephen John.
Report abuse
Eric and Dazzer, good points. All locals born and bred or married into the equation are the people who should have the entitlement to comment on this situation. After all it is our place of birth (supposedly). It would appear that dispite this we actually have no say whatsoever, money talks and the one tracked mind towards the finance industry will eventually come back to bite us all on the butt. Call me selfish but I cannot wait for this place to go bang. Us true guerns will find a way to pick ourselves up whilst all the wealthy who have contributed to this mess and the eyesores will have long gone to pastures new where the grass is greener.
Report abuse
Look at the headline at the top of this thread and tell me if you think it matches some of the content of this report, I will quote a small part of it concerning Housing Licences.
“To my surprise, it seems that most banks rely comparatively little on housing licences using just a small handful in each case and sometimes none. So broadly, I do not find a case exists for a radical change to population or housing policy solely on the grounds of the needs of the banking industry.”
Report abuse
couldn’t agree with you more, bcb.
The ‘let’s just cram our tiny island full of more people (and cars, houses, etc etc) theory to supposedly solve any economic difficulties faced by the island in the future, is naive, facile and short sighted, lacks any ingenuity, and is put forward by someone bold enough to have the courage of his convictions on a comments board, but not, I suspect, to stand for election and see how many people actually support his views..?
I think we should thank our lucky stars that the omnipotent knower of all things doesn’t run our island, or we would, as Dave J said, realise exactly how it feels to be a Native American.
Report abuse
bcb
No, I’m not a “know it all”.
Re my comment to Matt Fallaize, it doesn’t take a Brain of Britain to work out that people currently aged 45 will be aged 66 in 2030 !! Nobody is going to age at any different rate than the norm. If we control immigration as at now, then its very easy to predict how our demographics will look in 2030.
Re. my comment to Stephen John, I have spelt out time and time again the difference between avoidance and evasion and what is a crime and what isn’t. As a tax planner for the past 25 years I think I know the difference. If I didn’t know more than a layman (ie a teacher in Stephen’s case) then something would be very wrong indeed.
Report abuse
David,
Your 2.55 post re-defines the looming demographic timebomb, but thus far you have not demonstrated how your proposed solution – population growth – would significantly ease the problem.
You say that there will not be enough people of working age to generate Social Security revenues and you imply that the States may wait until 2025 to do something about it. With respect, this is utter nonsense. The reforms made to Social Security this summer mean that the contributory scheme will be fully funded and sustainable throughout the period of the demographic timebomb with only very moderate further revision necessary at some point, e.g. an increase of half of one per cent on the contribution rates of employers.
The scale of the demographic timebomb is defined by the dependency ratio – the number of retired and school-age people divided by the number of people of working age. It is currently 0.5 and it will deteriorate steadily over decades unless we are prepared to consider population growth of literally tens of thousands.
Aiming for population growth of around 8,000 over the next 35 years or so would still result in a deterioration of the dependency ratio to around 0.75 by the year 2063. However, there is only a slight difference between that figure of 0.75 and the figure that would be produced by pursuing population stability (i.e. the current policy).
Population growth – except massive growth – would do little to address the demographic timebomb, but it would put significant pressure on our infrastructure and quality of life, and also more than likely put us on that population escalator requiring an ever-increasing number of working age immigrants to support an ever-increasing number of retirees.
Please don’t forget that the States policy is to maintain the population at approximately the same level. The policy is not to aim for zero net migration, which would result in a fall in population to around 44,000 by the year 2063.
One interesting aspect of this debate is the relationship between Guernsey’s fiscal and economic strategy [predicated on quite ambitious growth] and its population policy [predicated on no growth]. We know that the fiscal and economic strategy [zero-10] is about to be replaced. And we know that the Treasury Minister has said publicly that if the two policies cannot be reconciled, the population policy should remain and the fiscal and economic strategy should be made to conform to it.
Report abuse
Matt
Sorry – I did not mean to infer that population growth was the only way to address the demographic timebomb. It is just one leg of a multi-legged strategy which will be needed.
However you only talk about the Social Security fund which of course has been addressed, and you seem to have rather overlooked the rather important contribution that employee income tax revenues make towards funding the island’s infrastructure. The revised Social Security contributions pays for our pensions and social security benefits, but who is going to pay for the schools, the roads and the health service ? I think you will find that a drastically deteriorating dependency ratio would result in a massive black hole as we certainly won’t be relying on the huge increase in pensioners to replace employee income tax revenues.
I don’t think there is cat in hell’s chance of replacing the lost ETI revenues in or around 2025 unless there is major immigration of working age people. If there is, then I’d be intrigued to hear your solution.
My original point was to say (perhaps not very well) that so what if we allow a percantage of nurses, teachers and other vital public sector workers to settle here permanently by granting them 15-year licences ? We are definitely going to need a degree of population growth and if any relaxation of housing licences is to be allowed, then surely those are the sectors which we should be prioritising.
Report abuse
with regard to Dave Jones’s post earlier. he says that housing and education are working hard to help local teachers return to work in secondary education.My son is a locally qualified teacher with a good degree who after four years at university wished to return to teach in the place of his birth. The housing and education departments did NOTHING to help him to find a job at all. I contacted all of the Vale deputies to see if they could help. Only one the then deputy De Jersey was any help. As it was my son got lucky and covered a teacher who took a year out for maternity leave. He is now head of department and much appreciated by his pupils and colleagues a like.So dave jones could you explain exactly what help housing and education give to returning local teachers e.t.c. I do agree with you that returning professionals should get the same benefits as licence holders e.g. housing allowance e.t.c.this would be a start.
Report abuse
It always amuses me when a topic like this generates so much apparent fury amongst some (Eric, you’re always a good one to get things going and give the English a good old ear bashing).
We like our imports here in Guernsey, but on our terms only. No one else’s opinion matters because if you weren’t born here you can’t possibly be right about anything to do with Guernsey. If you don’t like it you foreigners can lump it and go back home. And our faces will look all the better for having no noses. Or will they?…
Report abuse
An interesting sub-debate on demograhics. Personaly I am not convinced it is either social security contributions or ETI payments which will be the biggest pinch point. Rather I suspect it will simply be having enough people of working age to carry out all the tasks that any comunity needs to be carried out. This will include providing the services that our growing elderly population will require.
I don’t see how moving from 5 year to 15 year licenses will help with our demograhic problems – quite the opposite. The system of 5 year licenses is hateful in many ways. It is harsh on those doing a good job and wanting to stay. It is problematic for employers, particularly in areas where skills are scarse. It also disrupts continuity in the provision of services. However on the plus side it is hugely beneficial for our demograhics, because thousands of people spend part of their economically active life in Guernsey without ever growing old here.
The real answers to the demographic timebomb will be both harsh and unpopular – although the problems of longevity are good ones to have. The movement of young labour will not be a long term solution. Not only will it increase our population – unless they are all on fixed term licenses – but the morality/practicality is questionable as all western countries are suffering from the same sort of demographic issues.
The main answer to the problems of Soc Sec and ETI is going to be that those of working age will have to pay more or else expect lower pensions/poorer services and infrastructure. The main answer to not having enough hands to do the work will be people having to work longer. If the trends in longevity [and staying fitter for longer] continue then I am sure that in a few decades time working until age 70 will be normal.
Report abuse
Peter
Some interesting and well-made points there. You are quite right that even if we are able to fund public services, we may not be able to humanly resource it.
The tax implications for the reduced working population could be very substantial indeed, and working until aged 70 (plus)is probably unavoidable.
On that cheerful note….
Report abuse
does peter roffey mean working full time or part time until the age of seventy will be normal?
Mr Roffey try being a building labourer (full time) when you are seventy.
dare I say that perhaps all companies could do more to provide pensions for their workers then when folks reach sixty five they could go part time. After all there are a lot of people getting rich off the backs of their employees who face a future, if you are right, of working until they drop. Maybe it should be compulsary for employers to provide some form of pension for their employees.Also your point about staying fitter for longer is open to question. There are many folks who are kept going by medication and are not fit to work beyond sixty five. I predict a lot of people will be on supplimentry\sickness benefit when they reach sixty five then where will the savings for government\taxpayer be? What a future!
Report abuse
Kevin,
I am not saying that I think it is a good thing that most of us will have to work for longer. I am simply saying that it may not be avoidable. I completely take your point about hard manual labour. I am only in my 50s and I can already feel myself slowing down compared with 10 years ago when doing a hard day’s gardening or whatever. I think you are right that society and employers are going to have to think this through so that older workers have options to do less taxing work and/or work part time as they move towards retirement.
However the hard reality is that with a higher % of the population above what we now regard as the normal retirement age most of us will have to work longer. The statistis are quite clear that as well as people living longer on average there is also a trend towards staying fitter for longer. By that I mean staying generaly well, not being able to run a 5 minute mile or carry heavy loads. Of course its not true for everybody but the condition of the average 70 ear old is very different to what it was in the 1960s.
Report abuse
Oh my god David says we could end up in another black hole, i`m off for the hills.
We had full employment and still we had a black hole created by guess who?.
Report abuse
bcb
At least this one is 100% predictable and we have 20 years advance notice of it !
Report abuse