Mandatory retirement age varies from society to society, perhaps a reflection of economics, population (pressures) or simply value systems. Indeed, retirement at 50 can probably be as easily justified as that at 70. It is my belief, however, that the longer an able person is allowed to work, the better for both the (individual) worker and the employer.
Chronological age is not always a true (indicator) of ability. While some 65¬ year-olds may not perform as well as they did in their past, many workers at this age do just as well or better than they used to. People's (suitability) for a position should be a reflection of their performance in the job, rather than the number of wrinkles or grey hairs they have. Employers concerned about the increasing age of their employees need only (observe) their work records. Those doing poorly may be asked to retire, but those as yet unaffected by age should stay on. Indeed, it would appear economical for an organisation to retain its older employees when possible rather than spend time and money on training new workers.
Remaining in one's job for as long as one is able makes sense as (life expectancies) increase around the world. As people live longer, they are longer able to contribute to society in the form of meaningful work. But they are also in need of income for a longer period, so a (mandatory) retirement age of 55 for someone who is statistically likely to live to 77 becomes increasingly difficult to justify. At a time when populations are ageing, governments are less able to provide for their senior (citizens), so by keeping able workers in paid employment for as long as is practicable, public (expenditures) are less strained.
Thus, workers who can still (demonstrate) their capacity to carry out their work should not be asked to retire simply because they have reached a certain age. Societies that insist on early retirement may do well to look again at their policies.
