One size doesn’t fit all

Yesterday the Employers’ Forum on Age held their 2009 Conference and Awards.  An impressive line up of speakers including Trevor Phillips, Evan Harris and various leading academics addressed issues of age stereotyping and discrimination, flexible working and overall workplace equality.  The general message to be taken away was what we ourselves have long known and believed: legislation can only ever go so far. Now it has had time to bed down, real change must come from overhauling workplace cultures and changing attitudes at an individual level.

The day’s last and most inspiring presenter was Joe Staton from the Future Foundation who provided convincing and highly motivating evidence for the idea that despite the current bleak outlook older people would continue to thrive as a result of our own energy, ingenuity and enthusiasm. As he rightly pointed out, we have reinvented ourselves and society before, and we can do so again – particularly through encore careers and later life entrepreneurship.

Employers including Centrica, McDonalds, British Gas, First ScotRail and lawyers Addleshaw Goddard received awards for their work on age in the workplace. They were eloquently and elegantly presented by Joan Bakewell who, even if she does nothing more, represents a breathtaking and cheering role model for later life working.

People don’t grow older like they used to

Well done to Standard Life for their current press campaign featuring – Hallelujah! – older people who don’t look truly elderly, simple or downtrodden. Badged with the slogan “people don’t grow older like they used to” the campaign uses black and white photos of both celebs (e.g. Mariella Frostrup, Marco Pierre White) and ordinary people (or perhaps I just don’t recognize them!) to reinforce what “older” looks like these days. And frankly, judging by these pictures, it ain’t bad.

Let’s have more of this positive approach from marketers – and soon.

Tax free flexible work for the over 65s.

Consultant director of think tank Reform, Professor Nick Bosanquet, has called on the Government to scrap tax on employed over 65 year olds to encourage older people to continue working into retirement.

Speaking at Standard Life’s The Death of Retirement conference on Feb 4^th, Bosanquet suggested that in the current economic climate older people would struggle to stay in the labour market. He said: “We are going to have a period of low interest rates which have already reduced the income and consumption of pensions and we are going to have a period in which there is job rationing in the labour market. Against that background how do we incentivise people to stay in work? My key change would be to make work after 65 virtually tax-free.”

At the same conference his colleague, Reform Director Andrew Haldenby, said that the government needed to do more to encourage people to take control of their retirement and be more active while the Conservative party’s pensions spokesman, Nigel Waterstone MP, called for pensions in the UK to be made more flexible.

All of these approaches are laudable but a combined onslaught of change on numerous fronts is urgently required if any real progress is to be made. Mandatory retirement ages need to be scrapped so that older individuals can neither be forced out of the workplace nor made redundant at 65 plus. Flexible working should also be introduced alongside flexible pensions. And a programme of education about the meaning and implications of pensions and retirement should be introduced to enlighten both employers and employees themselves – from an early age.

Bring on Boomer Barbie

Shock, horror! Barbie, Mattel’s leading toy-girl is going to be 50 this year!

But, despite various role incarnations and subtle physical changes, there’s no doubt that the good ol’ gal is still being modelled on a teen-physique representing the ideal plasticised non-ageing female body. Isn’t it time she was given a break and allowed to slow down and soften a little?

Not quite robe and slippers Barbie but an elegant, softened, less brittle Barbie.

Okay, she might lose her pre-teen following but in light of the alleged spending power of the Boomer generation an older Barbie might be the brightest anti-recessional marketing ploy imaginable. Just think: “Does my bum look big in this Barbie”, “Hair dye Barbie”, “Flat shoes Barbie”… the possibilities are endless.

Now what about Ken…?

Not such a heyday

News of a long-predicted collapse that for once has nothing to do with the credit crunch. Heyday, launched as a rival to Saga in 2006 with £22m funding from Age Concern, is finally being wound up following a damning Charity Commission report on its governance. The report marked the final nail in the coffin for a venture which from the start was based on an “entirely flawed proposition” according to industry experts such as Kevin Lavery from specialist over-50s marketing agency Millennium. Quite rightly he commented that “you should never sell services to older people on the basis of age”.

Our own view from the outset was that not only is Heyday an appallingly twee name, but few individuals are likely to want to pay for something that is either already freely available through other sources (e.g. social networking and other websites) or already done far better by existing providers (e.g. Saga  and other commercial specialist interest magazines).

The most worrying aspect of the whole sorry debacle is the extent to which Age Concern who should, if anyone, possess a detailed understanding of the nature of the mature market, seemed completely oblivious to the fact that the over 50s do not – and never will – represent a single unified cohort . What appeals to one 50 year old will not necessarily appeal to another; what appeals to a 50 year old will not appeal to a 75 year old. People do not define themselves or their interests primarily on the basis of age.

The fact that Age Concern (newly amalgamated with Help the Aged) is in a hugely influential position in terms of providing policy and advice to government and other key bodies and yet can have such a blinkered and unrealistic view of its own customer base is deeply disturbing. What other misguided and fatally flawed initiatives are going to result?

Too old to work

Today, when swearing, sex and medical abnormalities are the stuff of daily entertainment, it’s rare to encounter anything truly shocking on TV. Last night’s Channel 4 Dispatches programme, Too old to work was one of those times.  In a hard-hitting exposé of the appalling increase in the numbers of unemployed over 50s (a 30% increase in the past few months compared to 5% in the 25-49 age group) the programme also demonstrated the outrageous ageism which is rife amongst employers and recruitment agencies which serves  to prevent older workers from securing new  jobs.

Watching the programme was like trying to make sense of some bizarre parody being acted out in a play.  There was evidence aplenty that older individuals are just as effective and efficient in performance terms as their younger counterparts even before their greater experience is taken into account. Indeed the majority of the expert commentators were themselves in their latter years, proof in itself that those with the most knowledge are often older.  Yet the message was that employers see older individuals as being “past it” and lacking in value.

Similarly, on the financial front statistics were presented showing that although we are now all living longer, we are now increasingly being prevented from working longer. Yet the state pension – often all that people will have to rely on for several decades of non-working retirement – has to be funded somehow. So shouldn’t the drive be to keep everyone possible working longer rather than preventing them from doing so?

The government has stated that increasing the labour force participation of the over 50s is a target. This programme unequivocally underlined that it’s time they intervened in this appalling situation and took meaningful action to back up their intentions.

Older people? Who and why?

The Department of Work and Pensions has just published its 2008 update Opportunity Age Indicators: 2008 Update. This is a report on data and trends relating to its range of Opportunity Age Indicators  - measures of older people’s well-being and independence which are monitored to judge the effect that central and local Government strategies on ageing are having on the lives of today’s and tomorrow’s “older people”.

Opportunity Age was published in 2005 with the aim of

• ending the perception of older people as dependent
• ensuring that longer life is healthy and fulfilling, and
• ensuring that older people are full participants in society.

At that time thirty-three indicators were established to monitor older people’s well-being and independence, with the aim of measuring improvements in overall quality of life.

This is all well and good and the report makes interesting reading. But who exactly are these “older people”? Apparently they are all of those over 50 (which includes most of the government and many Civil Service policy makers).

It would appear that the term is supposed to refer to those who are or who may be in danger of becoming impoverished, dependent, isolated and/or unwell. But none of these is the sole prerogative of the aged -even though age may play a part. Many older people exhibit none of these characteristics whatsoever.

Surely such a campaign, albeit well meaning, is both patronizing and adds to the idea that age is a “problem”. For the majority, it is not. Life is a problem – poverty, loneliness and ill health can strike at any time. Let’s stop demonizing age.

Over 50 but not overly happy

“Over 50″ represents a huge spectrum – from wealthy and carefree at one end to lonely and impoverished at the other. Most of the bad news tends to be about the old, sick and helpless. But it’s by no means an automatic bed of roses for all of those who are younger and probably better off.

A report this week reveals that more middle-aged women (45- 54)  have depression or anxiety than ever before – up a fifth from 1993. And according to the survey, conducted by the NHS Information Centre, female pensioners are more than twice as likely to have mental problems than men

Experts believe the stresses of balancing home and work, caring for sick relatives, or feelings of loneliness after children leave home, can all contribute to the ‘crisis’.  On top of this, those who grew up in the Sixties are more likely than previous generations to feel they haven’t made enough of their life and to be unhappy with their looks.

Women are finding it increasingly difficult to balance home and work – and many are being put under stress because they have to care for parents with dementia. We also live in a society in which the relentless bombardment of youth can make even the most sophisticated woman feel depressed. Finally, this is the age when people question what they have achieved. But standards have never been higher for women who can be more unhappy than previous generations, not because they are worse off, but because their expectations are higher.

So there you go. Understandable. Perhaps inevitable. And hopefully for many, treatable. But we do need to keep it in mind when making broad brush statements about the over 50s. Who exactly are we talking about?

Flexible futures for the over 50s

On 1 April 2009, the government is intending to extend the right to request flexible working hours for parents with children up to the age of 16. According to a report on the HR Zone website this extension of working parents’ rights could result in a quarter of a million employees changing their working hours.

Furthermore “the proposed amendments to current legislation are likely to cause all employers genuine concern and could result in the incorporation of innovative new work patterns in the workplace to manage such requests”.

Academic research has established beyond all doubt that one thing that the majority of older workers are interested in is flexible working. So in the light of the current economic difficulties being faced by all businesses why doesn’t the government take an instant decision to move things along and extend the right to request flexible working to everyone?

Yes increased flexible working will cause initial disruption and teething problems for employers but it can be made workable. Research has also shown older workers to be the most trustworthy, reliable and committed age group of workers. Throwing them into the flexible working system would add to the gains to be made from a system which employers are going to have to implement whether they want to or not.

The tipping point – we are there!

When we set up in my prime we thought that our main point of focus was on the 50 to 75 year old section of the population which was clearly not elderly but was perceived so by the rest of the universe and, indeed, many members of that generation themselves. In consequence the legend we attached to our name was “in my prime – for mature people re-thinking their lives”.

This is still very much our area of activity but it is now quite obvious that if we wait for people to reach that magic age of 50 or thereabouts it is likely to be too late to put into place the groundwork necessary for that part of our lives to be truly “in our prime”.

The demographics have been heading only one way for some years now but, we believe, government, employers, and individuals themselves have been in denial hoping the problem will go away, won’t affect us personally, or somehow will be someone else’s problem, despite some introductory measures such as Age Discrimination legislation. It is quite apparent that none of these is true and that the march of time has finally caught up with us. It has also been brought into very clear perspective by the arrival of the credit crunch and the recession. To roll together a couple of very apt quotations, “Only when the tide goes out can you see the rocks on the sea bed or who’s swimming naked”.

House prices have fallen, pension funds have been depleted, savings levels have dropped and jobs are disappearing. All at a time when we can expect to live longer and longer. The issue, therefore, does not relate solely to those who are in their prime but also to anyone who hopes at some stage to reach that position – it is an issue for us for all of our working lives – from the beginning to the end, and beyond.

Here now we provide an analysis of the latest official UK statistics which show just what is happening and will be happening.

The period from 1971 to 2007 has seen the UK population grow from 56 million to 61 million, that is overall quite slowly, but it is now forecast to continue increasing at the rate of about 2 million every 5 years reaching 71 million by 2031. However, these figures mask a range of changes taking place and issues arising within these figures.

The number of children required per woman to keep the population steady is 2.1 but the present rate, although rising from an all time low in 2001 of 1.6, is only 1.9 (2007), on its own suggesting a drop in population. The increase is coming from people living longer and from a net migration inwards. The increase from 2007 to 2031 is reckoned to be 47% due to net migration and 53% due to net natural change. As a result of the low birth rate we will see fewer young people entering the potential workforce pool.

Despite the current recession, which we have to assume we will come out of, the implications of this looking into the future are: skills shortages; initiatives to bring more women into/back into the workplace; increased numbers of workers from other countries; the need to retain older workers.

With lower birth rates and greater longevity we see that, within the total UK population figure there is a huge shift in demographics. In 1971 nearly 7 in 10 were under 50 and 3 in 10 were 50 plus. By 2031 the proportion of those over 50 will have reached nearly 4 in 10. Currently, slightly over one third of our sixty million people are over 50, that is in excess of 20 million.

At the end of 2008 it was headlined in some newspapers that we are now a nation of pensioners. The reason is that for the first time the numbers of those reaching state pension age (65 for men and 60 for women) had overtaken, just, those who are under 16, the percentages being about 19% of the population for each.

Hence, we are about to see the first of the measures coming in, starting in 2010, to try to redress the balance, particularly in respect of the demands on the public purse. Between 2010 and 2020 the state pension age for women will be increased until it reaches 65, the same as for men.

And so adjusting our numbers for this we can see that the 2007 figures for those 65 or over consequently drop to 16% compared with the 19% for those under 16. However, this is only a temporary respite and by 2021 we are back to equal percentages again. And from then on it becomes progressively more and more stretched. Only 20 years later, in 2041, almost one quarter of the population will be 65 or more, 17% will be under 16 and the working population, needed to support both ends of the spectrum, will constitute 59%.

Looking at this in the context of the “support ratio” as it relates to older people, that is financing their state pensions, health costs, welfare etc., we see that in 1971 there were 4.6 in the 16-64 arena for each person of 65 plus but this drops to 2.7 by 2031 and only 2.1 by 2081.

And so we see the second of the state pension measures being introduced. Between 2024 and 2046, in three phases, the state pension age for both men and women will be raised from 65 to 68. People will be expected to work longer and, obviously, the default retirement age will have to move by at least this, if not scrapped altogether, although this has yet to come.

And how does this longer working life fit into the context of our total lifespan?

There are 2 ways of estimating life expectancy used by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The one most quoted, “period” life expectancy, is arrived at by presuming that the existing mortality rates at a particular time will continue on into the future. However, the one which ONS believes gives a better picture of expected longevity builds in the anticipated changes (to date improvements) in mortality going on into the future and therefore to be experienced by the people (“cohort”) concerned.

For a man who reached 65 in 1981 the period life expectancy was to live to 78, and for a woman to live to 82. By 2006 this had increased to 82 for a man and 85 for a woman. However, if we take into consideration improving life expectancy a man can, in fact, expect to live to 86 and a woman to 88. And, on this basis, a man reaching 65 in 2030 may expect to live to 88 and a woman to 90. By 2056 the figures become 91 and 93 respectively. The issues are certainly not confined to only today’s over 50s.

With improving mortality a male born in 2006 has a life expectancy at birth of 88 and a female of 91. If they reach 50 years old they can then expect to live to 90 and 93 respectively. The chances at birth of reaching 65 are now 91% for a male and 94% for a female and will provide life expectancies of around 92 and 94 respectively.

And so the figures pile up. Greater chances of living to 75, 85 and 100 plus and a larger and larger proportion of the population made up of the elderly.

And what does this say for our retirement? Well, even with the state pension age rising to 68 for both men and women, we will see an anticipated retirement of around 22 years for men and 24 years for women. The notion that retirement is a few twilight years after a lifetime of slog is no longer relevant.

And 22 or 24 years is a long time to finance oneself without working, a long time to fill in an interesting, fulfilling and valued way, and a long time to stay physically and mentally healthy. It means people will work for, say, 40 to 50 years and then be without paid employment for 20 to 25 years. In itself this is a lot of years but it is also a large proportion of one’s life.

But length of life is not automatically associated with quality of life and, although life expectancy is increasing, a number of our final years will be in less than perfect health. The Office for National Statistics calculates two types of health expectations in this respect. Healthy Life Expectancy (HLE) defines healthy life as years in good or fairly good self-perceived general health. Disability-free Life Expectancy defines healthy life as years free from limiting longstanding illness. On average men can expect about 7 of their final years to be associated with a limiting longstanding illness and women about 9 years. There is still a lot to do.

It’s all very well increasing retirement ages but will we be fit enough to work and will the workplace provide an appropriate environment?

In terms of working longer we are already seeing increasing numbers of people working on beyond state pension age. Since 2000 the proportion of men of 65 and over who are working has increased from 7.3% to 10.6%. And for women of 60 and over the figures are 8.4% and 12.5 %. The latter figure will obviously increase as the state pension age increases for women start to kick in. Although these numbers are still fairly low in absolute terms they are growing rapidly as many people choose or feel the need to continue working longer.

Non-retirement isn’t working

The CIPD reports that according to figures from the Office for National Statistics unemployment among the over-50s rose by 27 per cent over the last quarter, compared with a rise of 8 per cent among those aged 24 to 49. Martin Lishman, Director-General of Age Concern, said that only one in five of the over-50s who lose their jobs are back in work two years later.

Last week the House of Lords expressed support for a campaign by Heyday, a branch of Age Concern, to make fixed retirement ages unlawful. Lishman urged the government to “urgently scrap pointless mandatory retirement ages so people who want and need to continue working can do so”.

If only it was that simple. The majority of the over 50s who are now unemployed are unlikely to be so because of the mandatory retirement age barrier. For a start, many are likely to be far younger. Surely the key issue is why only 20% will have landed a job two years later. Employer resistance to hiring the over 50s? Ageist stereotypes?  Lack of appropriate skills in the over 50s? Lack of confidence? Lack of persistence in applying for jobs in the face of total disinterest and rejection?

Probably a combination of all of these and more.  Mandatory retirement is likely to be low on the list.