In many countries, the law sets a single age at which everyone is expected to retire, and some argue that this uniform approach is unfair. I largely share this view, since individuals differ so greatly in their circumstances.
There are compelling reasons to regard a fixed retirement age as unjust. The most obvious is that people perform very different kinds of work. Those in physically demanding occupations, such as construction or manufacturing, are often worn down by their fifties and may genuinely need to stop, whereas office workers frequently remain capable and willing to continue well beyond the official age. Health, too, varies enormously: many older people retain their energy and expertise, and compelling them to retire wastes valuable experience while depriving them of purpose and income.
That said, the argument for a fixed age is not without merit. A uniform rule is simple to administer and treats everyone by the same standard, which feels equitable. It also helps to open up positions for younger workers, since the departure of older employees creates vacancies that the next generation can fill.
In my opinion, however, these advantages do not outweigh the unfairness of ignoring individual difference. A more flexible arrangement, allowing people to retire earlier or later according to their health and the nature of their work, would be considerably fairer and would also let society retain skilled workers who still have much to offer. Overall, I agree that imposing a single retirement age on everyone is unfair, and I believe a flexible system would serve both individuals and the economy far better.