Most countries prescribe a single age at which citizens are expected to leave the workforce, and a growing number of people contend that such uniformity is inherently unfair. I am inclined to agree, for a rule that treats profoundly different individuals identically can hardly be described as just.
The strongest objection to a fixed retirement age is that it disregards the sheer diversity of working lives. Those engaged in gruelling physical labour, in construction or heavy industry, are frequently exhausted by late middle age and may urgently require rest, whereas professionals in sedentary roles often remain productive and eager to continue long afterwards. Individual health compounds the disparity: many older people retain vigour and hard-won expertise, and forcing them into idleness squanders their contribution while stripping them of purpose and financial security alike.
The defence of a uniform age is nonetheless comprehensible. A single threshold is straightforward to administer and appears even-handed, applying the same standard to all, and it undeniably eases the entry of younger workers by ensuring a steady turnover of posts.
These considerations, however, seem to me to weigh lightly against the injustice of ignoring personal circumstance. A flexible framework, under which people could retire earlier or later according to their health and the demands of their occupation, would be markedly fairer and would allow economies to retain capable, experienced workers who still wish to serve. On balance, therefore, I agree that a single retirement age for everyone is unfair, and I am convinced that a flexible alternative would better reconcile the interests of individuals and society.