Tag Archives: Pension

Why retirement might not be as stress-free as you hoped!

Ahhhh retirement: finally time to relax, enjoy life, unwind and feel less stressed. That is certainly how many people will be expecting or hoping that their retirement will pan out when it happens. But research by Tarani Chandola from the University of Manchester and colleagues at UCL and the University of Essex, shows that whilst dreams of a less stressful life in retirement may come true for those in higher status jobs, they are less likely to do so for those in low status occupations. Here he explains the research, which uses innovative methods to see whether retirement really is the stress buster many of us hope it will be.

We have known for some time that people from poorer backgrounds in low status jobs generally have poorer health across their lives and tend to suffer from greater levels of stress. Those health inequalities widen as people get older, but it had been assumed that retirement might see a closing of the gap, because poorer workers have higher levels of work stress, but this appears not to be the case, something that researchers have found hard to explain.

As most countries are now raising retirement age and, with it, the age at which workers can collect their State Pension, it is really important that we understand the impact these policies might have on the health and wellbeing of employees, particularly those in disadvantaged working conditions.

In this research, rather than just making use of self-reported health information from workers, we wanted to get right under their skin to look at what signs of stress there were in their bodies in the run up to and after retirement. We wanted to compare the stress levels of those who had just retired to those still in work and we also wanted to compare the stress levels of workers in high and low grade jobs.

We were able to do this by looking at the changing levels of a stress related hormone called cortisol.

Whitehall Study

Our information came from The Whitehall Study, which has tracked the working lives of thousands of UK civil servants since the 1980s. As well as being a good fit for the research because of the type of information available, using a longitudinal survey like this enabled us to observe the same people over this important period of in their lives.

We focused on just over 1000 of the study’s participants who were aged around 60 and who, as part of the Study, provided a series of saliva samples across a day. Using these saliva samples, we could measure their changing levels of cortisol over the day. Waking up in the morning results in the release of cortisol, which declines to almost negligible levels by bedtime. The steeper the declines in a person’s cortisol measurement across the day, the less stressed they were. People with relatively higher levels of cortisol at bedtime are more stressed and have a flatter rate of decline of cortisol.

Their employment grade was categorised as ‘high’, middle or ‘low’ according to the civil service banding system.

Civil servants who were employed in the lowest status jobs had the highest levels of stress, whilst those in the highest status jobs were the least stressed. We could also see that, after retirement, when we might have expected biological stress levels to fall for all the workers, this was only the case for those in the top jobs. Lower grade workers who had just retired were just as stressed as their peers who were still working.

Stresses and strains of working life

Worryingly, far from being a time when the stresses and strains of working life melt away, retirement seems to bring little or no relief for those in lower grade occupations. It seems the health inequalities observed between those in high and low grade jobs are magnified not only as workers get older, but even in retirement, when we might think the opposite would occur. In other words, at a time when the gap might be expected to close, in fact it widens.

It’s important to note that we took a wide range of other factors into account when we looked at the lives of the people in the study, including their broader health, whether they had a serious life-limiting illness, whether they were married etc., but our results remained strong, giving us considerable confidence in our findings.

Of course, there can be many different factors at play as we prepare to retire. Workers who retire from low status jobs often face financial and other pressures, whilst their better paid peers enjoy good pensions and have the resources to engage in leisure and social activities.

Another key point to make is that if this is the picture for people working in the civil service, where working conditions are considered very good and certainly a great deal better than most other employment areas, things are likely to be worse in other types of job where working conditions are less favourable.

For those looking to tackle inequality and unfairness in the workplace and wider society, our findings add to a growing body of evidence of how they are magnified across the lifecourse. They serve to remind us also that if we want everyone to enjoy a relaxed, happy and fulfilled retirement, then those inequalities must be addressed early with policies that are based on solid evidence.

Retirement and Socioeconomic Differences in Diurnal Cortisol: Longitudinal Evidence From a Cohort of British Civil Servants is research by Tarani Chandola, Patrick Rouxel, Michael Marmot and Meena Kumari and is published in The Journals of Gerontology: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, 2017, Vol. 00, No. 00, 1–10

Retiring early: the links with childhood

When we think of why someone might retire early, our minds are unlikely to make the leap to their childhood for the answer. But a group of researchers interested in what sorts of things affect our later working lives, believe that early retirement may indeed have some of its roots in our younger years. The research sheds new and important light on worldwide efforts to plug pensions gaps and get more people working longer. Hanno Hoven from the University of Dusseldorf outlines why he and colleagues from the International Centre for Lifecourse Studies at UCL think early retirement can be traced right back to having had a tougher childhood. He goes on to explain what the findings might mean for policy in this area.

All sorts of things are likely to influence the point at which older people stop working. External factors like tax incentives to stay in work or changes to when we can claim our State Pension play a role. Then there are our working conditions, what’s going on with our health and how our personal circumstances change as we get older.

A substantial body of research has shown in recent years that people whose socioeconomic circumstances are poor are more likely to retire early than their better off peers. But in our research, we wanted to see if retiring early can additionally be traced back to earlier stages of the life course, more specifically, to having had a tougher life as a child or during mid adulthood.

In addition we wanted to dig a bit deeper into older people’s working lives, by giving a clearer and more detailed picture that describes entire patterns of employment trajectories (and not retirement timing only). To do this, we took into account the employment history between 50 and 70, including details on type of job people did, whether they worked full- or part-time or whether they were self-employed.

We used information collected by the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), which has carried out interviews with more than 28,000 older people from 14 different countries. For our research, we focused on 5,857 men and women from the survey who wereaged 70 or over and who had provided details of their previous working and personal lives.

Work and retirement

We created clusters of their work and employment histories, and you can see in the table below the proportion of men and women in each cluster. On this basis we could link these clusters or types of employment histories to earlier adversity for both men and women.

Looking at types of employment histories between the ages of 50 and 70, we could see that men were more likely than women working in full-time employment or self-employed.. Women worked more likely in a part-time job or looked after home or family during those years.

Adversity in childhood

After modelling the effect of early life information and taking a range of background factors into account (e.g., among others, health conditions prior and during working life in mid adulthood), we were able to see that men who had experienced adversity in childhood were 5 percentage points more likely to have retired early (around age 55) from full-time employment, but they were less likely self-employed in late life. The same was true of men who experienced adversity in adulthood, although it is important to note that the effects were independent of each other.

Women who had suffered adversity in childhood were also less likely to be self-employed and retire later on. However, it was not related to early (around age 55) retirement from a full-time job. Women who faced adversity in adult life were more likely to work part-time or to look after the home/family than their peers who suffered no adversity during that period. This was not the case for childhood adversity.

Some other interesting things emerged from the research, which we believe provides a more comprehensive picture than has been provided before.

One very notable point was that early retirement was more closely associated with being in full-time employment rather than being self-employed. This could be because employed people have more restricted opportunities to work for longer (even if they want to) compared with their self-employed counterparts who have more freedom in deciding when to retire.

Food for thought

For those, including the Government’s Business Champion for Older Workers, who want to see thousands more older workers in British companies by 2022, this will be food for thought. More flexible retirement arrangements are likely to be necessary for employed workers who want to work longer, for example, through retirement schemes that allow a reduction of working time before leaving the labour market. This argument is further supported by the fact that such a cluster (where employed people reduced their working hours before retiring) was not found in our research.

Interesting differences emerged between men and women when it came to their employment histories and the way in which childhood adversity was linked to them. Whilst men were more likely to follow a path of full-time employment into retirement, women were more likely to have been continuously looking after home or family (without retirement) or have worked part-time.

When we factored in childhood adversity in the women’s lives, there was a close link with discontinuous employment in later life. This link was stronger for women than for men. Other research has suggested that traditional gender roles make it harder for women to gain a foothold in the labour market, a disadvantage that any adversity in childhood is likely to compound.

Looking across the lifecourse in this way sheds considerable new and important light on the timing of retirement, and offers some pointers for policymakers looking to increase the numbers of older workers. One specific implication is that certain measures are likely to work better for different age groups and should address different stages of the lifecourse.

There has been a great deal of focus on pension age and working conditions for older people. However, our research suggests that our childhood circumstances are also important and that policies to tackle childhood poverty and create good stable jobs for young people may also have a key role to play over time.

Early Adversity and Late Life Employment History—A Sequence Analysis Based on SHARE is research by Hanno Hoven, Nico Dragano, David Blane and Morten Wahrendorf and is published in Work, Aging and Retirement.

 

Organisational change: impact on early retirement

Motivating older employees to stay working longer is seen as a key way of tackling the current pensions crisis facing many countries. Something of a fly in the ointment for those looking to address the problem is the option to take voluntary early retirement, especially where among those who are in good health and best placed to continue working. Dr Nina Breinegaard and colleagues at the University of Copenhagen have been researching the situation in Denmark and, as Nina explains here, they find that a key area of focus for employers and policymakers could be organisational change.

A whole host of things influence our decision around when to retire. These include obvious things like our finances, the state of our physical and mental health and what’s going on with our family and close friends.

Another key influence is what is happening in the workplace. A job may have become too physically demanding for example. A number of studies have shown that when a company is restructuring or downsizing, employees may feel less secure about their position. This in turn can be a catalyst for early retirement, sometimes on the grounds of ill health.

In our research, however, we wanted to try to get to the bottom of how organisational change might influence those without any health problems to retire early. We also wanted to take a close look at the combined influences of the psychological and social sides of work on that decision.

Claiming benefits

In Denmark, men and women who have paid into an early retirement benefits insurance fund can claim those benefits between the ages of 60-64 even if they are in good health. At the end of 2012, 34 per cent of women and 27 per cent of men aged 60-64 received these early retirement benefits.

We linked Denmark’s DREAM database, which collects information on all public benefit payments, with a survey collected over a two month period in 2011 from more than 28,000 public sector workers. This enabled us to look at which employees decided to take early retirement benefits and whether changes at work were linked to that decision.

All this information was then linked to administrative data to take a range of social and economic background factors into account.

We ended up with a group of 3254 employees aged 60-64 who were entitled to early retirement benefits. Details of any changes at their workplace: a change of manager, a merging or demerging of departments or workgroups, moving to a different office or having a new base, were collected independently from current or previous managers.

They also rated the quality of their work environment e.g. how good their managers were at leading, how positive relationships were with other colleagues and how fairly and well concerns and conflicts were dealt with (organisational justice). The answers to all these questions were then used to create overall scores for each employee’s work environment.

Follow-up

When we followed up with our survey participants, we found that one in five women and one in seven men had taken early retirement benefits with early retirement being common in all occupational groups except for doctors and dentists.

65.1 per cent of the 2206 employees for whom we had information about all types of organisational change had experienced one or more changes. Change was most frequent among social and healthcare workers (74.9 per cent) and least frequent among laboratory technicians (46 per cent).

Employees whose workplace had undergone a change of management or a merger were much more likely to have taken early retirement than those who had not. After taking background factors including age, marital status, gender etc. into account where a change in management had occurred, the likelihood of early retirement increased even more. Adjusting for the same factors for those whose workplace had experienced a merger made no difference to the likelihood of early retirement.

Relocation was linked somewhat less closely to early retirement and the demerging of departments or workgroups had no effect at all.

On their own, poor quality work relationships and networks and low levels of organisational justice were also associated with early retirement. How well people felt they were managed had an effect only once background factors (apart from age) were taken into account. When any organisational change was factored in as well as the quality of the work environment variables, the likelihood of an employee retiring early increased further.

Organisational change matters

Taking everything into account, we can say, for the first time, and with considerable confidence, that when it comes to early retirement, organisational change makes a difference, particularly where it involves a change of management. Organisational changes on top of a work environment that is perceived to be poor compounds the likelihood of an employee retiring early.

Given that our research focuses on people who are not retiring because of poor health or disability – the very employees that organisations and policy makers want to encourage to work for longer – our findings are likely to be of considerable interest.

Key would seem to be careful consideration of the impacts of any restructuring within a business or organisation. Improving the workplace environment could also have a role in reducing the numbers of employees calling time on work before the age of 65.

The frequent occurrence of organisational change in the Danish healthcare sector is interesting in the light of medical doctors, nurses and other health and social care workers recently being identified as shortage occupations in Denmark. Managing those changes and improving the working environments of people working in these occupations could be a priority, not least because ageing populations not just in Denmark, but the world over, clearly need these groups of workers more than ever before.

Organizational change, psychosocial work environment, and non-disability early retirement: a prospective study among senior public employees
 is research by Nina Breinegaard, JH Jensen and JP Bonde and is published in the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health.

Photo credit: Workers, Justin Lynham

Frailty: what is the connection with our working lives?

People are living longer, and the number of over-65s is expected to reach around one in four of the UK population by 2050. But is retirement a golden age, or will we be dogged by poor health? Wentian Lu from University College London and colleagues investigated how our working pattern throughout our lives affects our health after we retire, and found interesting differences between men and women.

Government policies are focused on extending our working lives, and record numbers of people are now working beyond state pension age. But what effect is it having on our health?

The UK government’s former older workers champion, and pensions expert, Dr Ros Altmann argues that raising the state pension age is a blunt instrument for managing old-age support, which could compound existing social and health inequalities.

With people being expected to work for longer, it is critical to understand whether and how people’s working lives affect their later life health.

A recent study led by colleague Dr Giorgio Di Gessa found no significant health benefits from working beyond state pension age, once social background, previous health and employment histories were taken into account.

Our investigation was the first in England to focus on the impact of earlier working patterns on health in later life.

We used information on more than 1,600 men and nearly 2,800 women from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Health-related information on a range of things such as chronic conditions, pain, depression, heart disease, falls, fractures and joint replacement was used to develop a frailty index.

Using detailed work histories between the ages of 16 and 64 for men (16 and 59 for women), they were divided into groups which ranged from ‘full-time employment throughout’ to ‘unemployed throughout’. For men, we considered those who left work early, at either 60 or 49 years, and those who started work late (e.g because they went to University or spent time gaining other qualifications) and retired at 60.

For women’s employment histories, we also took account of part-time working, long and short career breaks, family care, and those who only had occasional work and retired early.

Frailty over time

The study confirmed that frailty increased with age, accelerating after 65 for women and 70 for men.

The findings showed that women who took a short break for family care and then worked part-time until they were 59 had better health at retirement age than those who were mostly in full-time work. Experiencing long career breaks or only working occasionally also appeared to be more detrimental for women’s health. This finding supports the importance of work-life balance for women’s health in later life.

Women who returned to work part-time after a short career break were healthier than those who went from family care to full-time work. If further studies confirm this result, it would indicate that working part-time while their children are young can have long-term positive benefits for women’s health. The key to maintaining the long-term health of today’s generation of working mothers will be to promote flexible working policies, such as flexible start and finish times, allowing women to balance work and childcare.

Consistent with previous studies, our investigation found that women who have never worked tend to have poorer health than those who worked full-time until the age of 60. What was more surprising was that women who never worked experienced a slower decline in their health beyond the age of 60, even when social background and health-affecting behaviours such as smoking and drinking were taken into account.

Early retirement

Men who retired early at either 49 or 60 had poorer health than those who worked until they were 65. However, leaving paid employment before the age of 65 slowed down the progress of poor health in later life.

This supports the findings of previous studies which show that the burden of ill-health is substantially relieved by early retirement. With Government policies encouraging older people to work longer, our research lends further weight to concerns that this may not be good for those already suffering poor health.

Another unexpected finding was that men who started working later in life and retired at around 60, who tended to be those more highly educated and with greater social advantage, actually experienced more rapid declines in health after the age of 65 than those who worked full-time from an earlier age and retired early. This was a small group, so further research is needed to explore this in more depth.

Despite limitations imposed by some of our employment history groups being quite small, as well as possible biases coming from participants’ subjective reporting of health issues, our findings offer important pointers for developing effective strategies to improve health for older people in the UK.

If, as Dr Altmann suggests, the government could replace the blunt instrument of raising state pension age with more finely-tuned policies, allowing those who can and want to extend their working lives to do so in a flexible way, this would be fairer and give the most vulnerable a better chance of enjoying a healthy retirement.

Further information

Relationship between employment histories and frailty trajectories in later life: evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing is research by Wentian Lu, Rebecca Benson and Amanda Sacker of University College London, Karen Glaser and Laurie Corna of King’s College London, Loretta Platts of Stockholm University, Diana Worts and Peggy McDonough of the University of Toronto, Giorgio Di Gessa from the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Debora Price of the University of Manchester. It is published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

 

Healthy pensioners: Is working in our 60s good for us?

Pension ages in the UK are rising from the traditional 65 for men and 60 for women, as people live longer. But is working in later life good for us? The Government’s Chief Medical Officer Professor Dame Sally Davies says people aged 50-70 are more likely to stay healthy if they stay in work, but what does the evidence show? Dr Giorgio Di Gessa from the London School of Economics and Political Science and colleagues have investigated how being in paid work beyond state pension age affects our physical and mental health and how well we sleep and find a different story.

By 2020, it is estimated that one third of workers will be over 50. By then the state pension age will also have risen to 66 for everyone in the UK, climbing to 67 by 2028.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal more than 1.2 million over-65s remain in work, an increase of nearly 50 per cent since the Default Retirement Age was banned in 2011, meaning employers cannot make staff retire when they reach state pension age.

With so many older people working, and with UK policies, and those of other western nations, designed to extend working lives, it is important to understand how continuing to work might affect our health.

Many studies have shown that working is good for physical and mental health in adults of normal working age. There is also evidence that retirement can be good for health. But little research has focused on the impact on health of working beyond State Pension age.

A previous study using the British Household Panel Survey suggests those working beyond state pension age self-report better health, but their lifetime health history was not studied. Given that healthier people are more likely to stay working, this needs to be taken into account for a more accurate picture.

Previous work history is also important, as there is evidence of poorer health among those with significant periods out of work. This is also likely to affect decisions about whether to continue working in later life.

Working longer

Using information on more than 1,600 people from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, we looked at the health and employment histories of men aged 65 to 74, and women aged 60 to 69. After those ages few men or women worked. Around a quarter of the women and 15 per cent of the men worked past State Pension age.

Participants in the study were asked if they had difficulties falling or staying asleep and whether they felt tired on waking up. Their grip strength was measured, and they also rated their own health, reporting any medical problems such as a long standing illness, heart disease, stroke, or loss of mobility.

For those who were employed, we looked at whether they worked more or less than 20 hours each week, and whether they had sedentary or active jobs. We also looked for differences between those in managerial and professional occupations through to those with routine and manual jobs.

Periods of unemployment for men and part-time working and career breaks for women were taken into account, together with the individual’s education, wealth, housing situation, marital status, caring responsibilities and factors like smoking and exercising.

Good health

Men and women in good health were more likely to be working past state pension age, as were those with a better education and those who had been in better health throughout their lives . Among women, those who were divorced or separated, still had mortgages and were not carers were more likely to continue working.

One third of those working beyond state pension age were in managerial positions, 45 per cent worked part-time, and one third of men and 41 per cent of women had a desk job. Men and women who worked throughout their lives were more likely to continue working after state pension age.

Men and women in paid work were less likely to be depressed or to have disturbed sleep, and reported better physical health, than those who didn’t work.

However, when social background, and previous health and employment histories were taken into account, we did not find any significant health benefits of working past state pension age. This is most likely to be because only a select group of healthy older adults work beyond this age.

Population health

What is clear is that the decision and ability to continue working past state pension age is strongly affected by current and lifetime health.

Overall, our study shows that extending our working lives has no effect on our health. However, it remains an open question whether changing the state pension age could worsen population health if everyone, including those in poor health, is required to work longer.

To support policies aimed at extending working lives, it will be essential for governments to focus on health promotion and policies which help to improve the health of the population throughout their working life.

Going forward it would be useful to know more about the reasons people continue working. Is it through choice or because they need the money? It would also be good to look at the timing of previous poor health to see at what stage ill health stops people from working.

Further information

Is being in paid work beyond state pension age beneficial for health? Evidence from England using a life-course approach is research by Giorgio Di Gessa of the London School of Economics and Political Science, Laurie Corna of King’s College London, Loretta Platts of Stockholm University, Diana Worts and Peggy McDonough of the University of Toronto, Amanda Sacker of University College London, Debora Price of the University of Manchester, and Karen Glaser of King’s College London. It is published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

Photo credit: Farmer stepping into cab, United Soybean

Reform and retirement: pension lessons from Finland

Pension reform is taking place in countries around the world. Governments, businesses and individuals have gradually come to terms with the fact that one of the consequences of us all living longer is that existing pension arrangements are unsustainable. As a result, millions of workers are being encouraged, nudged or, in some cases, forced to work longer. But what if reforms don’t work or have a different impact from that intended? Tarani Chandola from the ESRC International Centre for Lifecourse Studies and University of Manchester has been analysing the complex interplay between pension reform and our health and their combined effect on the timing of retirement.

We all need to work longer and retire later! Those are the essential messages coming from Governments around the globe. Turning those messages into concrete change that can make pension systems sustainable, however, is no straightforward matter, especially when you take into account the health problems that older workers can face.

The combined impact of pension age policies and our health on our decision to retire and the complex way those things play out are not very well understood. Many people stop workingbecause or ill health or caring responsibilities. Changes in the age when people can claim their state pension, which is increasing in the UK, could deter people from retiring when they perceive they need or want to.

Our research took a close look at pension reforms introduced in Finland in 2005, where, in place of a fixed statutory retirement age of 65, workers were given the choice of retiring between the ages of 63-68. The central goal of the reform was to ensure the sustainability of the pension system and to promote longer working lives. To try to get more people retiring at the top end of that age range, financial incentives were introduced for those who opted to retire later.

We looked at people who retired before and after the reforms to see whether the changes to the system had the desired effect of getting people to work longer. We also wanted to see if people who opted for early retirement (between the ages of 63-64) tended to be in better or poorer health.

Health issues linked to retirement

Our research made use of information from the medical and retirement records of more than 20,000 men and women born over a 9 year period. As far as their health was concerned, we focused on issues most closely linked with retirement such as circulatory disease and bone and muscular problems like arthritis as well as mental health problems. We were also able to access records of the sorts and quantities of prescription medicines that people were taking in the run up to retirement.

Looking at the pre-reform group, there was a clear decreasing trend in retirement by age 63 and by age 64. Among the post-reform group, there was no clear trend, but each birth cohort was substantially more likely to have retired by the age of 64 than those in the pre-reform cohorts. In fact, workers subject to the new system were 50% more likely to retire age 63-64 than those in the old.

Slide1

Although retirement was generally more common among people with poorer health, as we thought would be the case, it was striking that the increased numbers of people retiring early in the post reform group tended to have better health.

In short, the reform encouraged more people to retire earlier. Those in poor health were just as likely as before to retire early, but among people with better circulatory, muscular, bone and mental health, retirement at 63-64 increased substantially. Even when we took a range of other factors into account, such as their social and economic circumstances and their education, their good health was a strong predictor of retirement.

Unintended consequences

A more flexible retirement age, in Finland’s case, has had the unintended consequence of encouraging more, not less people into early retirement. Many of those were people in good health, the sorts of workers who might have several healthy working years ahead of them – the sorts of people the Finnish Government would have hoped would retire later.

Further reform is already on the cards for Finland in 2017 and is likely to see the lower age of statutory retirement raised to 65 and after that linked to life expectancy.

Here in the UK, we have seen the raising of the State Pension Age to 67 for men and 65 for women with further changes slated for the future. Only time will tell if it has the desired effect of keeping people who otherwise might have retired earlier in work or whether other factors, such as an individual’s health will play a stronger role in those decisions.

Our study shows that, regardless of what is happening with pension reform and policy, those in poorer health are unlikely to be able to extend their working lives no matter what, something Governments everywhere need to build into their thinking about pension reform.

Further information

Health as a predictor of early retirement before and after introduction of a flexible statutory pension age in Finland is research by Taina Leinonen, Mikko Laaksonen, Tarani Chandola and Pekka Martikainen

Photo credit: United Soybean Board

Empower employees! They will retire later

Working longer has become a policy priority in recent years, but how can people be actively encouraged to retire later? What needs to change in the workplace in order to persuade people to extend their working life? UCL’s Ewan Carr, as part of the renEWL project, has been looking at survey information from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) to see what matters to older workers when it comes to deciding whether or not to retire.

Rates of employment among older workers (aged 50-64) may have increased in the last decade or so, but across Europe, significant numbers of people in this age group continue to retire before the statutory pension age. In fact, more people retire before statutory pension age than after it.

For policymakers seeking to change that position, and for businesses looking for how best to modify the workplace to help achieve it, a better understanding of the drivers behind early retirement is essential.

Job demands and conditions

We looked at the working lives of nearly 3500 members of the ELSA study to see whether the demands and conditions of their job influenced the preferred and actual timing of their retirement. We focused on the mental as well as the physical demands of their job.

We anticipated that those with physically and mentally demanding jobs would prefer and, where possible, opt for early retirement, whilst those with fulfilling jobs, with decision making powers, support and recognition, good career opportunities and financial reward would be happy to work longer.

Participants in the study were asked how physically demanding their job was, how much time pressure they were under at work, how much control they had and to what extent they felt supported and recognised.

After taking a range of factors into account, the mental demands of a job, control at work and low recognition were the most influential when it came to retirement timing preferences.

Retirement preferences

We found that employees who reported having to ‘work very fast’ or being under time pressure preferred to retire 3 months earlier than those who said this was not the case. Employees who reported having low levels of control at work and low recognition wanted to retire around 5 months sooner than their peers.

The likelihood of actually stopping work (as opposed to wanting to stop work) was also influenced by levels of decision control, support and recognition. Employees with high levels of control were less likely to stop working, compared to those with low levels of control. Employees who felt poorly supported or that their work wasn’t recognised were also more likely to give up work.

It seems that even though a mentally demanding job might lead someone to say they would like to retire early, this doesn’t always lead to them leaving work. Other factors, besides the workplace environment, may prevent older workers from retiring when they want to.

Those who want to keep working might end up retiring early due to poor health or caring responsibilities. On the other hand, employees who want to retire early (due to the demands of work) might lack the necessary pension or financial savings to make this possible.

Our findings indicate that increasing job control from low to high could postpone retirement preferences by as much as two years – a clear indication that modifying the workplace could and should be a focus for policymakers and businesses aiming to extend working life.

Working conditions as predictors of retirement intentions and exit from paid employment: a 10-year follow-up of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing is research by Ewan Carr, Gareth Hagger-Johnson, Jenny Head, Nicola Shelton, Mai Stafford, Stephen Stansfield and Paola Zaninotto. It is published in the European Journal of Ageing

Photo credit:  Hiroyuki Takeda