Happy to be proven wrong if someone can show the numbers with empirical data.
Seems to me that a person that has to work 10 more years is earning a maximum salary, and even assuming their pension contribution get knocked down to be spread over another decade. Wouldn't that extra 10 years of work be better spent to a lower-salaried employee with less contributions and creating more turnover in the sector? Lower salaried-employees with less pension are more likely to change careers these days than in yester-years, so your draw on pension funding is likely to be less anyways. It's rare for millenials to be a "one job, one career" situation in modern employment models.
|