Retirement

Retirement. A noun. Longman Directory states: "when you stop working, usually because of your age".

But many are not sufficiently prepared financially and emotionally for retirement even though they may have reached the retirement age...usually considered to be 55 years old. Today for some (who may be in the beginning of 50) it may not be an option but forced upon them either due to ill health or the loss of employment from retrenchment. Some companies are also using this economic downturn as an excuse to "kick out" their older staff..by "offering a beneficial retirement package"...which is targetted at those who are 50 years and older. However, if you look at the retirement package that is offered it is similar to those for retrenchment!!

Retirement. Why are many not prepared?.... Poor financial planning or more likely the lack of financial planning in the second life phase..i.e. the working phase, is the principal cause. Many have borrowed large amount of loans to finance their purchases of big ticket items like an apartment and a car or two (one for the wifey)...considered as a necessity, they say. Whatever remains from the wage income is put into small pools of funds for different purposes, the crucial being: children's education up to tertiary, annual or semi-annual overseas holidays to "destress" from hectic worklife. But a fund for retirement? Only if there were any money left.....into a savings account...."for a rainy day". But most will use the savings for punting in the stock market rather than making strategic investment plans which expose them to risks. Some do not even have life insurance or critical illness insurance to cover themselves.

Could it be an attitude problem rather than poor financial planning for retirement?
I think it is. Common attitude is why bother. Many has this archaic mentality that their children will look after them in old age since they had "invested" heavily on the children and thus the children are "obligated" as filial piety goes to take care of their parents in old age. No matter how much you have spent on your children to give them a good station in life that is your principal responsiblity as a parent. One should not look towards the children as a source of income for retirement but should be prepared financially to be independent and continue to enjoy a good life. Otherwise I think it is miserable.

Ageism

I wonder when will I be getting an opportunity to rejoin the workforce again. I am now classified under MOM unemployment status as a chronic unemployed. I have arrived at a station in life where age is a distinct disadvantage in the employment game. The corporate world deems that I am past my shelf life (anyone after 50 years old) for employment but physically and mentally I feel it is too early to retire as I could still contribute significantly my expertise and my accumulated experience to my employer.

The government is aware of this problem and has been emphasising that older unemployed workers should be given an opportunity to be reemployed upto 65 years old and such urgings are also well echoed by the various union leaders. But the corporates by and large are lending a deaf ear. Why? Because of Ageism.

Ageism is not peculiar to the present economic downturn. I became aware of its ugly head during the Asian Financial crisis when many of my friends and colleagues in their early to mid forties who lost their jobs had tremendous difficulties in getting employment again. I think most corporates believe that the older workers are an impediment to progress as they have fixated mindset, failing dexterity, inflexible attitude, sluggishness etc and the strongest underlying belief is that they being past their shelf life would be carry many inherent health problems (which can be very costly to the employer). Aiyoh, come on lah, look at the wealth of experience!! Nah, too expensive to pay as younger workers are cheaper, more versatile and are easier to train (hey, but there is monetary cost for training and there is a time gap before these young workers are up to speed, so there is also opportunity cost). What about applicants who are willing to take a lower paying job? Don't trust such applicants as when the economy picks up they will hop away immediately when there is a better offer from another organisation. It is really a catch 22 for us job applicants. No chance to get a similar job never mind but if we were to go for a lower paying job, we are considered flippant. Aiyah!

I understand that the government in order to solve this problem and ensure that older workers continue to be employed, will by 2012 create laws for employers to reemploy their workers who are at 62 years old for further years but will these new laws cover those who are already unemployed and seeking employment? I hope the new laws will cover this group too...otherwise many of us may have to consider taking up employment as "environmental engineers" or "hygiene environmental specialists"... plain speak...as cleaners for hawker centres and toilets (pathetic so many of them now)!! But then when we apply for such jobs the employer will say we are overqualified given our education level..who knows may be in a few years' time the minimum educational level requirement could be upgraded to a graduate degree for a cleaner level, a MBA as a supervisor for the cleaners and a PHD for a manager in the cleaning company??? May be such could happen when more than 50 percent of the population is above 62 years old..in 15 to 20 years' time?? I don't think so. The jobs will all be taken up by the China Nationals who are already gaining a good foothold in the various industries...so they are our competitors for jobs!!! What do you see???
However, I am not losing faith as surely there will be one or two enlightened employers amongst the dim witted who see the benefits of employing experienced jobseekers. So....Patience!!