The question of whether having the same retirement age for all workers is widely debated in modern society. While uniform retirement rules create administrative clarity and prevent arbitrary dismissal, I am convinced that a just system must recognise unequal bodies, occupations, and life expectancy.
The most compelling reason is that a default age helps pension funds estimate cost and helps employers plan succession. This matters because public services can avoid sudden staffing gaps when retirement is predictable. Moreover, many older professionals retain expertise that societies should not discard automatically. These effects can continue to influence individuals and communities beyond the immediate situation.
Admittedly, rigid rules treat a construction worker and a university lecturer as if their working lives were identical. Yet this weakness can be reduced if eligibility includes health assessments, occupational categories, and voluntary extension. Furthermore, a balanced approach would allow predictability to coexist with humane exceptions.
On balance, a set retirement age is defensible only as a baseline. Provided that those rules are consistently enforced, this approach offers a stronger and more sustainable answer to the issue.