[textor]

This is wrong. It's not needed because people are getting older, it's needed because the increase in productivity is not enough to cover expenses for long-lived retirees and other groups. If Sweden was 20% more productive, perhaps they could afford to just have longer and happier retirements. And if it was, say, 50% more productive, they could cut work week to 15 hours or decrease retirement age. Alternatively, they could cut other expenses (for example, stop bringing in more refugees) and still afford fixed retirement age. This "simple math" is not inherently linked to longevity of the Swedish elderly, it's the budget constraints that matter.

Edit: given that bringing up refugees invites downvoting, I want to clarify that this may not be among the major causes of Sweden's decision to raise retirement age (and is not the core idea of my message), but it's not negligible either: according to this guy http://voxeu.org/article/fiscal-cost-refugees-europe , current immigration policy costs Sweden 1,35% of annual GDP.

[nradov]

It's also important to distinguish between refugees versus other types of immigrants. Many of the people who have entered Sweden recently from Africa and the Middle East are just seeking a better life, and I sympathize with their situation, but legally speaking they aren't refugees.

[maxxxxx]

Don't forget that the benefits from most productivity increases have been going to a few capitalists over the last decades and any further increase will probably be absorbed by them too. If this had gone to workers or retirement funds they probably could keep the retirement age steady.