[qurren]

> By the time you start collecting pension, you have effectively ousted yourself

I disagree. The vast majority of jobs are difficult to work at old age and with medical conditions that typically come with old age. As long as we value keeping people alive for their natural lifespan (I hope we do), then our base assumption needs to be that we every time we pay someone we need to pay them $1 for now and $1 for their retirement. Approximately 1:1 because the actually-productive working age is ~25-65 and the retirement age is ~65-105.

Investment returns are never guaranteed, and shouldn't be factored into that.

We're hiring people here, not robots.

[soco]

And before that difficulty to perform the work, it's also that willing elderly won't even be considered for a job. I mean even if the job is pure intellectual job, you hear reasons like "oh 10 years only until retirement they won't invest in our culture" - while at the same time the company attrition is 20%. Pure prejudice. Also not allowing for part time jobs, another prejudice "oh they aren't fully focused on us" and mandatory office presence "oh they will do nothing if I don't watch them". We have a doomed system if we can't work on those solutions which would definitely solve, or at least push back a serious while, the current demographic imbalance. But prejudices are probably more difficult to address than passing a law... try to force any of the above and you'll immediately have the right-wing all over you for "removing muh freedoms" and such.