Subsidies for hiring older workers

As @JessicaYoon [mentioned[/url)] under Obstacles to Long Life, one of the challenges is a bias against older people in the workforce and people being more or less forced into retirement as early as in their 50s.

One solution could be subsidies for hiring older workers.

Unemployment in the 55-64 age group in Sweden rose sharply following the financial crisis. A scheme called the New-Start program was introduced in January 2007. It involves making payments to employers to encourage them to recruit people who had been unemployed for a long time.

Since 2010, the fee to an employer for hiring an unemployed person aged 55 and over has been paid for up to a maximum of ten years — twice the standard period of time. The fee being paid for an extended period of time has coincided with a drop in the unemployment rate for the 55-64 age group.

Is this the best approach to retain older people in the workforce? Would it work in other countries? Are there alternatives?

Vox has an interesting story on this, New research suggests an aging workforce is holding back economic growth mentioned.

Oh, I can imagine how the republicans in the U.S. would respond to that scheme :smiley:

Hmmm, interesting thoughts @NickOttens! The article you linked does point out there may be some correlation of capable employees retiring early out of the workforce may contribute to stagnant economic growth.

Not sure if hiring subsidies would become a popular idea in the U.S., but I do know that organizations like the AARP argue for expanding earned income tax credits to the elderly, which can help with incentivizing older workers to stay in the workforce longer (see https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/i20_eitc.pdf).

Let’s ask our AARP members for their thoughts!

@Ramsey, @karen, @Alex9933, @Living100, could you tell us more about the proposal? Specifically, to bring it to the discussion on longevity, would it help people live a longer and healthier life?

I’m curious about the idea of incentives to volunteer after retirement or even working fewer hours to phase into retirement? This might address the need for belonging and purpose after retirement, and the continued sharing of their knowledge, skills, wisdom, and even institutional memory, with younger generations. I wonder, how might this also impact potential stagnant economic growth as the result of capable employees retiring?

@LisaCovington
Do we really need old people to contribute “knowlege, skills and wisdom”, though, in a time when it seems like the most important trait is being able to move quickly forward and use the most novel technologies?

@Roey Both! Why can’t biologically older people in this preferred future state do both? The former can provide a sense of being valued and the latter of being relevant. If we are able to keep our mental faculties longer, why assume they won’t be able to move quickly and use new technology? Also, maybe folks don’t want to work at a full time job after 65+ years and want to enjoy free time, travel, be with family, and yet still be a valuable contribution to the work force (dare I say knowledge force?!) by volunteering to share experiences.