Thursday, May 07, 2015

Dramatic change in 65+ employment

The HLFS March quarter was released yesterday. One statistic that caught my eye was the number of 65+ who are continuing to work - 140,000. That's only 33,800 fewer than 60-64 year-olds. So I went back and looked at older HLFS data using Infoshare.

I haven't time now to produce a twin axis graph showing the number and percentage of the relevant age group, but I can tell you that the 65+ population only grew by 61% between 1992 and 2014 whereas the number employed grew by 468 percent.




4 comments:

Jim Rose said...

Lindsay, my first project as a labour economist was on older workers.

I looked up the number +65 workers in New Zealand.

I found that in 1991, they can all fit in the Westpac Stadium – there was about 25,000 of them. In 2006, there are too many over 65 workers to fit into the Wellington city. There was about 120,000 of them. That number is expected to double by 2025.

Almost failed your robot test because all the soups were Asian noodle soups.

JC said...

I've puzzled over this for a few minutes and the best I can think of is its "The revenge of the wrinklies".

In the olden times of the 1980s and 90s when everyone sought an MBA the mantra was to sack older workers and get into the bright young things who knew it all.

But that explosion of older workers from 1999 looks very much like a reappraisal of the strengths of the older workers who have experience and especially steadiness. My guess is that there's also a greater awareness that superannuation without savings is not that wonderful for still active people who want to enjoy themselves rather than just minding the grandees.

JC

Anonymous said...

The Christchurch earthquake will have had an impact on the figures. My mother is 69 and has had to keep working full time because her house is a rebuild. So far she has spent an extra $40,000 and will have to spend more to complete landscaping once the house is finished. She cannot afford to retire until the house is completely rebuilt and she knows she can afford all of the extra expenses. Without the earthquake she would have dropped hours to 1-2 days per week and likely have stopped all together by now.

macdoctor said...

This is precisely why raising the retirement age is not as pressing as many are making out. Large numbers of Boomers will keep on working, essentially self-funding the rising cost of pensions- because they will continue to pay tax. Not so good news for later generations as the Boomers will continue to block the top jobs reducing upward mobility.