Helen McCarthy writes that today’s struggle “is the right to live a good, meaningful life, and to live it right to the end” (Britain pioneered the comfortable retirement – but that golden age is coming to an end, 2 May). Ironically, her column appeared days after the Health Foundation reported a notable fall of roughly two years in healthy life expectancy across the UK in the decade between 2012-14 and 2022-24 to below 61 years for both men and women – significantly below the state pension age. Among 21 high-income countries, Britain’s ranking slumped from 14th to 20th against this measure, ahead only of the US.
- +Retiring in comfort and good health now seems the luxury of a lucky few
The reasons for this relative and absolute decline are, of course, multifaceted, but there is an undeniable link to relative deprivation.
The reasons for this relative and absolute decline are, of course, multifaceted, but there is an undeniable link to relative deprivation. With the state pension age continuing to rise and the Tony Blair Institute effectively calling for abolishing the meagre state pension, Prof McCarthy’s assertion that “the right to retire was yesterday’s struggle,” seems dubious at best. Pensioner poverty in Britain remains widespread and far worse than in France and Italy.
Achieving her vision of “the right to live a good, meaningful life” will entail a rekindled fight both to ensure that nobody of pensionable age remains employed out of economic necessity, and to reduce the gaping inequalities now eroding the years of healthy life for much of Britain’s population.George BinetteChair, Camden Unison retired members committee
I was pleased to read Helen McCarthy’s article. However, it missed some significant pension inequalities that require attention: the UK gender gap in pensions is one of the highest in the developed world. Women retire with about 37% less private pension income than men, with only 59% of women aged 22 to 59 saving into a pension, compared with 66% of men.
The current pension gender gap is due to rise: this is because gen X, in the absence of defined benefit workplace pension schemes, are now dependent on private savings to fund their retirement. There are fewer women in paid work and therefore unable to save and participate in workplace pension schemes.
Today’s gender gap in savings will translate into a larger pension gender gap as members of gen X without defined benefits workplace pensions retire in the 2030s and 2040s. The only way to mitigate a future of rising inequality and poverty for those in retirement is for employers to reinstate defined benefit workplace pension schemes with the support of government funds and tax relief.Prof Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay Queen Mary University of London
Helen McCarthy is right that Britain’s idea of a long, comfortable retirement was always fragile. It depended not just on secure jobs and pensions, but on an unspoken assumption that care would be available, provided without cost by families. As that settlement unravels, the pressure of care is felt long before retirement. With people living longer, often with many years of poor or declining health, most of us will provide or need care at some point. Yet care remains framed as a private family responsibility, masking how women’s unpaid labour drives economic inactivity and entrenches inequality. As McCarthy shows, the right to retire was yesterday’s struggle. Today’s is the right to live well across the life course – in work, in care, and beyond it – rather than relying on an unpaid care system to prop up a settlement that no longer holds.Dr Louise LawsonLecturer in social policy, University of Glasgow
Helen McCarthy provides an excellent account of the history of retirement, but with a questionable conclusion. Rather than the “right to retire” being “yesterday’s struggle” there are compelling reasons why it must be retained. Removing such a right would almost certainly lead to an increase in the inequalities she describes – in particular those experienced by women, ethnic minorities and people in poor health. A radical alternative would be supporting the right to retirement at 60, supported by universal basic services along with provision of a citizen’s wage for those active in key areas such grandparenting, caring and community volunteering. This would indeed ensure the “good, meaningful life” that McCarthy advocates.Chris PhillipsonEmeritus professor, School of social sciences, University of Manchester
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
