The big season for bankers is the February run-up to the deadline for RRSPs, when they try to scare the daylights out of people by warning them if they don't have $800,000 – or $500,000, or $1 million – socked away when they turn 65 they soon will be pushing their worldly goods ahead of them in a cart or living in a walk-up, eating cat food.

Retirement is big business for banks. Bankers believe people hate their jobs as much as bankers hate theirs, so they set out to convince people that retirement – Freedom 55 … Take This Job and Shove It – is the solution to worry and the road to happiness.

And yet, and yet … many people enjoy their jobs and dread being forced out of them merely because they have turned 65 (which is a lot younger than 65 used to be in the 1920s, when pensions began). It has been shown that those with the most education tend to enjoy their work and are reluctant to be turfed out at 65. Do you think for a moment that when Margaret Atwood turns 65 – on Nov. 18, 2004 – someone will tell the illustrious Canadian writer, "Jig's up, Atwood. No more novels for you."

"But…"

"Sorry, Peg, you've been at this game a long time. We need to make room for younger writers."

The concept of retirement, especially mandatory retirement, is fairly new. It began in the early decades of the 20th century. The first old-age pension in Canada began in 1927, financed by the federal and provincial governments, but administered by the provinces. It was available to Canadian citizens 70 years or older. The pension amounted to $20 a month, a munificent $240 a year, but only if the Canadian citizen passed a strict and demeaning means test.

This was the situation for nearly 25 years.

In 1951, Ottawa introduced the Old Age Security Act, which provided a universal pension of $40 a month, paid and administered by the federal government to all Canadians 70 and over – without a means test. Accompanying this legislation was the Old Age Assistance Act, a cost-shared program between Ottawa and the provinces, which made pensions available to Canadians aged 65 to 69, but with a means test.

By 1964, the old-age pension rose to $75 a month, which everyone admitted was inadequate. This led to the Canada Pension Plan, introduced in 1965. The CPP requires workers and employers to contribute to a social insurance plan that provides a wage-related pension on retirement at the age of 65. Next came the Guaranteed Income Supplement program in 1966, which paid up to $30 a month extra to pensioners with little income other than their Old Age Security pensions. The age for receiving Old Age Security was also lowered from 70 to 65.

There has been a sea change in attitudes to public pensions and the very concept of retirement, both mandatory retirement and early retirement. When the age of 70 was selected in the early 20th century as the age of eligibility for a government pension, life expectancy was between 60 and 65. Today, Canadians who reach 65 are expected to live another 20 years.

Because people live so much longer, and retire so much earlier, Ottawa has demanded higher contributions to the Canada Pension Plan so it won't dry up. There will be increased demands to raise CPP contributions in coming years as the parade of boomers opt out of the work force.

Compulsory retirement is especially hard on women, many of whom chose to stay home to be with their children in the early years, then entered the work force in their late 20s or early 30s. Because they were, and often still are, paid significantly less than men, women aren't able to put away as much money as men. And it gets worse down the line, as women live six, seven years longer than men.

According to Canada's Urban Futures Institute, some 9.8 million Canadian baby boomers are approaching retirement. About 225,000 Canadians will retire this year and the number will increase to 265,000 by 2005. By 2020, the number of Canadians retiring each year will be 425,000.

Today there are six workers in Canada for every retired person. By 2020, there will be three workers for every retired person. The ratio will sink further without a dramatic increase in immigration, preferably people with lots of money and excellent job prospects.

This demographic shift is already making an impact in the United States, where the retirement age has been raised to 67 and is expected to be raised again, probably until it reaches 70 (which more accurately reflects the demographics and life expectancies of the near future).

We are an aging society and our aging population is accelerating rapidly. In 1973, only seven per cent of Canadians were 65 or older. By 2003, about 13 per cent will be over 65. By 2023, 20 per cent of Canadians will be over 65. Increasingly, the worry is a shrinking work force.

Some companies are coping with this workforce shortage by instituting plans such as "retirees on call" and "phased retirement." These plans address the arguments of employers who favour compulsory retirement because it unloads workers who are at the peak of their earnings, allowing the companies in some cases to hire two young workers for the price of one older worker.

For years Larry Folliott worked for IBM Canada Ltd. as a mergers and acquisitions expert. He retired at 57 to become an "IBM retiree on call," which means he can "goof off" to Maui for weeks at a time with his wife, play golf with his male buddies in South Carolina, but be ready to head back to the office anytime IBM needs an extra hand with mergers and acquisitions.

Another company encourages retired CEOs to return to work for less pay and less authority, working for people who used to be their underlings, but bringing with them vital experience, smarts and coaching expertise. One man who took advantage of this arrangement said it finally answered for him the question, What is happiness? "Happiness," he said, "is working at a job you enjoy for which you are vastly overqualified."

Bankers are correct in assuming most people don't like their jobs and want to retire if they can afford to. Only six per cent of workers continue to work full-time after the age of 65. The average age of retirement in Canada is 62. But the six per cent who want to keep working do so for a variety of reasons, including office camaraderie, job satisfaction, a sense of purpose and destination – and sometimes economic survival.

The geography of a country like Canada also comes into play. If public pensions total, say, $15,000 – the amount can vary widely, depending on extra benefits – it makes considerable difference whether these pensioners live in Toronto or Portage la Prairie, Man. You could almost make it on $15,000 a year in Portage, but in Toronto $15,000 might keep you going only three, four months.

Many overestimate the joys of retirement. After a summer or two of playing golf or watching birds or afternoon soaps, they come to appreciate what Shakespeare meant when he wrote, "If all the year were playing holidays, to sport would be as tedious as to work."

What about compulsory retirement? In 2001, Keith Norton, Ontario's human rights commissioner, raised a ruckus when he said people who want to keep working after the age of 65 should be protected by the Human Rights Code. Mandatory retirement has been outlawed in New Brunswick since 1973, in Manitoba since 1974 and in Quebec since 1982. It is also outlawed in Australia and New Zealand.

C.T. Gillin and Thomas R. Klassen wrote an article on retirement for the journal Policy Options in 2000. Gillin was a professor in the department of sociology at Ryerson Polytechnic University and Klassen was an assistant professor of sociology at Trent University. They titled their article, "Retire Mandatory Retirement." The academics described mandatory retirement as "institutionalized ageism ."

Gillin and Klassen cite the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits discrimination based on "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability." There were early challenges to age discrimination on Charter grounds, some of which reached the Supreme Court. And appeared to indicate the law of the land was against age discrimination.

In their article, Gillin and Klassen say: "In 1982, adjudicating the validity of mandatory retirement at age 60 for Ontario fire-fighters, the (Supreme) Court seemed to be moving toward a position on aging similar to its treatment of racism and sexism. On behalf of a unanimous Court, J. McIntyre wrote that 'it may be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that a mandatory retirement … may be validly imposed'."

Within 10 years, the Supreme Court reversed its engines and came out in favour of age discrimination. The most significant case was McKinney vs. University of Guelph.

Gillin and Klassen:

"The Court's reasoning in this case was that, while mandatory retirement does constitute discrimination based on age, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms only protects individuals against abuses of government power, so groups such as professors and doctors, who are not government employees, are not covered. Moreover, writing for the majority, J. LaForest wrote, 'there is a general relationship between advancing age and declining ability' which distinguishes age from other designated categories.

Worth noting that the average age of Supreme Court judges is 65, and they may keep their jobs until they are 75.