So, as we're all now aware, Canada has upped the retirement age from 65 to 67, effective 2023. The logic is that Canadians are living longer, and saving less, putting more strain on the CPP - which is a fair point. There are far fewer Canadians coming up behind the now-retiring Baby Boomers, and it'll be about 20 years before the "neo-Baby Boom" joins the work force en masse.
(As it stands right now, CPP seems to be very well funded with mucho assets, but the age-related crunch hasn't hit yet.)
We could argue the merits of this decision until we're blue in the face, but the simple truth is that the aforementioned demographics are radically changing Canada's approach to the issue (the spectre of another recession, a potentially collapsing Eurozone, and economic woes south of the border aren't helping either).
But speaking of the Eurozone, one of that increasingly shaky organization's most important members is now saying, "Debt crisis be damned, we're going in the OPPOSITE direction!" France's new Socialist government is bucking trends and actually LOWERING minimum retirement age from 62 to 60 (for those who enter the workforce at 18 or 19). It's also lowering the age of full-pension benefits from 67 to 65. Yes, the French will be able to start retiring at age 60. Ah, the French. If there's one thing you can count on them to do, it's to choose quality of life over crunching numbers.
But it got us thinking, what if these trends continue? What if we keep increasing our retirement age and the French keep lowering theirs, every few years? One thing's for sure, our retirees would certainly look different. To illustrate this, let's see how it would affect the retirements of two national treasures. For Canada, Alan Thicke. And for France, let's say ... oh, I dunno ... Gerard Depardieu. Because why not?
Related stories on Strombo.com: