Denmark to raise retirement age to 70

Practical feasibility and late‑career employment

• Many doubt employers will keep hiring or retaining people into their late 60s, especially in fast‑moving sectors like tech and in physically demanding jobs.
• Age discrimination is already reported around 50 in some European countries; raising the formal retirement age risks creating a larger group of long‑term unemployed older workers.
• Some foresee growth of “retirement jobs” (light, low‑paid work or publicly funded roles) just to let people qualify for pensions; others argue these roles will be unattractive, hard to manage, and often not economically worthwhile.

Demographics, pensions, and “Ponzi scheme” arguments

• Commenters repeatedly frame pay‑as‑you‑go public pensions as structurally similar to a Ponzi: current workers fund current retirees, relying on a large and growing base of contributors.
• Low birth rates, later workforce entry, and longer lives are said to make the old parameters (e.g., 60–65) unaffordable without reform.
• Others counter that such systems can be balanced if parameters (retirement age, contribution rate, benefit level) are continuously adjusted; the issue is political, not purely mathematical.

Intergenerational fairness and anger

• Strong resentment that older cohorts enjoyed earlier retirement, better housing access, and more generous benefits, while younger workers face higher taxes, precarious jobs, and later retirement.
• Some argue current retirees are already gaining wealth relative to working‑age people via indexed pensions and “triple lock” mechanisms, shifting burden onto younger taxpayers and children in poverty.

Healthspan, quality of life, and meaning of retirement

• Many distinguish lifespan from healthspan: extra years are often spent in poor health, so pushing retirement toward 70 may compress or erase the “good years” after work.
• Others note many people in their 60s and even 70s remain capable, especially in non‑manual jobs, and some like working for meaning and structure.
• There is frustration that governments focus on keeping people working longer rather than systematically improving population health and reducing end‑of‑life medical over‑spending.

Policy levers and alternatives

• Three recurring knobs: raise retirement age, raise taxes, or cut benefits. Denmark is seen as leaning hard on the first.
• Proposals include: higher/corrected taxes on high earners and wealth, investing pension funds in productive assets rather than strict pay‑as‑you‑go, and trimming low‑value healthcare at extreme old age.
• Immigration and higher fertility are debated as fixes; many think both are politically or practically limited, and poorly managed immigration can be fiscally negative.
• Some argue productivity and automation (including AI) should allow shorter careers and workweeks; others note that gains have been captured mainly by capital owners, not translated into more leisure.

Denmark / Nordic specifics and comparisons

• Denmark is described as relatively wealthy with strong social services, high taxes, and mandatory or quasi‑mandatory occupational pensions; that context makes later retirement feel both “inevitable” and, to some, still unfair.
• There is disagreement over how generous and sustainable Nordic welfare remains: some describe deep cuts and creeping privatization; others still see these systems as among the best globally.
• Comparisons with the US highlight different approaches: lower baseline state pensions, more reliance on private accounts, and political paralysis around raising retirement age there.

Broader critiques of capitalism and work

• A strand of discussion sees rising retirement ages, despite huge productivity gains, as evidence that modern capitalism channels almost all surplus to a small wealthy class.
• Some argue that without deliberate redistribution and structural changes, societies will respond to aging by squeezing workers harder, not by sharing the benefits of automation and growth.
• Others insist individuals should not rely on the state and must save aggressively and plan for working into their 70s, viewing generous public pensions as politically and economically doomed.