The article explicitly about coaxing (or coercing depending on your perspective) older workers who left the workforce due to covid back into the workforce? Yes, I did read that. Did you?
But research also revealed that a substantial number of those who gave up work during the pandemic were hard-up as a result, with reduced expenditure on food and lower wellbeing. Meanwhile, one survey found that a fifth of economically inactive 50- to 64-year-olds were waiting for NHS treatment – evidence of the social and economic damage caused by the vast waiting list for treatment. As well as queues for operations such as hip replacements, economic inactivity is linked to the rising toll of chronic mental and physical illness.
You know fine well who will be prodded back to work and who will carry on enjoying their well-funded retirements. Or at least, you should if you had a) read the article and b) been paying any attention at all to how the world works and why kites like this are flown.
This is what happens when you quickly scan articles looking for ways to dunk on people without actually grasping the content of the piece.
Also, you’re coming at me as though I support what the article is saying. I don’t. I just don’t have the greatest sympathy for people with enough wealth to think they can retire at 50. Even if the retirement is a little tighter than they thought.
If they were forced out why is there an article about trying to coax them back into work? If they needed to work they would presumably be trying to find work rather than sitting retired having the capitalist class trying to think of ways to make them get back on the production floor. These are people with at least some money.
That’s exactly who they are targeting as noted in the article. The unretired 50-64 year olds are still in the labour force.
You didn’t read the article then. Cool, cool.
The article explicitly about coaxing (or coercing depending on your perspective) older workers who left the workforce due to covid back into the workforce? Yes, I did read that. Did you?
You know fine well who will be prodded back to work and who will carry on enjoying their well-funded retirements. Or at least, you should if you had a) read the article and b) been paying any attention at all to how the world works and why kites like this are flown.
Why did you quote a paragraph referencing people who took an early retirement as evidence that this article is not aimed at exactly that group?
They didn’t take early retirement.
This is what happens when you quickly scan articles looking for ways to dunk on people without actually grasping the content of the piece.
Also, you’re coming at me as though I support what the article is saying. I don’t. I just don’t have the greatest sympathy for people with enough wealth to think they can retire at 50. Even if the retirement is a little tighter than they thought.
They didn’t retire, they were forced to quit work. They’re not getting a pension and they’re not eligible for sickness benefits.
But you go ahead and fall for the fantasy that it’s going to affect the rich people you don’t like. That’s exactly why they’re flying this kite. Mug.
If they were forced out why is there an article about trying to coax them back into work? If they needed to work they would presumably be trying to find work rather than sitting retired having the capitalist class trying to think of ways to make them get back on the production floor. These are people with at least some money.