经济学人下载:要么70岁退休,要么破产!

For that to happen, working practices and attitudes need to change. Western managers worry too much about the quality of older workers (see Schumpeter). In physically demanding occupations, it is true, some may be unable to work into their late 60s. The incapacitated will need disability benefits. Others will need to find a different job. But this should be less of a problem than it used to be now that economies are based on services not manufacturing. In knowledge-based jobs, age is less of a disadvantage. Although older people reason more slowly, they have more experience and, by and large, better personal skills. Even so, most people’s productivity does eventually decline with age; and pay needs to reflect this falling-off. Traditional seniority systems, under which people get promoted and paid more as they age, therefore need to change.

要使这种情况变为现实，工作惯例和态度必须改变。西方管理人员对较年老的工人的素质过于担忧。在需要体力的岗位上，一些人工作到近70岁可能就无法工作了，这是事实。残疾人将需要残疾补助。其他人需要寻找不同的工作。但是由于现在的经济以服务业，而不是以制造业为基础，与以往相比，这应该不是什么问题了。在以知识为基础的岗位上，年老并不是什么劣势。尽管较年老的人反应较迟缓，但是他们经验丰富，总体而言，拥有更好的个人技术。尽管如此，大多数人随着年龄的增长，生产率确实最终会下降，工资可以根据生产率下降的情况来定。因此传统的资历制度必须改变，按照这种制度，人们随着年龄的增长而获得提拨并获得更高的工资。

The missing $3 trillion 3万亿美元的缺额
The huge cost of pension schemes is being dealt with in the private sector. Final-salary schemes are hardly ever offered to new employees these days. In the public sector, however, they are still standard. In Britain the recent report by Lord Hutton made some sensible suggestions for reform (see article). The accrued rights of workers should be maintained but their future pension rights should be based on the state retirement age (many public-sector workers currently retire early) and on a career average, rather than final, salary. That would both prevent abuses and make part-time working easier.

私营部门已经着手处理养老金计划的巨大成本。如今，新招收的员工几乎已经无法享受到按最终工资领取养老金的计划了。但是，在公共部门，它们仍然是标准。在英国，赫顿勋爵在最近发表的最近报告中提出了一些合理的改革建议。应该保持工人逐渐增加的权利但是他们未来的养老金权利应该基于国家的退休年龄（目前许多公共部门的工人提前退休），职业生涯的平均工资而不是最终的工资。这样既可以防止滥用，又可以使做业余工作变得更加容易。

The public-sector pension problem is sharpest in American states. The deficits in their pension funds may amount to $3 trillion. They face legal and constitutional constraints that prevent them from following the British lead. Unlike wages, pension promises have been deemed, weirdly, to be permanent and sacrosanct. But as budget pressures bite, politicians are going to have to change laws and constitutions.

美国各州的公共部门养老金问题最为严重。他们的养老金基金赤字可能达3万亿美元。法律和宪法的限制使它们无法追随英国的脚步。与工资不同，养老金承诺被荒唐地认为具有永久性并且神圣不可侵犯。但是随着预算压力的增大，政客将不得不修改法律和宪法。

Private-sector workers face a different problem. The demise of final-salary pensions leaves them facing two big risks: that falling markets will undermine their retirement planning, and that they will outlive their savings. So governments should encourage workers to save more, nudging them into pension schemes by requiring them to opt out rather than opt in. And the basic state pension should be high enough to give those unlucky elderly with insufficient savings a decent income, without penalising those who have been thrifty. That is the least people deserve in return for toiling until they are 70.

私营部门的工人面临一个不同的难题。最终工资养老金的结束使他们面临两大风险：下行的市场将破坏他们的退休计划、他们的储蓄将不足。因此，各政府应该鼓励工人多存钱，通过让他们“可选择退出”而不是“可选择加入”来鼓励他们加入养老金计划。基本的国家养老金应该足以为那些没有足够存款的不幸老年人提供可观的收入，也不对一直节俭生活的人加以惩罚。这是人们辛辛苦苦工作到70岁应该获得的最低回报。