There is no such thing as a job for life any more   

Date
    February 23, 2016
    Sydney Morning Herakd

Younger workers in the early years of their career are expecting to retire at the age of 52 – 15 years before the federal government has decided they should stop working.   :-?

Across all age groups, the expectation of having a job for life no longer exists for more than two thirds of Australian workers, a new national survey has found.   :(



Deloitte Access Economics surveyed 1400 people around the country across a variety of professions and ages and warned that growing confidence in younger generations needs to be balanced with more realistic expectations.

The report says an increase in confidence after the global financial crisis may be "creating unrealistic expectations", particularly in younger people with less than five years' experience in the workforce.


"Our survey shows that, on average, early career employees think they will retire at the age of 52," the Deloitte report says.

"Given the increasing costs of retirement, the smaller workforce and pressure on government budgets, this seems untenable. Policy makers may need to adjust the expectations of younger workers to this reality."

More than half younger workers also believe their qualifications are not very relevant to their work.

But the survey also found higher education qualifications were increasingly transferable. About 40 per cent of university education employees have a degree outside their primary areas of work.

The study, Future of Work: How can we adapt to survive and thrive?, found that 60 per cent of people surveyed expect to change roles or industries in the next 10 years. And 67 per cent expect their existing job will no longer exist, or require a new skills set, within 15 years.

Almost one third of employees said changes in technology are most likely to drive job change.

Two in five said they were uncertain or nervous about their employment future, with most feeling positive or excited about change in their careers.

Of those looking to change jobs in the next 10 years, three in five expect to work in a different industry or role.

"A job for life just doesn't have a place in our modern society," declared Lee White, chief executive officer of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, which commissioned the report.

"Each of use needs to recognise that our skills set, if left un-nurtured, will quickly become obsolete.

"Individuals need to ask themselves what skills they'll need to succeed in an automated society."

Mr White also questioned whether school curriculums were up to the task of teaching "transferable skills and a different mindset about the future world of work".

Michael Warren, the national training manager for Landscape Solutions in Sydney is among employers taking the re-skilling of workers into its own hands with in-house training in how to use the latest in technology. Employee Paul Scurfield was recently trained in how to use technologically advanced plant equipment for commercial landscaping.

"Generic training about plant equipment is available but we had to retrain our operators to use the new technology in the specific context of commercial landscaping," Mr Warren said.

The new survey also found that the development of specialist versus generalist skills varied from industry to industry.

However, a generalist set of skills may be more useful in a rapidly changing labour market.

"The question then becomes: should these generalist skills be emphasised more in the formal education system, or can they be imparted in the workplace?," the Deloitte report says.

"Such questions and the nature of skills development more broadly will become an increasingly important consideration for employees in the future as the interaction between skills, employment and careers becomes more fluid."

comments so far

        If you are over 50, Employers don't want you, call it early retirement or call it unemployment or whatever. Face the reality, you are past your use by date at 50 and you could well be unemployed for the last 20 years of your working life.   :(

    Commenter
        Charley
    Location
        4285
    Date and time
        February 23, 2016, 7:59PM

        Exactly. You can only hope that when the income is no more that at least the debts are paid off because the pension "gold mine" is still many years away. Newstart for a decade doesn't give you many options but at least many older people have a home.   :(

    Commenter
        seen it coming
    Location
        safely out of debt
    Date and time
        February 23, 2016, 10:26PM

I am working at a job for death

Time for Scoot to start telling you all which motivational book to buy. :( :( :( :( :(

This is why we need a 35-hour week and mandatory overtime penalty rates. It is not in the national interest to retain a 38-hour week with unlimited free overtime for some workers.

Well said Bam, low income workers shouldn't have to work overtime with out penalty rates.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]   

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:49am:

Well said Bam, low income workers shouldn't have to work overtime with out penalty rates.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

It would create a lot of jobs. Overtime worth $110 billion is a lot of free labour. The amount of free overtime workers are giving their employers each year could create enough jobs to lift up to 2 million Australians out of poverty if it was turned into new jobs.

Realistically, the figure would be lower - a lot of that free overtime is worked by managers who have that expectation built into their contract.

The only job for life is a politician in a safe seat.

stunspore wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:22am:

The only job for life is a politician in a safe seat.

Or their mates in the board and ceo jobs - the only people who continue to be paid for life after leading everyone else to disaster... same as politicians.


Time for some fresh blood in both politics and business... the current modes have failed dismally to lead us anywhere but down and down...

Be enterprising, start your own business and employ your own self for life.

The mistake you make is relying on other people to provide for you and pay your way.

.......then you can pay yourself as many penalty rates as you can afford (or can't afford) and of course your employees too (until you go broke)

The company I work for expects 10 hour days,,, the HR manager told me when I asked.

It takes my hourly rate to below a lot of non managers.

What fool wants to retire at 52? What are they planning to do for the 40 years afterwards?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:22pm:

What fool wants to retire at 52? What are they planning to do for the 40 years afterwards?

says the fool who retired at 50  ;D ;D ;D ;D

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:22pm:

What fool wants to retire at 52? What are they planning to do for the 40 years afterwards?

Pursue their own goals, rather than the companies?

This is such a common argument, but by god its a crap one.  If you cant think of another way to occupy your time than going to work you need to take a long hard look at your life and find something to fill the emptiness of your soul.  Dont you have any hobbies that you wish you had more time to follow?

... wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 1:26pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:22pm: What fool wants to retire at 52? What are they planning to do for the 40 years afterwards? Pursue their own goals, rather than the companies? This is such a common argument, but by god its a crap one.  If you cant think of another way to occupy your time than going to work you need to take a long hard look at your life and find something to fill the emptiness of your soul.  Dont you have any hobbies that you wish you had more time to follow?

Knock yourself out, but the facts are that a lot of retirees struggle after they leave full-time work. They have a lot of time, but not always much of a plan on how to fill it. A disturbing number die in the first 12 months of retirement despite being healthy.

Rushing to retirement is not necessarily a good thing.

Are the liberals not the ones, that want to put the pension age up for people to 70 years of age?.   :( 

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:01pm:

Are the liberals not the ones, that want to put the pension age up for people to 70 years of age?.   :(

Have Labor come up with a costed plan to keep the pension payments from 65? Without increasing taxes?

Maybe like the Chifley Welfare Fund?

'Once in government, the new Prime Minister John Curtin doubled down. When the first uniform tax case came before the High Court (which effectively eliminated state income tax in favour of Commonwealth income tax) Curtin promised the electorate that the Commonwealth's new power would not be used as an excuse to raise income taxes.

Labor's no-tax pledge was unsustainable.'

'So when Chifley announced that they would increase income taxes on rich and poor alike, they also announced a "National Welfare Fund" alongside it.

This National Welfare Fund would fund welfare measures like pensions, unemployment relief, child endowments, even health care. The fund is often seen as the launch of Australia's welfare state.

Unlike a contributory scheme, the fund would be financed by the new income tax increases. But there were two tricks.

First, Chifley said the revenue from the tax increase was specially earmarked for the National Welfare Fund. Thus Labor wasn't breaking its promise not to increase the burden on low income earners - they would be getting social security for their money. (Think of the fund like our Medicare Levy today.)

And second, most of the great new social services weren't to start until after the war. Cabinet agreed that only £5 million of the estimated £40 raised would be directed towards immediate social spending. Money is fungible. The rest could quietly be used for the war effort.

    The National Welfare Fund has long passed into historical obscurity. But the mythology of welfare contributions it engendered remains - one that imagines the welfare state as a giant piggy bank.

As the historian Rob Watts points out in his book The Foundations of the National Welfare State, what looks like groundbreaking Chifley welfare reform was really just a smokescreen for unpopular wartime tax rises on lower income earners.'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/berg-chifley's-political-time-bomb-70-years-in-the-making/5480154

When I was a fruit grower it was my job , my hobby, my absolute passion.
If i could I would do that to 100

lee wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:31pm:

wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 4:01pm: Are the liberals not the ones, that want to put the pension age up for people to 70 years of age?.   :(  Have Labor come up with a costed plan to keep the pension payments from 65? Without increasing taxes?

Compulsory superannuation  :D

miketrees wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:10am:

I am working at a job for death

You can pick any job you like they will all take you one day closer every single day you work them.

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:01pm:

Are the liberals not the ones, that want to put the pension age up for people to 70 years of age?.   :(

Retirement age for real Liberals is not impacted by the pension. They never claim one.

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:01pm:

Are the liberals not the ones, that want to put the pension age up for people to 70 years of age?.   :(

For the entire term of the Howard government they had a hold on increases to the super guarantee. As soon as Abbott took power one of his first actions was to do the same thing.

Probably the best solution to affordable retirement and relief for the governments cost on pensions the Liberals have been blocking for almost 20 years.

People retiring today could have been substantially less reliant on the government had the Liberals not been in the way. The libs are extending the pension age to rectify the problem that they created.

I once had a job for life, the problem was that in exchange for the security you accepted below market wage rates. Of course in the end they went away from the guarantee and forced people out.

Technically people could have stayed but it is a great company to not work for.

lee wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:31pm:

wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 4:01pm: Are the liberals not the ones, that want to put the pension age up for people to 70 years of age?.   :(  Have Labor come up with a costed plan to keep the pension payments from 65? Without increasing taxes? Maybe like the Chifley Welfare Fund? 'Once in government, the new Prime Minister John Curtin doubled down. When the first uniform tax case came before the High Court (which effectively eliminated state income tax in favour of Commonwealth income tax) Curtin promised the electorate that the Commonwealth's new power would not be used as an excuse to raise income taxes. Labor's no-tax pledge was unsustainable.' 'So when Chifley announced that they would increase income taxes on rich and poor alike, they also announced a "National Welfare Fund" alongside it. This National Welfare Fund would fund welfare measures like pensions, unemployment relief, child endowments, even health care. The fund is often seen as the launch of Australia's welfare state. Unlike a contributory scheme, the fund would be financed by the new income tax increases. But there were two tricks. First, Chifley said the revenue from the tax increase was specially earmarked for the National Welfare Fund. Thus Labor wasn't breaking its promise not to increase the burden on low income earners - they would be getting social security for their money. (Think of the fund like our Medicare Levy today.) And second, most of the great new social services weren't to start until after the war. Cabinet agreed that only £5 million of the estimated £40 raised would be directed towards immediate social spending. Money is fungible. The rest could quietly be used for the war effort.     The National Welfare Fund has long passed into historical obscurity. But the mythology of welfare contributions it engendered remains - one that imagines the welfare state as a giant piggy bank. As the historian Rob Watts points out in his book The Foundations of the National Welfare State, what looks like groundbreaking Chifley welfare reform was really just a smokescreen for unpopular wartime tax rises on lower income earners.' http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/berg-chifley's-political-time-bomb-70-years-in-the-making/5480154

Grappler still thinks the Fund exists. He carries on about it regularly.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 7:28am:

wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 4:01pm: Are the liberals not the ones, that want to put the pension age up for people to 70 years of age?.   :(  For the entire term of the Howard government they had a hold on increases to the super guarantee. As soon as Abbott took power one of his first actions was to do the same thing. Probably the best solution to affordable retirement and relief for the governments cost on pensions the Liberals have been blocking for almost 20 years. People retiring today could have been substantially less reliant on the government had the Liberals not been in the way. The libs are extending the pension age to rectify the problem that they created.

Your beloved ALP increased the pension age to 67.  If you are going to lie, dont be so easily caught!