Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content

Report on Business

Economy Lab

Delving into the forces that shape our living standards
Best Business Blog, EPPY awards, 2011 and 2012

Entry archive:

Economy Lab has moved

Only Globe Unlimited members will now have access to a wide range of insightful commentary
and analysis on the economy and markets previously offered on this page.


Globe Unlimited subscribers will be able to read these columns,
written by some of Canada’s most deeply respected economists,
such as Christopher Ragan, Sheryl King, Andrew Jackson, and Clement Gignac,
as part of our ROB INSIGHT section.


All of our readers will still be able to browse the Economy Lab archives and read our
broader coverage of economic data and news by accessing their 10 free articles a month.


Learn more about Globe Unlimited and how to subscribe.

(Dennis Guyitt/iStockphoto)
(Dennis Guyitt/iStockphoto)

Economy Lab

Raising the retirement age: Consider it a done deal Add to ...

Frances Woolley is a professor of economics at Carleton University, where she teaches public finance. Her recent Economy Lab posts can be found here.



If Stephen Harper was to announce tomorrow that the age at which people will be eligible for Old Age Security was going to increase to 67 in the year 2025, who would protest?

More related to this story

Not the over 50s: they'll still be able to start claiming at 65 as planned.

Not many of the under 50s, either. Some under-50s won’t protest because they can’t be bothered. It’s not worth fighting to get a few thousand dollars of Old Age Security payments a couple of decades from now.

Other under-50s won’t protest because they believe an increase in the pension age won’t affect them: people who enjoy their jobs, and plan on working until 67 in any event; high income people, who would have to repay any Old Age Security anyway.

An increase in the OAS eligibility age might also be accompanied by an increase in the age at which RRSPs must be converted to RRIFs, or an easing of the RRIF withdrawal rules, bolstering support for a change in the pension age.

As Kevin Milligan has argued, increasing the age at which people are entitled to receive Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement won't produce huge savings. But it's not the absolute savings that matter, it's the savings relative to the political cost incurred - and for an increase in the pension age, those political costs will be manageable.

That’s why the the U.S. is raising its full retirement age, and the U.K. is raising its state pension age. We will raise our pension age because it saves money, and has little political cost.

Thus the question is not if the pension age will be increased, but when. As the accompanying graph shows, 1959 saw the highest number of births ever recorded in Canada: 461,703 babies. After that, the number of births fell slightly, and then dropped sharply with the advent of the birth control pill. (Immigration reduces the relative impact of, but does not eliminate, the baby boom bulge.)



Canada, number of births: 1946-2011



For an increase in the pension age to achieve substantial cost savings, it will have to be in place when those 1959 babies hit 65 in 2024.

I'm predicting that the pension age will gradually be increased to 67, in 3- or 6-month increments, by 2023. Canada Pension Plan already allows people to claim earlier or later than 65: those provisions may be altered slightly, or left unchanged.

What about reforming our health care system? That can wait until the 1959 babies are about to run up serious health care bills -- sometime around 2033.

An earlier version of this post was published on Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.

In the know

Most popular videos »

Highlights

More from The Globe and Mail

Most popular