Just over half? That gobsmacks me, as my Dutchie is still working, as are all his friends. I must know the right half or something!

I wonder how many of the unemployed are women who have never returned to the workforce after having kids?

And I wonder whether a culture that acknowledges and encourages mature students retraining and upgrading would help raise the percentage? The system is way too focused on the young traditional student...

By CW | July 5, 2011 11:50 AM

Not only this, but when someone retires, the company should not expect to find an exact replacement for that position. I am a young person trying to find a job in the science field and most jobs are for "senior" positions because they want to replace someone that has retired. Well, how do they expect us to get the training to reach that level if they won't hire us and train us? Employers seem to expect too much - I am either overqualified or underqualified; i.e., not a starter but not a senior either. And I can't seem to find work :/

By Milk container | July 5, 2011 12:13 PM

Come on people, how long is this insanity going to keep going?

Old people don't want to work and companies don't want to hire them... This is a fact that will never change no matter how much money is pumped into trying to do so.

The young are the ones who should be working, and if not for the 2008-present thefts and fraud from the banks and corporations, there would be no pressing need to force the elderly into menial and unsuitable positions.

By Prince Burnhard | July 5, 2011 2:09 PM

Speak for yourself, Prince B. I have no intention of retiring. After 65, one should have a choice.

Older people bring experience; younger people bring energy and fresh ideas. You can't run an economy with just one or the other. We all have a contribution to make.

By CW | July 5, 2011 4:24 PM

Older people should be allowed and even encouraged to work when they want. I have learned a lot working alongside my senior colleagues and find it a waste of talent when I see they are forced into retirement...the corporations never benefit from losing them.

By Quince | July 5, 2011 6:20 PM

Prince Burnhard - spot on! Having worked once in a slaughterhouse, a prison, steelworks, I would not cherish being forced back into such labour as I approach 60.

By The visitor | July 6, 2011 12:43 AM

It would almost be funny if it didn't have such serious consequences on the older worker's life: the government wants you to keep working but no corporation wants you after 40...so just die young, please, and save us the grief of figuring out how to support you after you've put at lest 20 years into the tax system...when you need an umbrella most, no one wants to give you one. I still have 20 years of a working life ahead of me, and everything I have learned in the last 20 years suddenly is 'obsolete'. How convenient.

By A 49er | July 6, 2011 10:39 AM

The sad fact is, that anyone over 45yrs old in this country struggles, to find employment. This needs to change as, I am certain in the next few years the retirement age will be raised to 70? There is also an inflexibility towards people who wish to change their career path. The Brits and Americans are much more flexible in this respect.

By No BS pleeze | July 6, 2011 11:30 AM