[HEALTHY HABITS] Longevity experts say retiring at 80 is healthy and beneficial

Luis Gallegos, a longevity expert, argues that retiring at 65 when people can live to 100 is a "waste of resources and talent". It is an opinion, not a fact, and it clashes with a labour market that pushes out anyone over 55.

## Who says it and what exactly they say

The quote making the rounds comes from **Luis Gallegos**, presented as a longevity expert. His thesis is that keeping someone out of the labour market for decades, when life expectancy is approaching or exceeding **100 years**, amounts to a "waste of resources and talent". The wording is his, and it should be read as an opinion.

The argument has an arithmetic logic that is hard to dispute: if people live longer, funding 35 or 40 years of retirement with 40 years of contributions is an equation that does not add up. Demographics do not negotiate.

## The problem is not age, it is who will hire you

The idea runs into an awkward detail. In Spain the employment rate plummets from age **55**, well before the legal retirement age. It is not that people retire early: it is that they end up out of work and never come back.

Working until **80** sounds reasonable in a consulting office. On a building site, in a factory or in a care home, less so. Longevity does not distribute physical wear and tear evenly.

## What is really at stake: who pays

Behind the quote lies the deeper debate over public pensions. Raising the retirement age cuts spending and widens the contribution base. It is the lever that bodies such as the **OECD** have been recommending for years.

But it also shifts the adjustment onto workers with shorter careers and lower wages. Average life expectancy is rising; that of a **60-year-old** bricklayer is considerably lower. It is worth not confusing the average with any individual life.

Any decision about retirement age, pensions or occupational health affects rights and money: it is advisable to consult a professional before making personal decisions.