Retiring at 74: The Danish Mirror the OECD Foresees

Retiring at 74 now has a country: Denmark

The world's highest retirement age now has a figure and flag: 74 years in Denmark, for both men and women equally. This is not a campaign slogan. It is the OECD projection for the mid-2060s, when the standard retirement age will rise by about two years on average across the countries it analyzes. The door, they say, is already open. And the rest look through the sustancia ilegal.

It is important to frame the data correctly. In most of these countries, the actual retirement age will not skyrocket to 74: it will remain around 65 or even 66 years. The Danish case functions as both a ceiling and a warning. For those in their thirties today, the question is no longer when to retire, but whether they will live long enough to collect a pension.

What the OECD says about retirement age in 2060

The organization does not describe a sharp jump, but a slope: by the mid-2060s, the standard retirement age will have risen by about two years on average compared to current levels. Denmark tops the table with 74 years, a figure that sounds like an exception today but may sound like a norm tomorrow. In the rest of the analyzed countries, the actual retirement age would remain in the range of 65 or 66 years.

The Danish precedent is invoked in almost any discussion about pensions. Those who support delaying retirement point out that if a Nordic country does it, the matter ceases to be taboo. Those who reject it respond that comparing Spain with Denmark ignores salaries, working hours, and years of healthy life. Neither side moves from their position.

The Bank of Spain's calculation: 1.74 euros for every euro contributed

Sustainability depends on more than just age. The Bank of Spain calculates that each pensioner receives 1.74 euros for every euro contributed, that is, around 74% more than what they contributed during their working life. Another circulating calculation points out that by 12 years of retirement, one has already collected everything contributed. From then on, everything else is covered by someone else.

Added to this is the deterioration of the cushion. The Reserve Fund went from accumulating 66,000 million euros to owing that same amount to the tax box, according to the figures being discussed. Those who insist the accounts balance are selling smoke, critics argue.

Why is a generational scam discussed?

The term has entered common language and does not seem accidental. The OECD itself warns that maintaining the current system will go to the detriment of young people, and some phrase it without sugarcoating: intergenerational solidarity has become a transfer of income from those who contribute today to those who collect now. The usual response is that the system was created to ensure a dignified old age and that dismantling it would be the real scam.

Between these two positions lies an uncomfortable fact: the number of contributors per pensioner does not improve, and fertility projections do not help either. The complete calculations of that ratio, broken down year by year, paint a much worse picture than the official headline suggests.

The 14 million boomers and their weight at the polls

The system has a political leg difficult to ignore: 14 million boomers born in the early 1960s who will start collecting pensions in bulk and, in close elections, decide. Hence the most cynical reading: this group's pension is not touched, it is pampered. At the expense of the printer or whatever it takes.

Public employment also enters the equation. In July 2022, there were 2,731,117 public workers in Spain, 13,547 more than in January of that same year, according to data from the Ministry of Public Function. Part of the analysis highlights the contrast: some retire with a guaranteed salary at 60 while the private sector debates whether retirement will reach 70. The arrival of migrant population is also cited as a supposed support for the system, although it is used more as a slogan than as a calculation.

Working at 74 on a scaffold is not the same as in an office

The figure is read differently depending on the trade. In an office, extending one's career is debatable. On a scaffold, a truck, or an urban bus, it is directly unfeasible, argue those who focus on physical wear and tear. Professional drivers and local police are cited as examples where the body usually says stop long before the law does.

The underlying problem is that life expectancy rises, but healthy life expectancy does not rise at the same pace. Stretching the legal age without looking at the type of task, they argue, shifts the bill to public healthcare and long-term sick leave. The alternative some defend is not delaying retirement, but shortening the contribution career with coefficients for hardship. No one has explained yet how to pay for that.

France takes to the streets for a month; here, a shrug

In France, raising the retirement age by one month sparks protests and blockades. In Spain, when it is hinted that one will have to work years longer than the previous generation, the most repeated reaction is a "we'll see." The system has become so abstract that it no longer generates organized anger, only fatigue, and this resignation is precisely what allows each reform to pass without noise.

Projections say that by 2060, retiring at 70-something will cease to sound like madness. The numbers say the system, as it stands, does not close. And the polls say no one wants to move the first piece. With these three wickers, does anyone truly believe the next generation will retire before 70?