People working until 70

I have utterly no intention of retiring. As long as I am physically and mentally able, I will be at work.

I take it that's because you love what you do?

To be honest i think we should not have to work until 70.
We should be able to retire at 60-65 and be able to enjoy the rest of our lives to spend time with family (e.g. look after grandchildren) go on holiday, do hobbies etc. If people have paid into the system then they should be able to retire at a reasonable age.
What about manual jobs? People who work in offices may be able to work until 70, but people whos jobs include manual work/heavy lifting/running round on their feet all day will be less likely to be able to carry on until 70.
People retiring will also free up jobs for younger people to get jobs. People working until 70, will free up less jobs for younger people.
What if people loose their job at age 50-60, for example through redundancy. They will find it harder to get jobs than younger people.

I'd disagree heartily regarding employers being more keen to employ younger people merely because they are young.
In fact, I'd say a lot of the time, the opposite is true and my father would tell you the same from his time in business.
If you have the ability to get out of bed and turn up for work on time, you'll never be unemployed. Not in today's economy.

Today's economy?
When we're the good ol' days when this wasn't so?

Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's when the economy was structured very differently with lots of people employed by big (sometimes nationally or state-owned) companies that would collapse and then make thousands of people redundant at a single stroke. This would then saturate whole localities with unemployed people who were also generally less mobile because of housing and transportation reasons (a significant number of people did not own their own car in the post-war decades, today you'll see 2 or 3 vehicles outside of many houses).
Today's economy is a lot larger and a lot more diverse. That brings it's own challenges and problems of course (I'm not sure there is such thing as a job for life any more in truth) but in general there is more opportunity I would say. I say this because I am in contact with a lot of people in a lot of different vocations and industries whose main complaint for some years has been a complete lack of willing (note I did not say skilled) labour.

Absolutely

OK, but that's kinda the opposite of what your previous posts says once you apply the negatives / double negatives used.
For example:
'If you have the ability to get out of bed and turn up for work on time, you'll never be unemployed. Not in today's economy.'
The second sentence turns the first into a falsehood. The first sentence has a double negative, so it effectively says in today's economy you'll remain unemployed if you [only] have the ability to get out of bed and turn up for work on time.

What do you do?

It's not the opposite of what I wrote nor was that the intention of what I wrote.
I stated that there are good prospects today. I categorically did not state that it was better in the good old days. I know that purely because statistics from the good old days did not make great reading, not least on a background of pretty crazy interest rates at times.
Whilst today has it's own problems and there is still youth unemployment and structural issues in several regions, the work prospects today are far better than they were in the 60s 70s or 80s.
Feel free to discuss the above, rather than criticise my command of the use of English language.

OK, I'll ignore you saying 'If you have the ability to get out of bed and turn up for work on time, you'll never be unemployed. Not in today's economy.'
I'll work on the basis that you're saying job opportunities are easier to come by now than in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.
On what basis?
Unemployment averaged 2.7% in the 1960s, today its 4.4%. Surely 50% more people are finding it harder?

Raw unemployment data tells you little to nothing though in reality.
2%, 5% or 10%, it tells you nothing. What is the reason those people are out of work in the first place? What barriers do they have to finding work? Are they genuinely unemployed or technically unemployed because of their circumstances? Are they actually able to work?
I'll reiterate though: if you have the ability to get out of bed and be at work on time you're already employable.

It's madness that's what it is.
Doesn't surprise me, but it's madness.
No I absolutely do not think people should have to work until 70. I think they should have the opportunity to, if they want to, but they should be entitled to state pension much earlier than that.
The state pension age as it stands is already too high.

It's madness that's what it is.
Doesn't surprise me, but it's madness.
No I absolutely do not think people should have to work until 70. I think they should have the opportunity to, if they want to, but they should be entitled to state pension much earlier than that.
The state pension age as it stands is already too high.