Tag Archives: worker

Why Canadians Are Retiring Much Later

Statistics Canada’s retirement-age data tell a remarkable story.

After declining steadily from about age 65 in the late 1970s to roughly 61 around 2000, the average retirement age has climbed back to historically high levels (see Figure). 

In 2025, the average retirement age reached 65.4 years overall – 66.2 for men and 64.5 for women. 

The reversal reflects the interaction of several long-term forces affecting both the supply and demand for older workers. 

On the supply side, one of the most important structural changes has been the maturation of women’s participation in the labour market. Compared with earlier generations, today’s older women have much stronger lifetime attachment to paid work, higher pension entitlements, and retirement decisions that are increasingly coordinated with those of their spouses. This transformation has fundamentally reshaped aggregate retirement behaviour. 

Demographic trends reinforce this shift. Slower labour force growth resulting from population aging, lower fertility, and recent reductions in immigration have tightened labour supply. As fewer younger workers enter the labour market, employers increasingly rely on experienced older workers to fill skill shortages. 

Demand has evolved as well.

Canada’s economy has continued its transition toward service, professional and knowledge-based employment, where accumulated skills and experience often become more valuable with age and where many occupations are less physically demanding than in previous decades. 

Longer and healthier lives have also changed retirement behaviour. Many Canadians reaching their mid-sixties today can expect another two or three decades of life, much of it in good health. Retirement has increasingly become a gradual transition rather than a single event, with combinations of continued career employment, part-time work, consulting, self-employment and phased retirement becoming more common. 

Changes in social attitudes have contributed.

The elimination of mandatory retirement removed barriers for those wishing to remain employed, while employers and governments have become more attentive to age discrimination. Although the abolition of mandatory retirement appears to have had only a modest direct statistical effect on retirement ages, it expanded opportunities for those who wished to continue working. 

These developments have now reached an important milestone. Among Canadians aged 65 and over – the traditional age of public pension eligibility – the proportion continuing to work has grown steadily and is likely to continue increasing. 

This evolution suggests that Canada’s retirement income system deserves a fresh review. Much of its architecture was designed when retirement was relatively brief, labour force participation after age 65 was uncommon, and workplace pension coverage was both broader and more generous. 

The increase in retirement ages is therefore more than a demographic curiosity. It signals that Canadians have already adapted their behaviour to longer lives, changing labour markets and evolving retirement patterns. Public policy should now consider whether the retirement income system has adapted as well. 

Retirement is increasingly diverse. Some Canadians work longer because they choose to remain engaged; others because financial necessity leaves little alternative. 

At the same time, important features of the current system discourage continued work among lower-income seniors through Guaranteed Income Supplement earnings rules, while public pension benefits increasingly flow to many higher-income Canadians who remain economically active well beyond traditional retirement ages. 

For the Silo, John Stapleton/ Peter Hicks/ C.D. Howe Institute.

Peter Hicks is a policy adviser and a former Assistant Deputy Minister with Social Development Canada and John Stapleton is the new Social Policy, Ageing and Well-being Policy Fellow at the National Institute on Ageing. He is principal at his consultancy: Open Policy. 

Threat to Prosperity: Canada Should Mind Business Investment Gap

August, 2022 – Business investment in Canada is so weak that capital per member of the labour force is falling, and the implications for incomes and competitiveness are ominous. Governments, particularly the federal government, need to get serious about growth to get workers more of the tools they require to compete and thrive, according to a new report from the C.D. Howe Institute.

In “Decapitalization: Weak Business Investment Threatens Canadian Prosperity”, authors William B.P. Robson and Mawakina Bafale write that since 2015 Canada’s stock of capital per available worker has been declining and its rate of gross investment per worker has been well below that in the United States and other OECD countries.

Capital= Business “bread and butter”

They examine why Canada might be lagging as well as what action to take.

“Business investment and productivity are closely related: productivity growth inspires investment by creating opportunities, and investment drives productivity growth by equipping workers with more and better tools,” says Robson. “Investment per available worker lower in Canada than abroad tells us that businesses see less opportunity in Canada, and prefigures weaker growth in Canadian earnings and living standards than in other OECD countries.”

New investment per available worker in Canada, adjusted for purchasing power, was only slightly above 50 cents for every dollar of investment per available United States worker in 2021 – lower than at any point since the beginning of the 1990s. In addition, in 2022, OECD projections show that Canadian workers will likely enjoy only 73 cents of new capital for every dollar enjoyed by their counterparts in the OECD excluding the US, according to Robson and Bafale.

The authors’ calculations from OECD projections for 2022 show $20,400 of new capital per available worker this year for OECD countries excluding the United States, compared to $14,800 for Canada.

In other words, new capital per available worker in Canada will be more than one-quarter less than in those countries this year.

Declines in the stock of machinery and equipment (M&E) and intellectual property (IPP) per member of the workforce are particularly worrisome, the authors explain, because those types of capital may be particularly important for economy-wide productivity. “Whatever special messages the recent M&E and IPP numbers may convey, the message from stocks of business capital overall is clear: the average member of Canada’s labour force began 2022 with less capital to work with than she or he had in 2014,” says Bafale.

Robson and Bafale identify a few probable causes for Canada’s dismal investment performance. These include: weak business in the natural resource industries; restricted access to finance for small and mid-size firms; a loss in Canada’s competitive edge in business taxation, notably against the United States; an uncongenial environment for IP investment; regulatory uncertainly; unpredictable fiscal policy; and governments’ in-house spending and transfers to households that are steering resources into consumption and housing rather than non-residential investment.

Is business investment capital trajectory predetermined?

“The prospect that Canadians will find themselves increasingly relegated to lower value-added activities relative to workers in the United States and elsewhere, who are raising their productivity and earnings faster, should spur Canadian policymakers to action,” conclude Robson and Bafale. “The first step is to recognize that recent trends are a symptom of threats to Canada’s prosperity and competitiveness – that low business investment is a problem that governments can and should address.”

Supplemental- Are you a small Canadian business frustrated with the difficulties involved in accessing capital? For example, our experience has shown that the multitude of Business Development Corporations operate with autonomy but without accountability, poor vision and nepotism. Essentially, gleaning business plans and strategies before revealing ‘jump through these application hoops” which include personal finance and personal life details. It is sobering to discover that they also receive a hefty commission % for every applicant they ‘certify as successful’. Do you agree or have you had a more positive experience? We want to hear from you in the comments below.