Band 7.5 Some people think that having a set retirement age (e.g. 65 years) for everybody, regardless of occupation, is unfair. They believe that certain workers deserve to retire and receive a pension at an earlier age. Do you agree or disagree? Which types of workers do you think should benefit from early retirement? Solved

Is it fair to force everyone to retire at the same age, say 65, no matter what job they’ve done their whole life? Some argue that this one-size-fits-all approach overlooks the unique demands of certain occupations, and I tend to agree. While a fixed retirement age offers simplicity, it’s hard to ignore that some workers—like those in physically draining or high-stress roles—deserve to step back earlier and enjoy a pension. In this essay, I’ll argue why early retirement makes sense for specific groups and suggest which ones should benefit most.

To begin with, not all jobs wear you down in the same way. Take manual labourers, for instance—construction workers, miners, or factory hands. These folks spend decades lifting heavy loads, working in harsh conditions, and pushing their bodies to the limit. By the time they hit 60, many are battling chronic pain or injuries that make work unbearable. A friend of mine back in my hometown, a bricklayer for 30 years, could barely lift a cup of tea without wincing by his late 50s. Forcing him to slog on till 65 seems cruel when his body’s already given so much. Early retirement for these workers isn’t just fair—it’s a recognition of the physical toll they’ve paid. That said, tying this back to fairness, their contributions to society are no less valuable than a desk worker’s, yet their health often suffers more.

On top of that, there’s the mental strain some jobs bring about. Think of emergency workers—paramedics, firefighters, or even nurses in intensive care. They face life-and-death decisions daily, often under insane pressure. Studies show burnout rates in these fields are sky-high; a nurse I read about once said she felt “emotionally hollow” after a decade on the job. If we keep these people grinding till 65, we risk breaking them entirely. Allowing early retirement here doesn’t just reward their service—it protects their well-being too. Some might argue, mind you, that these roles come with decent pay or breaks already, but that misses the point: no salary can undo years of trauma piling up.

That’s not to say every job warrants an early exit. Office workers, teachers, or accountants, say—they might face stress, sure, but it’s rarely the same relentless grind. In my country, teachers often work till 65 and seem fine, maybe because their holidays give them breathing room. The difference lies in the intensity and the long-term cost to body or mind. A blanket retirement age works for them, but for the labourers or emergency crews, it’s a poor fit. One slight drift here—some could argue technology might ease physical jobs in future, though that’s debatable and not yet widespread.

In wrapping up, I’d say a set retirement age like 65 is unfair when you consider how unevenly jobs affect people. Manual workers and emergency staff, in particular, deserve to retire earlier—say, at 55 or 60—given the toll their roles exact. It’s concerning that we still lump everyone together, ignoring these realities. Perhaps the question isn’t just about fairness, but about how we value those who give the most—and whether we’re willing to let them rest when they’ve earned it.