The year 2026 is likely to go down in history as the year of the major pension reform. The federal government has set out to overhaul the statutory pension insurance system. A commission has submitted proposals for this .
One of the proposals: arising retirement age. Such demands have long been coming from the business community: Life expectancy is rising, and with it the retirement age, they often say.
Sounds logical? But it isn’t.
In reality, a higher standard retirement age would be disastrous for most workers—not just those who do physically demanding work.
Here are the reasons:
Retirement Age Already Hardly Attainable Today
If it were up to IG Metall members, the matter is clear: Only 17 percent of them say they could work beyond the age of 67 under current working conditions. Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent) are even certain of this. These were the findings of an IG Metall survey conducted in 2025.
A previous survey even shows that the current retirement age of 67 is already unattainable for the majority of people in Germany. According to the survey, more than half (53 percent) assume that they will not be able to continue in their current profession until age 67 under their “current working conditions.”
Only 23 percent of employed people under the age of 67 surveyed believe they will be able to continue working beyond age 67.
IG Metall Social Affairs Director Hans-Jürgen Urban commented: “Retiring at 70 is unrealistic. A higher statutory retirement age means a reduction in pension benefits. The younger generation, in particular, would have to pay for this with personal reductions in their pensions.”
A higher retirement age is unfair
For most people, an even higher retirement age would mean only one thing: significant reductions and a correspondingly low pension.
This is because anyone who does not make it to the standard retirement age receives only a reduced pension. For each year of “early retirement,” the pension insurance system deducts 3.6 percent from the individual’s pension. And this deduction is permanent, applying for the entire duration of pension receipt.
A higher retirement age is therefore particularly unfair to blue-collar workers. They are far less likely to make it to the standard retirement age than, for example, civil servants. The reason is obvious: the physical strain of their jobs.
People who do physically demanding work are doubly penalized by an ever-rising retirement age: through health problems and reduced pensions.
Life expectancy is barely rising—workers are at a disadvantage
We’re living longer and longer. So we can also work longer and retire later. That’s the reasoning of everyone who wants to raise the retirement age even further.
But there are several problems with this idea.
First: While it’s true that life expectancy in Germany has risen significantly over the past hundred years, this increase appears to have come to an end. In recent years, at least, life expectancy among older adults has barely risen at all.
Most recently, 65-year-olds could look forward to an average of 19.4 more years of life. That is almost exactly the same figure as ten years ago, according to data from the Federal Statistical Office.
In contrast, the statutory retirement age has gradually increased by more than a year since 2012. The actual start of retirement has shifted back by an average of about 1.3 years. In other words, the retirement age is currently rising faster than life expectancy.
Furthermore, life expectancy is distributed very unevenly. Occupation and workload have a major influence. Compared to civil servants, blue-collar workers live, on average, about 5.5 years less. They already receive a smaller pension than other employees. An even higher retirement age would further exacerbate this injustice.
Companies Are Not Prepared
Even if employees could work longer, the reality in the workplace would contradict this. In an IG Metall survey, only half (51 percent) of the employees surveyed between the ages of 50 and 64 said that their own company is sufficiently prepared for an aging workforce—for example, through targeted continuing education programs.
Many companies would rather get rid of older employees than provide them with age-appropriate work.
It’s no surprise that employer representatives are calling for retirement at age 70. What would be new is if they improved working conditions so that more employees could reach the standard retirement age in good health. There’s plenty of room for improvement here.
Unemployment Is Particularly Risky in Old Age
No age group is as severely affected by long-term unemployment as people aged 55 and older. Nearly half (47 percent) of all unemployed people in this age group are long-term unemployed. Their chances of returning to regular employment are much lower than those of younger unemployed people.
As a result, decades of work history are literally devalued in the final stretch. This is because pension contributions are paid only for the duration of unemployment benefits. Prolonged unemployment has a massive impact on one’s pension. Raising the retirement age even further exacerbates these risks.
Majority Says “No” to a Higher Retirement Age
The overwhelming majority of people in Germany oppose a further increase in the retirement age. In the most recent ARD Deutschlandtrend survey , 81 percent of respondents spoke out against it . Surveys by IG Metall confirm this sentiment.
What the majority is calling for instead: realistic retirement ages. A statutory pension that comes close to securing one’s standard of living in old age. And a pension insurance system into which all working people contribute —including civil servants, the self-employed, and freelancers.
What is IG Metall proposing regarding pensions?
An aging society poses a challenge to the pension system. But the solution cannot be antisocial cuts and endless work.
“People need security and a financially stable statutory pension as the most important and valuable pillar for a dignified life in old age,” says IG Metall’s Social Affairs Director Hans-Jürgen Urban. “Cuts won’t help the system; what it needs is a strengthening of the solidarity-based community and a fair distribution of societal costs.”
This requires a solidarity-based mix of taxes and contributions. “Our answer is employment-based insurance. Everyone joins the solidarity system, everyone pays contributions, and everyone receives benefits, thereby stabilizing the statutory pension system.”
IG Metall has presented a detailed plan to strengthen the statutory pension system and make it future-proof.
