To the Editor,
Re: Seniors aren’t solution for labour shortage, Letters, Jan. 24.
Obviously the letter writer equates “senior” with “retiree”, and was probably confused by the included photo accompanying my original letter.
As someone offered seniors’ rates by many of the local stores (and gladly accepting them, I might add) since I turned 55, that definition seems more acceptable to me.
The letter writer should be made aware that I am not retired and am not yet 65. I also feel sorry for the author, whose claims of work being not fun, as well as being “annoying, tedious and boring”.
Perhaps this indicates a need for him to find something he might like doing to make a living.
The claim that “one well-paying job makes it possible to retire with a sufficient nest egg to retire” belies the reality of the fact that those lifetime jobs are very rare, especially recently and many workers are forced to retrain and reinvent themselves during their working career.
Finally, his statement, “On average, retirees would cash less (sic) than two dozen CPP cheques when retiring at 65,” causes me great concern.
Does he mean after a lifetime of contributing, the government will only be paying me out for two years, or does he mean, on average, retirees die at age 67? Either way, it is not good news to me.
Rod Hancock
Nanaimo