Those working past the age of 65 are set to live longer lives, while those who retire before that could be headed for an early grave, according to research by Oregon State University (OSU).
The research found healthy adults who retired after 65 had an 11 per cent lower risk of death from all causes, still taking health, demographic and lifestyle variables into account. Adults who termed themselves unhealthy were also found to live longer if they continued to work, showing that major contributors to mortality were not always health based.
The study's lead author, Chenkai Wu, noted "it may not apply to everybody, but work brings people a lot of economic and social benefits that could impact the length of their lives".
"Most research in this area has focused on the economic impacts of delaying retirement. I thought it might be good to look at the health impacts."
Wu and senior author Robert Stawski said research is needed to better understand the links between work and health, but the study would have a profound impact on understanding longevity of life and wellbeing.
"We see the relationship between work and longevity, but we don't know everything about people's lives, health and well-being after retirement that could be influencing their longevity," Stawski said.
"It's just the tip of the iceberg."
The data was collected over an 18 year period commencing in 1992 through the Healthy Retirement Study, a long-term study of American adults led by the University of Michigan.
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.