Iain Duncan Smith wants us to work until we drop. But we are not machines

When Oasis’s Liam Gallagher sang about how he wanted to “live forever” I don’t think he meant putting in some extra shifts at work in his 70s. Many of us are, of course, living longer – if not forever – but ideally we should be able to enjoy this greater life expectancy, not see it as a threat or a physical burden.

Related: Work until 75? Many people won’t even live that long | Frances Ryan

You might have thought that a policy paper called Ageing Confidently, produced this week by a thinktank called the Centre for Social Justice, might have a similar aim in mind. But this is not quite how it has turned out. While the CSJ made several sensible recommendations about flexible working and better healthcare, its truly startling suggestion was that there should be an increase in the state pension age to 70 by 2028, and to 75 by 2035. This would not be a case of live forever, but work forever.

The proposal is based on some extraordinary assumptions, and betrays a narrow and ill-informed point of view. The paper imagines a wonderful world in which there is dynamic, supportive healthcare readily available to all over 50s, liberating them to pursue an active working life for another two decades. Employers will, perhaps overnight, completely reassess their views about older colleagues. It is in this benign and healthy labour market that 60- and 70-year-olds can confidently look forward to many more happy years of productive work, boosting employment rates and reducing the welfare bill. As if by magic, the economy – according to the report – will be 9% bigger, with £182bn greater output.

Some will find this vision attractive. If you are an office-based “knowledge worker” in good health, more or less safe from the threat of being automated out of a job, you might find the idea of carrying on until 70 or beyond appealing. Cliff-edge retirement, especially when it comes sooner than desired, can be an unwelcome shock.

As the report states: “Working longer has the potential to preserve mental and physical health, to contribute to the economy and to significantly relieve fiscal pressures.” The UK state pension costs just under £100bn a year and represents 12% of total public spending. As more people live longer those costs will rise. But the glaring difficulty with enforcing longer working lives is that many will simply not be physically capable of it. Manual workers, and those who operate under great physical and mental stress, cannot work until they drop. They need and deserve as long and healthy a retirement as the state can afford. They have earned it.

Health and life expectancy vary widely in the UK, and in the poorest parts of the country, where health outcomes are worse, many people will not be well enough to work, or will be dead before a delayed state pension becomes available. We know, thanks to Dominic Cummings’ blogs, that Bismarck is an important influence at the heart of government these days – but who expected the right to suggest aligning the state pension age with life expectancy, much as the Iron Chancellor did towards the end of the 19th century? (At least the Germans, 20 years later, reduced the pension age from 70 to 65).

The CSJ’s chairman, Iain Duncan Smith, spoke positively about the Ageing Confidently report. He spoke of “removing barriers for older people to working longer”. But we are all already set to work longer. The state pension age will be 66 by next year, then 67 by 2028 and 68 by 2046. That is probably about as much progress as most of us will be able to stand.

Longer lives do indeed mean reconsidering how, how much and how long we work. But there is so much more to discuss than that. We are more than just a “workforce”. We are people and families.

There is much talk in the report of something called the “old age dependency ratio” – that is, the number of older people (deemed to be “economically inactive”) as a proportion of those of working age. As people live longer (and birth rates fall or stagnate, and freedom of movement is restricted) that ratio rises. It is an important measure that requires attention. But we should at least be as concerned about what we might call the “old age decency ratio”. How well do we live? Who cares for us? How can we stay active? How is loneliness kept at bay? Do family members live close enough to be in regular contact, and if not, what can we do about it?

The CSJ has called for a “reconceptualisation of what ageing and old age means”. That may be necessary. But the answers we need will have a lot more to do with human relationships, social engagement and productive activity than simply clocking on for a few more dreary shifts of poorly paid work.

• Stefan Stern is co-author of Myths of Management and the former director of the High Pay Centre