Retirement at 70: Why Companies Must Hire and Develop Workers Over 50

According to the German federal government’s plans, the retirement age is to be linked to life expectancy and gradually increased in the coming years. Based on the commission’s calculations, this would mean that from 2041, employees would not retire until the age of 67.5, and from 2051, at 68. By the 2090s, retirement at 70 would apply. Politically, these plans sound entirely plausible. If people live longer, they should also work longer. But this calculation only adds up if older employees are also increasingly hired in the future. So far, however, applications from the 50-plus generation tend to be met with rejection after rejection on the labour market.

The Blind Spot in Recruiting

Demographic change has already fundamentally altered the structure of the labour market. According to the Federal Statistical Office (2024), almost one in three working people now belongs to the over-50 age cohort. Nevertheless, according to the federal government, the potential of experienced talent has not yet been systematically integrated into workforce planning and development. Research even suggests that older applicants are structurally disadvantaged in hiring processes. A study published in the journal Empirical Economics in 2024 shows that older employees in Germany continue to be hired significantly less often than their share of the working population would suggest — even though more than one in three companies is still unable to fill vacancies, at least in part.

It appears to be a paradox. Companies are looking for qualified employees who can act independently, remain calm under pressure, take responsibility, and solve complex problems, yet they do not consistently recruit the very talents who embody precisely these qualities.

Bias Blocks Access

Age discrimination is rarely openly visible. Hardly any company would officially state that it does not hire applicants from the 50-plus generation. The bias operates more subtly and can be seen, for example, in trends such as “Resume Botox” — the strategic adaptation of CVs to reduce indications of older age and thereby increase chances in the selection process. It is also evident in phrases such as “young team”, “digital native” or “initial professional experience”.

Behind these formulations are often traditional patterns of thinking, cultural filters, cognitive biases, and persistent stereotypes that remain embedded in society. Two common examples concern the supposed “low adaptability” or “lack of digital competence” of older employees. Such social assumptions have now even been digitalised. Ageism and gender bias are now also embedded in LLMs. As a Stanford study published in Nature in October 2025 shows, generative AI systematically disadvantages older women and thus influences everything in the workplace — from hiring practices to perceptions at work.

The result is a systematic distortion and an artificial shrinking of the candidate pool. If a company searches, for example, for “skills for tomorrow”, the AI may filter out precisely the part of the applicant group that embodies these qualifications. If there are no processes in place to counteract this, companies risk no longer hiring the most suitable talent, but rather those who match the AI’s image of the ideal candidate. The consequences are obvious: a loss of innovative strength and economic success.

Longer Working Lives Require Access

Anyone talking about longer working lives must not look solely at the retirement age. The decisive question is whether people over 50 have reliable access to employment, training, and career changes in the first place. Someone who, at the age of 53, after a restructuring process or a period of caregiving, barely receives any invitations to job interviews will not automatically find a new job subject to social security contributions simply because the retirement age is higher.

On the contrary, the 50-plus generation is already being overlooked in search, selection and development processes — even though biases against older employees are economically inefficient, outdated and have been refuted in numerous empirical studies, from the IAB and the OECD to the World Economic Forum and AARP. Differences compared with younger colleagues, as the studies already mentioned show, arise solely from organisational conditions, leadership style, and access to further training.

Under a retirement-at-70 logic, the final phase of a career does not begin at 50; rather, it marks another stage in a professional biography that may still span up to 20 years. This is precisely where responsibility arises on several levels. While policymakers must do more to promote upskilling and reskilling in the second half of working life, companies need to review their recruiting funnels, talent pools, training budgets and succession planning.

Experience is not an obsolete model. It is the raw material from which the future is made. What is needed is the strategic inclusion of the relevant specialists and managers. The key is not to understand age diversity as a social gesture or special programme, but as a factor in entrepreneurial resilience — especially in leadership, project and development roles.