I think we can all agree that “retirement” living has varied enormously across time and space. Not so long ago those few who were fortunate enough to reach old age lived amongst their families, often relying on them to meet their financial and physical needs.
On a recent trip to Samoa my husband, friends and I had the honour of being invited to share lunch with a local family after church. We followed their family van a couple of kilometres down the potholed road to a pink fale surrounded by various outhouses and tropical plants. There we were introduced to the matriarch of the family, a gorgeous older lady named Filemu who was house bound with what I suspected was a nasty case of cellulitis on her leg. Filemu rested in a comfortable chair positioned in the centre of the fale fanning herself to keep cool, surrounded by her extended family who looked after her.
While most of the family had gone to church in the morning a daughter and son-in-law had taken their turn to stay home to look after Filemu and prepare an impressive array of traditional Samoan dishes for lunch. Her grandchildren served it to her and then entertained us all with songs and dances. She was clearly respected as head of the home, and given exemplary care by her family.
A few years earlier we had stayed with a family in a small town on the Italian riviera. Each day Augusta prepared lunch for her son and grandchildren. The extended family would eat the meal together before her son went back to work and her grandsons worked on their homework. Augusta would then go two doors down to check in on her elderly aunt. She shared this duty with her cousin, checking in first thing, delivering a midday meal and then going up in the evenings to help her prepare for bed.
In modern New Zealand where we are all highly mobile and don’t often live in close proximity to extended family it is easy to forget that just a couple of generations ago these would have been a common scenario for elderly relatives. I know my father grew up in a household which included his grandparents and a great uncle. Nowadays, most nuclear families consist of working parents who are out of the house most of the day. Usually older family members who need care are looked after in their own home by their partner or are in rest home care. In most cases it is simply not possible to juggle a job with being a full time carer even if you live closeby.
In 2021, life expectancy in NZ was 82.21 but this has increased rapidly over the last century. In 1970 it was only 71 and at the turn of the 19th century it was a dismal 46.5. This meant that the proportion of people who actually reached “retirement” age was tiny.
As with the early adoption of women’s suffrage, New Zealand was one of the world leaders in introducing state financial provision for the few who did survive into old age. Although other countries had introduced pensions, ours was the first in the world to be funded by general taxation. The Old Age Pensions Act was passed in 1898 by Richard Seddon’s Liberal Party and was based on the principle that the state carried some responsibility to elderly citizens who didn’t have independent means to provide for themselves. Only those who met a strict moral and racial criteria qualified for the means tested payment; recipients were required to be of "good moral character” having led a “sober and reputable life for at least five years”, they had to have lived in New Zealand for at least 25 years and those of Chinese and Asiatic descent were strangely excluded! Despite the fact the pension was incredibly discriminatory and few qualified, it was a milestone that paved the way to the government superannuation scheme we have today.
Over 125 years later, life expectancy has dramatically increased and 75 per cent of people “pensionable age” receive an Old Age Pension of some description (even if it is means tested) across the world. This is an almost universal expectation in developed countries but in Sub Saharan Africa only 20% are eligible for a pension. In many of these countries poverty and disease are widespread and, although life expectancy is increasing, reaching old age is not taken for granted. Across Sub Saharan Africa life expectancy is 61, in Nigeria and Lesotho it is only 53.
Those pension schemes which do exist are generally run through private business, but since the majority of people work in the informal agricultural sector they don’t qualify. As the elderly Sub Saharan African population grows and there is a trend towards smaller households, there is growing push for African governments to improve pension schemes.
At the other end of the spectrum, 35% of Japan’s population is over 60 (compared to just 4.8% in Sub Saharan Africa) and Japanese life expectancy is an impressive 85 years old. While seniors are well respected in Japanese society, even enjoying an annual national holiday in their honour, the skewed population distribution is putting increasing pressure on the welfare and medical system. In response, the government has a policy of “lifelong work”, encouraging older Japanese to continue working beyond the official retirement age of 60, even if it is in less stressful employment than they held previously. It is believed remaining in the labour force gives older Japanese citizens a continued sense of belonging and community, and of course it helps address Japan’s labour shortage and contributes to tax revenue.
In reality surviving on the state pension alone is almost impossible and Japanese seniors need to rely on private pensions, savings and continuing work to maintain a decent standard of living amidst rising costs of living. As in New Zealand, and many other developed countries, there is discussion on raising the age of eligibility to receive the pension, in order to ease the tax burden and ensure the superannuation scheme is sustainable in the future.
It is no surprise, therefore, to see that Sub Sahara Africa and Japan are missing off the many lists of the best places to retire in the world. What is interesting is how varied the results are of the variety of indexes on offer, depending on what categories are used to assess desirability. The International Living 2024 Global Retirement Index ranked countries using a points-based system based on housing, cost of living, climate, governance and health care. Using these indicators, Costa Rica, Portugal and Mexico took the top three places and the top ten were awarded to countries in Europe and Central and South America.
In comparison, the Natixis Investment Managers 2024 Global Retirement Index awarded their top three to Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, rating retirement destinations on material wellbeing, governance and financial stability, health services, environment and quality of life. The top ten rankings went to Europe and Australasia with Australia in number seven, and New Zealand in tenth place. Finally the Numbeo index ranked countries on attributes including friendliness, livability, climate and the health care system. Once again, Switzerland received first place but this time New Zealand was in second and Portugal took third.
Some retirees even embrace the freedom from work as an opportunity to move to a new country with a more favourable climate or lifestyle. But for those amongst us who prefer to stay right where we are, it is good to know that Aotearoa ranks amongst the best.
This article is lifted from the New Zealand’s Best Magazine 2025 Edition. For more interesting senior related content, order the latest 2026 issue from www.agedadvisor.nz/Annual-Magazine
.webp)
