By Steve Conley – Academy of Life Planning
When new research tells us that “older Londoners can’t afford to retire,” it’s worth pausing to ask: is that really the full story?
According to data analysed by Bower Home Finance, seven of the UK’s top ten areas where people over 65 remain in work are in London — with Newham topping the list at 31%. The company concludes that “the high cost of living means older residents simply can’t afford to stop working.”
But the data they cite — from the Office for National Statistics (NOMIS) — records only employment rates, not motives. It tells us how many people are working, not why. And the “why” is where the story changes.
🔍 Beyond the affordability narrative
London is a complex ecosystem. Yes, living costs are high. But so are opportunities. Older workers in the capital are more likely to find flexible, part-time, knowledge-based, or service roles suited to their experience and health. The same ONS data that shows higher participation also shows these roles concentrated in regions with diversified economies and professional networks.
The Department for Work and Pensions’ Older Workers Survey (2021) found that while 48% of over-65s stay in work for financial reasons, 42% do so for enjoyment and 39% to remain active and social. This paints a much richer picture — one that blends necessity with purpose.
⚖️ Structural trustworthiness and human capital
When analysts attribute later-life work purely to “inability to retire,” they risk erasing the positive side of extended participation: meaning, contribution, and autonomy.
A structurally trustworthy economy doesn’t trap people in work through financial pressure. It enables them to choose work because it’s fulfilling, valued, and supported.
The policy question, then, isn’t “Why can’t people afford to retire?” but rather:
👉 “How can we design systems where people of all ages can thrive — whether they work or rest — by choice, not coercion?”
That means rebalancing investment from financial capital to human capital: valuing wisdom, flexibility, and purpose as part of the nation’s wealth.
🌍 The Age of Empowerment
As longevity rises and traditional retirement fades, the goal should not be escape from work, but freedom within it.
A life-first financial plan — one grounded in the Academy’s GAME Plan for Sovereign Living — allows people to realign their purpose, resources, and lifestyle, so that work remains an option, not an obligation.
Because the measure of a healthy society is not how soon we can afford to stop working — but how freely we can choose to keep creating, contributing, and living with purpose.
⚠️ Important Context: Interpreting Industry-Produced Research
Bower Home Finance operates within the later-life lending and equity-release sector. Its commercial domain is helping homeowners unlock property wealth to supplement retirement income. As such, its vantage point and messaging may naturally emphasise narratives of financial shortfall in retirement — framing later life as a period of affordability challenge rather than opportunity or purpose.
While its use of official labour market data (e.g. NOMIS) is legitimate, its interpretation of that data should be understood within this commercial context. The firm’s framing — that older workers “cannot afford to retire” — aligns with its business model of promoting financial products designed to address perceived retirement funding gaps.
Readers and policymakers should therefore distinguish between descriptive data (employment rates) and interpretive narrative (affordability as cause), ensuring that insights drawn from such research are balanced against independent evidence on choice, opportunity, and purpose in later-life work.
The Bower Home Finance study attributes causality (“can’t afford to retire”) to a correlation (high over-65 employment rates in high-cost areas) — but provides no direct evidence of financial necessity versus voluntary continuation of work.
Here’s a breakdown of what the evidence actually supports, and what would be needed to justify their claim:
🔍 What the data really shows
- Source: NOMIS (ONS) labour market statistics by local authority.
- Finding: Higher proportion of over-65s in paid employment in certain areas (notably London boroughs).
- Limitation: NOMIS data records employment, not motivation. It says nothing about whether work is needed for income, wanted for purpose, or available due to opportunity.
🧩 Competing explanations
- Affordability hypothesis (Bower’s claim):
- London has higher housing, transport, and living costs.
- Therefore, older workers in London must keep working longer to sustain their standard of living.
- Evidence suggestive but indirect — e.g. higher average rents, fewer homeowners with mortgage-free housing, lower defined-benefit pension coverage in London.
- Opportunity hypothesis (your point):
- London has greater access to flexible, part-time, professional, and service roles suited to older workers.
- Employers there are more likely to retain experienced staff and accommodate phased retirement.
- Evidence: ONS “Older workers and employment, UK: 2022” found that London and the South East had higher participation rates for 65+ because of greater availability of part-time and knowledge-based work, not necessarily financial strain.
- Purpose / identity hypothesis:
- Some older adults choose to continue working for social engagement, identity, or fulfilment.
- DWP’s “Fuller Working Lives” report (2021) showed that one in three older workers say they work for purpose or enjoyment, not financial need.
đź“š Supporting evidence from ONS and DWP
- ONS Labour Market Overview (2024):
Participation among 65–69-year-olds highest in professional and managerial occupations — where work is more flexible and cognitively engaging.
→ Supports the opportunity/purpose explanation. - DWP Older Workers Survey (2021):
48% cited “financial reasons” for remaining in work, but 42% cited “enjoyment” and 39% “keeping active and social”.
→ Motivation is multifactorial, not purely economic. - Centre for Ageing Better (2023):
Notes regional differences in job quality and availability as major determinants of post-65 employment, not just affordability.
⚖️ Balanced conclusion
The claim that “older Londoners can’t afford to retire” is a narrative assumption rather than a demonstrated causal finding.
The observed variation likely reflects an interaction of three forces:
- Higher living costs (affordability constraint)
- More employment opportunities (structural advantage)
- Greater purpose or preference for continued engagement (psychological and cultural factors)
🧠Policy takeaway
Framing older work as a failure to retire risks pathologising longevity and purpose.
A structurally trustworthy interpretation would differentiate:
- Forced work (necessity) vs. fulfilled work (choice)
and promote systems where later-life employment is optional, dignified, and meaningful — not a symptom of economic strain.
Join us at the Academy of Life Planning.
Let’s raise capability and integrity — together.
Because only when products and services are structurally trustworthy can consumers truly be free.
Get SAFE Exists to Change That
Get SAFE (Support After Financial Exploitation) is building a national lifeline for victims — providing free emotional recovery, life-planning, and justice support through our:
- Fellowship:Â peer-to-peer recovery and community.
- Witnessing Service:Â trauma-informed advocacy for those seeking redress.
- Citizen Investigator Training:Â empowering survivors to uncover truth and pursue justice.
Our Goal: Raise ÂŁ20,000 to Rebuild Lives
Your contribution will help us:
Register Get SAFE as a charity (CIO)
Build our website, CRM, and outreach platform
Fund our first year of free recovery and justice programmes
Every ÂŁ50 Changes a Life
Each £50 donation funds a bursary for one survivor — giving them access to the tools, training, and community that restore confidence, purpose, and hope.
This Isn’t Just a Fundraiser — It’s a Movement
We’re reclaiming fairness and rebuilding trust, one life at a time.
Support the Crowdfunder today
Be part of the movement to rebuild lives and restore justice.
Academy of Life Planning 