All people at the same age? Why the socioeconomic profile should redefine the retirement age in Spain
One of the issues derived from the ageing of the population that is generating more debate at both the political and social levels is the sustainability of the pension system. The idea has spread that the progressive increase in the older population will end up straining the balance between the employed population and the retired population, which would jeopardise the pension system as we know it today. This is because the public pension system in Spain is a pay‑as‑you‑go system, and pensions are financed through the contributions of current workers. As a consequence of this debate, one of the measures implemented to try to counteract this situation has been the progressive increase in the retirement age. However, this measure has been adopted in a generalised way, without taking into account the socioeconomic inequalities present in Spanish society. Our aim is to invite reflection on the need to adjust these criteria according to key characteristics of the population, especially those related to life expectancy, health, and the socioeconomic profile of the population that is currently on the verge of retirement.
In this case, educational level is a key socioeconomic factor due to its relationship with both economic activity and health. The population with a higher educational level tends to enter the labour market later precisely because of their greater number of years of training, although in most cases they do so in better‑paid jobs with greater social prestige. On the contrary, people with a lower educational level tend to become part of the active population at younger ages, but in jobs with worse working conditions (more physically demanding, lower wages, etc.) and with a lower level of labour protection (higher probabilities of unemployment). All these factors define the socioeconomic capacity of individuals, but they also end up shaping unequal scenarios in terms of future health prospects. In fact, inequalities in mortality according to educational level are evident throughout the entire life course. Taking as reference the mortality tables by educational level provided by the INE, the data for the year 2019 show that among the population aged 25, only 84.3% of men with primary education or lower would reach the age of 65, whereas in the case of men with higher education the percentage rises to 92.3%. In the case of women, these percentages are 91.6% and 95.3%, respectively.
Once the age of 65 is reached, life expectancy continues to be unequal. In the case of men who reach this age, the difference in life expectancy between the lowest and highest educational levels is two and a half years: men with higher education would live on average 20.7 more years, while those with primary education or lower would live only 18.2 years. The difference among women is somewhat smaller (24.5 vs 22.6). At the same time, people with a higher educational level not only live more years, but also live more years in good health. How are the years of life lived on average divided according to health status (good or poor)? The population with primary education or lower presents the lowest number of years in good health upon reaching 65 years of age (8.0 and 8.7 years for women and men, respectively), while those with higher education present significantly higher values (16.5 and 12.3 years for women and men, respectively.
Delaying the retirement age not only reduces the years lived that can be enjoyed in good health after retirement, but also increases social inequalities, especially among people with different educational levels. As pointed out by Blanes and Trias (2021), the less educated population presents a double disadvantage: first, a lower life expectancy; and second, a higher prevalence of negative health situations. This higher prevalence leads to an accumulation of various chronic diseases at earlier ages compared to the population with higher educational levels (Permanyer et al., 2025), evidencing a faster process of health deterioration. This issue gains greater relevance if we take into account that the majority of the population currently at ages close to retirement (between 55 and 64 years) reports having an educational level within the first stage of secondary education or lower (44.7% of women and 46.1% of men, according to INE data). In this context, it seems reasonable to open a debate on whether it is fair to postpone the retirement age in a generalised way, since this measure may be intensifying the negative effects of the accumulation of social inequalities on an important part of the population.
But then, where could action be taken to balance the pension system? As Miret and Zueras already pointed out in 2016, we should move the debate from demography to the labour market. The design and implementation of policies aimed at reducing the level of unemployment in the country (Spain is, despite the recent period of economic expansion, the second country with the highest unemployment rate —10.2%— in the European Union today, only behind Bosnia‑Herzegovina), together with the promotion of women’s entry into the labour market (Spain still presents values below the EU‑27 average —66.5% vs 70.8%—), would make it possible to guarantee the sustainability of the pension system in the medium and long term thanks to the increase in the number of people contributing to the pension system. Furthermore, we must take into account that Spain is the EU‑27 country with the highest overqualification rate (35%). This means that a good part of human capital is being lost, since the labour market is not capable of offering employment in line with the training of a large part of the population with higher education. As a consequence, their contribution to the pension fund is lower than it could potentially be.
1 – The National Statistics Institute provides mortality data by educational level only for the period between 2016 and 2022. The year 2019 is taken as a reference as it is the year prior to the start of the COVID‑19 pandemic.
2 – Measured through self‑perceived health.
References:
Blanes, A., & Trias‑Llimós, S. (2021). Vivir menos y con peor salud: el peaje de la población menos instruida en España. Perspectives demogràfiques, 24.
Permanyer, I., Gumà, J., Trias‑Llimós, S. & Solé‑Auró, A. (2025). “Multimorbidity trends in Catalonia, 2010‑2021: a population‑based cohort study”, forthcoming in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). Nivel de formación de la población adulta (de 25 a 64 años).
Consulta realizada el 28 de noviembre de 2025.
Miret Gamundi, P., & Zueras, P. (2016). La quiebra en el sistema público de pensiones: ¡No en nombre de la demografía! Perspectives Demogràfiques, 4, 1‑4.
