Raising Việt Nam’s Retirement Age to 65: Growth Engine or Social Burden?

Raising the Age of Retirement

At the National Assembly’s socioeconomic session on October 30, Delegate Nguyễn Thiện Nhân proposed raising the retirement age to 65, justifying it as a way to reduce the “waste of human resources.” He emphasized, “Our country is on a roadmap to increase the retirement age to 62 for men by 2028 and 60 for women by 2035. If we raise it to 65, as in other countries, the labor force would expand by over 5 million workers each year.” [1]

This debate is set against the backdrop of Việt Nam’s rapidly aging population. Currently, the working-age group (15–64) makes up 67.4% of the population, while those under 15 account for 23.3%, and the elderly (65 and above) 9.3%. Projections show that by 2036, Việt Nam will officially enter the “aged society” category, with the number of people aged 60 and over rising from 14.2 million in 2024 to nearly 18 million by 2030. [2]

This demographic reality means that the labor supply—once a key growth advantage—will soon shrink dramatically. In that context, extending the working age is seen as a direct solution to retain workers, relieve pressure on the pension fund, and offset workforce shortages.

However, a significant gap lies between “retaining workers” and “achieving growth.” Raising the retirement age to 65, if not accompanied by appropriate measures, could have long-term consequences for productivity, employment, and intergenerational equity.

The Real Issue is Productivity, Not Age

According to research published in the State Management Journal, Việt Nam’s economic growth in recent years has stemmed largely from expanding the labor force and investment capital, not from productivity improvements. Between 2021 and 2025, labor productivity grew by only about 5.1% per year, falling short of the strategic target of 6.5–7%.

This is relevant as older workers tend to have lower efficiency in industries requiring creativity and high-tech skills. [3] Studies also indicate that workers over 60 face greater challenges adapting to technology and learning new skills than younger workers, especially in fast-changing sectors like digital industries or automated manufacturing. [4]

Professor Giang Thanh Long of the National Economics University warned that “raising the retirement age must be approached cautiously” because “longer working years do not automatically lead to higher growth.” He added that older workers often struggle to adapt to rapidly evolving technologies, and declining health can limit job performance. [5]

ADVERTISEMENT

If the goal is double-digit growth, the key must be increasing productivity, not merely extending years of service. While retaining older workers may ease short-term labor shortages, it will not yield long-term benefits unless accompanied by policies for retraining and career transition.

Generational Fairness and Labor Market Dynamics

Another critical concern is intergenerational competition, as extending the retirement age could reduce job opportunities for younger workers and distort the workforce’s generational structure. Without state policies to facilitate the rotation and advancement of young workers, employment creation for youth could slow down.

This is particularly relevant in Việt Nam, where around 1.5–1.6 million people enter the workforce each year, while the economy’s capacity to generate new jobs remains limited. [6] If older employees continue to occupy positions without structured succession or mentoring policies, it could stall organizational renewal and slow the transfer of skills.

Experiences from South Korea and Japan show that when raising retirement ages, governments must simultaneously invest heavily in digital skills training for older workers and encourage companies to create flexible, part-time positions. [7] [8] Without such complementary measures—including training, health support, and flexible work schemes—the economic benefits remain minimal.

Retirement Age Must Vary by Profession

Any proposal to raise the retirement age must account for the vast differences across professions. In Việt Nam, much of the workforce is engaged in physically demanding sectors such as textiles, mining, transportation, and construction — all requiring considerable physical stamina.

According to Bùi Sỹ Lợi, former Vice Chairman of the National Assembly’s Committee for Social Affairs, flexibility by occupation is crucial. He explained, “Intellectual, scientific, educational, medical, and managerial workers can work until 65 or longer if healthy and willing; but those in direct production lines should retire earlier, at 50–55, while still enjoying full social insurance benefits.” [9]

Other countries that increased retirement ages implemented occupational distinctions. France, for instance, allows workers in physically strenuous jobs to retire two years earlier via a “special early retirement” mechanism tailored by sector. [10] In Japan, policies help older workers transition to lighter roles or modified conditions through retraining, subsidies, and flexible employment systems. [11]

If Việt Nam were to raise the retirement age to 65 across all sectors without such flexibility, the policy could become a burden rather than a catalyst for development. It risks forcing older workers to shoulder jobs meant for the younger generation, pushing health and social welfare further out of reach for aging laborers.

Looking Beyond the Numbers

Raising the retirement age is not inherently wrong, but it cannot be treated as a “magic bullet” for double-digit growth. Extending workers’ careers only makes sense within a coherent policy ecosystem that includes digital skill training, better working conditions, occupational classification, and flexible employment opportunities.

Relying solely on labor quantity will slow growth as the “demographic dividend” window closes. If Việt Nam invests in workforce quality, technological innovation, and productivity gains instead, the country can shift from extensive to intensive growth. In that context, extending working years could become part of a sustainable development strategy—one that earns worker consent rather than resistance.

Ultimately, policymakers like Nguyễn Thiện Nhân should focus not on how to make people work longer, but how to help them work better. The government must be cautious to ensure the policy does not become a “yoke around workers’ necks” that slows innovation and burdens society. Only when accompanied by deep reforms in productivity, education, and labor market structure can raising the retirement age truly contribute to the sustainable growth that Việt Nam aspires to achieve.

Lê Đạt wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on Nov. 3, 2025. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.