It bothers me that you are being downvoted. One of the reasons retirement benefits were created was so people could retire and open up their jobs to the next ge

It bothers me that you are being downvoted. One of the reasons retirement benefits were created was so people could retire and open up their jobs to the next generation. It's nice that someone held onto a job til 102, but it also means that at least two generations of young people lost out on a job that they could use to buy a home, start a family, etc. I'm not for forced retirement but someone holding onto a position to 102 is really ridiculous. Especially for a taxpayer funded government job with terrific retirement benefits/pension. At some point, shouldn't a person acknowledge they've taken more than their fair share and step aside so another gets a chance? Isn't it part of the social contract that you retire, collect benefits and let others have a job? If this employee had to work to survive ( pay rent/mortgage, bills, etc ), then more power to him. But otherwise, he really did a disservice to the younger generations by staying on as long as he did.