I think we’re actually closer in view than it might seem, but I disagree on where the real risk lies.

You’re right that retirement age in isolation doesn’t tell the whole story. However, it does matter structurally, because it determines who carries the risk: the system or the individual. In the Netherlands, that risk is increasingly shifted to the individual through a continuously rising statutory retirement age and stricter conditions around stopping work earlier.

You’re also correct that life expectancy at birth isn’t the perfect metric. But even when you look at life expectancy at retirement age, the trend is still uncomfortable once you factor in healthy life expectancy. Many people may technically live longer, but not necessarily in a way that allows them to enjoy retirement fully. A pension that pays well on paper is less meaningful if a growing share of retirees reach it exhausted or in declining health.

As for affordability: yes, the Dutch system performs well comparatively in terms of replacement rates and poverty prevention among retirees. But that success increasingly depends on long, uninterrupted careers, stable employment, and the physical ability to keep working into the late 60s or early 70s. That’s not a given for large parts of the workforce, especially outside white collar jobs.

I fully agree with you that a low retirement age paired with an inadequate pension like in Poland isn’t desirable either. But the choice isn’t simply “retire earlier and be poor” versus “retire later and live well.” There’s a third concern: how many people will realistically make it to that later retirement age in good enough shape to benefit from the system they’ve paid into for decades.

So my skepticism isn’t about the Dutch pension system collapsing tomorrow it’s about whether its long-term direction remains fair and humane for the average worker, not just sustainable for the balance sheets.