THE affordability of living into our late 60s, far less our late 80s, poses some serious questions about future employment market dynamics.

Amid further expected rises in the age at which state pension eligibility will kick-in, difficult new recruitment policy and culture issues arise. Alarmingly, they come as a direct consequence of the need to keep working "until we drop" among a large portion in the current labour pool.

Fears over the ability of private pension pots to sustain acceptable future living standards heighten the dilemma.

Following research, at least one private pension provider estimates that today’s younger workers will need to retire as late as 81 years old to enjoy the same standard of living in retirement as their parents – ie an acceptable standard, in the context of typical historic lifestyle.

Are we entering an era where the default expectation is work, work, work? It’s a moot point. There are those who suggest that working on is no bad thing for mental stimulation.

The point is whether the desire to be in better control of the work/life balance is an implicit reality; the choice may not exist. Catch-22.

Yet, with a broader mind set, the solutions are surely obvious and arguably bring a stability advantage to organisational strategies – though there remains a potential sting in the tail for early stage career builders.

To some extent the writing is already on the wall, though indirectly. Mortgage lenders have identified the need to offer terms extending the "paid-up" ceiling to 75 and even 80 years old. It is a move intended to make home ownership not only a realistic prospect in an age where because of cost it’s not unheard of for professionals in their late 30s to be sharing a house with parents.

Home deposit levels have become the chief hurdle, usually requiring a longer period of working before the necessary savings are amassed to meet lender criteria. In turn, lenders are prepared to allow a longer mortgage term – so long as there is some demonstration of an ability, or at least a plan, to service the debt into your 70s. That’s longhand for employment.

Experienced well qualified people in their 50s often bemoan the fact that it is hard to get a job in line with their capacities in age-fixated sectors, in spite of anti-discrimination legislation. What chance is there for those hitting 65 and 70?

The longer-life demographic is, perversely, corrupting the outlook.

Improving health and health services mean that instead of the old fashioned rule of thumb suggesting three score years and 10, 30 per cent more people in the UK who are now in their 20s can expect to live to 100, according to the latest estimates.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) last year suggested that the average 2015 retiree can "look forward" to drawing their pension for up to 24 years – that’s almost 50 per cent longer than their parents’ generation.

All other things being equal, it seems we’ll be around to do the work. But will the work come around to us, or will those intending to push on past 66 be left to fester on the hiring shelf, scuppered by misaligned use-by date assumptions?

Say it quickly and it all sounds quite amusing, especially if you’re in a comfortable job and have loyally served an employer for a couple of decades.

Starkly, though, a mix of sector trend, colleague expectation or company policy may be the factors that call time on any adjusted personal planning.

Experts from relevant disciplines tell us there is no reason why somebody of 66 should not carry on doing their job for another 10 years or more. That may be possible even for roles regarded as moderately physically taxing.

Clearly those generally healthier lifestyles combined with the assured retirement income/age conundrum mean that something will have to give in order to stop the development of a social tsunami in western economies.

For extended working life to succeed, it will need a counteracting sea change in attitudes towards age in the workplace.

Legislators will point to existing rules on that. Let’s not kid ourselves: it is clear that if "younger" continues to equal "better" (or perhaps just cheaper?) in some hiring scenarios, ways around discrimination rules will remain, and cause damage.

Employers need to better understand the advantages of age diversity. Where familiarity of rapidly evolving technologies is the hiring stumbling block, team structures should be designed around complementary experiential talents.

Remember, younger employees seeking upward moves may not be with an individual employer for the long term. They may regard five years as outstaying CV usefulness. Conversely, employees in the new late years of work are highly likely to be not just reliable but potentially less costly, overall.

Training budgets can be strained by unhelpful levels of attrition.

The need for this new thinking is arguably more pressing in the forecast turbulence on the journey towards Brexit and the inevitable state of doubt over the eventual "deal", hard, soft or a compromise.

In the bigger picture there is a risk of a blockage forming across the path of school, college and university leavers seeking positions in certain industries if movement on the vacancy ladder stagnates. That said, Brexit may yet usher in a more complicated enemy – for all.