None of these problems exist in that world.
Naturally, in countries that implement compulsory pension schemes, it's also not something you can easily remove: lots of people depend on government pensions and/or have planned their lives around them, it would be an unmitigated disaster to just say "we aren't doing this any longer".
Anyway, you’re wrong with regards to removing pension schemes. Look at Australia with compulsory superannuation. The government forces people to save up enough money to put them over a threshold where they won’t be entitled to a pension. Thankfully, this is fully paid for by employers. The UK is going the same way but sadly more of a user-pays type scenario. Not difficult at all and only takes about 50 years before the majority of the population is ineligible for whatever pension still exists, but it is still there for people who fall through the cracks. No need to remove the pension at all - just price out the wealthy.
Yes, it's already like this under any system. In what other way can it possibly work?
> I guess this is along the same lines of the only wealthy people are entitled to education and healthcare.
You are making shit up. Education and healthcare have nothing to do with being forced to pay for the pensions of people who retired at 50 because they were friends with politicians. Public education is good. Public healthcare is good. Public pensions are not, as a matter of theory and practice.
> Not difficult at all and only takes about 50 years
Something that takes 50 years to remove sounds like the very definition of something that's difficult to remove.
I don't see this as a terrible deal.
Of course, you then have to work past the standard retirement age, but I see this as a given for a lot of people anyway (you might even live longer if you get frequent sabbaticals)
So yes, if you continue surviving your chances of living to your delayed retirement age increase, but I still posit you'll enjoy time off work more when you're younger.
In the US you can start drawing retirement benefits at 62 at a lower rate, or at 65 at a higher rate. So this would be similar. Eligible for benefits at 62 with no sabbaticals. Or 65 with 3 sabbaticals.
Retirement age refers to when you're eligible for government retirement benefits.
The proposal is to let people draw their retirement benefits early, basically.
Practically speaking, drawing 3 months of expenses at age 35 might be equivalent to something like drawing 1 year of expenses at age 65, assuming the money is invested. You'd have to do the math to see the real numbers, but that's essentially what the author is proposing.
Time value of money.