The abolition of the default retirement age of 65 is to be welcomed for extending retirement choice (500,000 women to lose out in changes to retirement age, 14 January). Nevertheless, despite government announcements that this will financially benefit older people by allowing them to work longer, it needs to be recognised that this will help the poorest least.

The US abolished their "default retirement age" decades ago. However, research by myself and others suggests that, as in the UK, it is the poorest Americans that are least likely to work past 65. Lower levels of health and education appear to be key factors limiting employment, and the consequences of not working can be dire given a scarcity of cash benefits for poorer US pensioners.

In abolishing the default retirement age we should not therefore lose sight of the pressing and immediate need for increased financial security for those in older age.

Dr David Lain

Research officer, Brighton Business School

• Your article says that no men are affected by the coalition's changes to the pension age. It does not add that men are not affected because they already had to wait longer for their pensions. This is despite the fact that, on average, men have shorter lifespans.

If there is any inequality here it is that men have had to work longer to get their pension for so many years. When there are so many real examples of the government's policies disproportionately affecting women, there is no need to try to add this as one.

David Ball

London