Her presentation of the evidence is correct but her interpretation is entirely subjective; she posits that people will have to work longer because they live longer, that economic growth requires more employees, that work life will be shorter, and that surplus benefits are unnecessary. 

Those most likely to require work to support post retirement needs are usually employed  in jobs that pay less and are often physically taxing, indications are that automation will replace many jobs and we will simply create a larger labour pool.   A shorter work life implies more education and less physically taxing jobs (it is easy for an academic to work indefinitely less so for a laborer or a retail worker).  What's wrong with improving living standards which a lower age eligibility provides?

Read Art Campbell's excellent post on this subject.  It is the common good that should be served, not some corporatist agenda.