The aging population

RenovationMan

gauly wrote: »

It's not just that British people want to "palm off" their children and parents to other people (though not everyone wants to live with their parents again and it is more socially acceptable over here). There are also greater difficulties facing families in the UK. The fact is it isn't even possible for most people. We have by far the smallest size of housing in Europe - have you seen the size of a modern "luxury" newbuild? Where is the space for an elderly relative? And also the highest house prices and longest working hours - with everyone having to work full time it isn't always possible to care for either children or older parents.

I have worked all over Europe and beyond and can state that there is nothing different about the pressures in the UK than the pressures in other developed countries.

My point is that we dont wait until granny is in her 90s and falling to bits before we grudgingly move them into our houses. We should go back to having family units again where the 20 and 30 somethings go out to work while their kids are looked after by their Grandparents. Families who do this are more closely bonded and so do not begrudge looking after each other.

When I first mentioned our plans to my Italian friend he seemed a bit non-plussed until I told him how British people viewed the elderly. He stated that they had Grandparents (W) living at home who looked after the Grand Kids (Y) and prepared a dinner in the evening for their hardworking kids (X). This meant that when (X) come home from work, the whole family can have a meal together and (X) can spend quality time with their kids (Y) without having to rush around making meals for the kids and shouting at them because they're tired.

As far as the economy is concerned, you are combining a lifetime of working from Grandparents, plus retirement income with the current income of parents with the lower outgoings of no childcare costs and decent home cooked meals rather than expensive, crappy fast food.

People need to stop running on that treadmill, thinking that their way is the only way and start looking at alternatives. Working until you drop in order to pay for strangers to take care of your children at great expense and then working longer to keep yourself in a poverty stricken and lonely old age might be the norm for some people, but I'm 'old skool' and I'm opting out of the welfare state and I'm happy to take care of my own kids, take care of my parents when the time comes and, if they take my example, have my kids take care of me.

All those people who neglect their own parents because of lack of time and money are providing an example for their kids and therefore cannot moan when there dealt the same cards in their old age.

blueboy43

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Although this is still true, I find myself frustrated with the lack of any 'intelligent' debate about this in the media. The BBC tend to allow (unchallenged) the thesis that low income causes lower mortality and poorer health. This argument is often used to support paying more benefits to poorer people.

A correlation doesn't in any way prove 'cause and effect'.

Most likely, it's something else causing both. In other words, maybe, just maybe, what we see is a lower education. A lower education will, in general, result directly in much less ability to earn money, and totally independently from this, a propensity not to look after one's own health/weight/diet etc.

In the 'old days', you needed money to go to a doctor. No wonder, therefore, that poor people died younger. With a 'free' health service these days, that link is no longer as obvious.

The cause & effect is however pretty obvious in some ways. A severe cold snap will increase deaths amongst the elderly, mainly those who are unable / unwilling to heat their homes properly.

blueboy43

ultrawomble wrote: »

What you're looking at are the graves of people who could afford a headstone - the wealthy - who (surprise, surprise) lived longer (and still do) than poor people.

While this is true, it ignores the fact that roughly 50% of people born in the late 17th Century would not make it to age 14.

If you made it to 14, you had a roughly 40% chance to living past 65.

In fact 20% of people lived to an age greater than 65%. This far exceeds the proportion of people who would be considered wealthy.

All the life expectancy figures you see are for mean life. The median age would be more useful.

ceridwen

ninky wrote: »

the issue of aging is pretty complex. the term 'elderly' is an emotionally loaded one and one which is not always consitent with the reality of people being 'older'. the real costs to the public purse come in terms of the number of years people will claim a state pension and the amount of state funded healthcare and/ or accommodation they will need.

the concept of 'retirement' was only really invented after the industrial revolution. it may well be that concept alters and people will either stay in the workforce longer or on a staggered basis. improvements in preventative healthcare could also make old age less expensive. in terms of scientific progress it is very possible to see a time when people could effectively live forever. this would have implications for population growth and completely alter our notion of the natural lifecycle and need for reproduction.

http://viewzone2.com/agingx.html

treliac wrote: »

What a nightmare scenario. :eek:

Definitely a nightmare scenario as you put it - but would anyone actually WANT to live any longer than their "natural lifespan"???? <insert puzzled smilie>

Maybe its only about 1% of people - and only those in the "developed countries" anyway that would want any extra time added onto their lifespan?? Though even that would be a huge problem - added onto the overpopulation there is anyway.

Loughton_Monkey

blueboy43 wrote: »

The cause & effect is however pretty obvious in some ways. A severe cold snap will increase deaths amongst the elderly, mainly those who are unable / unwilling to heat their homes properly.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not going to be "granny bashing". But again, this is not necessarily true 'cause and effect'.

The 'nearest' and most immediate cause was "The Cold" or hypothermia. Go back a stage, and this, in turn, was caused by lack of heat in the house - which for old people is dangerous. The lack of heat - as you seem to suggest could be lack of money, or it could be pure meanness (and there have been plenty of such cases).

Assume it was lack of money, then why? It could be because granny was recently ripped off by a double glazing salesman, or it could be that she spent the most frivolous and irresponsible life over-spending, never saving a single penny. If we assume this, perhaps she had a very poor education. Perhaps she just got these habits from parents....

Like many people, I can demonstrate an awful lot of sympathy in a lot of cases. Failing to save money because of a greedy 'live now pay later' lifestyle throughout life is generally not one of those cases.

ultrawomble

blueboy43 wrote: »

All the life expectancy figures you see are for mean life. The median age would be more useful.

That would also mean that those life expectancy over 65 figures that you quoted are also a mean, so less useful than the median. Perhaps the 18 months over 65 is a real observation?

RenovationMan

What is interesting is that the whole 'the state cannot afford to pay pensions' is hardly new. I remember hearing this in the late 1990s and pretty much gave up any hope of receiving my state pension and ploughed a lot of cash into personal and company pensions. In the old days, we could only invest 15% of our income, so that's exactly what I did. I'm now sitting on a pension pot in excess of £130k with 20 years until retirement age, most of which was built when I had a modest wage. I dont think there is a defence anymore to put up our hands and claim that 'no one told me I would have to pay for my own retirement!'.

I have modified my opinion from the late nineties, where I was convinced that I would not receive a state pension. I now believe that I will receive a state pension but I will be too old to care. I am therefore pleased that I took this view and sorted out my own pension. At the time I was lambasted by my work colleagues for being so negative and for investing so much ('Live for the now, you could get run over by a bus tomorrow') into my pensions. I'll be retiring at age 60 (by the last projection) while they will be working on to 67/68/70 or beyond!

prosaver

lemonjelly wrote: »

Interesting that you have posted this, which I feel highlights our mindset/preconceptions. You highlight the unemployment rate amongst the young, with the older section of the population an afterthought.

1 in 5 under 25's are unemployed. 20%.
Between 1 in 2 & 2 in 3 over 50's are economically inactive - 50-66%.

Unemployment is an unbalance between the supply and the demand of working hours. We all know that the efficiency of all types of machines is increasing yearly. We need fewer people to produce the same goods. Work time has been reduced in the past 200 years from about 12 hours a day to less then 8 hours per day and the working week from 7 days to 5. The way to stop Unemployment and have everybody working, is to continue the historical trend; is to distribute the available work between all persons that want to work. This we can do if each person works fewer hours per week.
tell your mp to get his finger out.

LittleMissAspie

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Doesn't this rather miss the poit that many of today's pensioners started work at 14 or 15 and had to work for 50 years before being able to claim their pension?

Only the men. The women didn't work after they had children. My mum left school at 15 but stopped working at 31, and that was late to have children in those days. She still gets a state pension though.

A couple nowadays will start work at 21, retire at 68 so that's 45x2 = 90 years per couple. Compared to a man who worked from 15 to 65 plus a woman who worked from 15 to 25 = only 60 years per couple.

lemonjelly

LittleMissAspie wrote: »

Only the men. The women didn't work after they had children. My mum left school at 15 but stopped working at 31, and that was late to have children in those days. She still gets a state pension though.

A couple nowadays will start work at 21, retire at 68 so that's 45x2 = 90 years per couple. Compared to a man who worked from 15 to 65 plus a woman who worked from 15 to 25 = only 60 years per couple.

Extremely valid point, & well put!

My mother stopped work when she had me ( I'm the eldest). My dad did develop a little self employed venture in the 80's, which she put a lot of time & effort into, as did my grandparents to help out. However she'd been out of the workplace for a couple of decades.

prosaver wrote: »

Unemployment is an unbalance between the supply and the demand of working hours. We all know that the efficiency of all types of machines is increasing yearly. We need fewer people to produce the same goods. Work time has been reduced in the past 200 years from about 12 hours a day to less then 8 hours per day and the working week from 7 days to 5. The way to stop Unemployment and have everybody working, is to continue the historical trend; is to distribute the available work between all persons that want to work. This we can do if each person works fewer hours per week.
tell your mp to get his finger out.

I Like your thinking, 3 day working weeks all round then!

Downside to this, is that in general, wages across a 3 day week would be ridiculously low, & households would struggle. Unless employers paid the same wage as they do currently for a 5 day week? We can but hope...:)

That said, a lot of studies are showing that the number of full time jobs is shrinking, and the number of part time jobs available is growing.