The aging population

ukcarper

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.

Depend how old your mother is until recently most mothers who stopped working to look after their children did not get a full state pension.

ninky_2

ceridwen wrote: »

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

.

i can honestly say i'd love to live forever. yes bring it on. i hate the thought of a future i can never know or experience.

blueboy43

ultrawomble wrote: »

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?

The 18 months is not a "real observation" for either the median or the mean. It is complete fiction.

For life expectancy at 65, we would expect the median (the point at which half the population to have died) to be broadly similar to the mean. It should statistically be what is known as a normal distribution.

Why ? Because we would not expect any reason why significantly more people die at age 65 than 67 or 68 (emphasis on significant).

For times of high infant mortality, then clearly there will be significantly more deaths age 0-1 than any other age in the distribution curve.

Sometimes you just have to admit you are wrong.

ninky_2

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.

but if parents and children pooled their housing equity resources together perhaps they could afford a larger home? perhaps one of the reasons that modern homes are smaller is that people don't tend to do this so much any more.

ultrawomble

blueboy43 wrote: »

The 18 months is not a "real observation" for either the median or the mean. It is complete fiction.

For life expectancy at 65, we would expect the median (the point at which half the population to have died) to be broadly similar to the mean. It should statistically be what is known as a normal distribution.

Why ? Because we would not expect any reason why significantly more people die at age 65 than 67 or 68 (emphasis on significant).

For times of high infant mortality, then clearly there will be significantly more deaths age 0-1 than any other age in the distribution curve.

Sometimes you just have to admit you are wrong.

What am I wrong about? I simply posited a question, not an answer. You're the one arguing that the median is more useful than the mean and yet you've just argued that at the age of 65 the median should be broadly similar to the mean.

Perhaps you'll be able to explain the discrepancy I posted here:

Why does a man who was 65 in 2000 (i.e. born in the pre-antibiotic and pre-NHS era) have a longer life expectancy than a male born in 2000 (in an era of very low infant mortality etc.)?

ukcarper

ninky wrote: »

but if parents and children pooled their housing equity resources together perhaps they could afford a larger home? perhaps one of the reasons that modern homes are smaller is that people don't tend to do this so much any more.

What happens if your parents do not own their home and their rent is subsidised which is the case for a large proportion of the older population.

StevieJ

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.

Not true, my mum was only not working up to me starting nursery/school.

blueboy43

ultrawomble wrote: »

Why does a man who was 65 in 2000 (i.e. born in the pre-antibiotic and pre-NHS era) have a longer life expectancy than a male born in 2000 (in an era of very low infant mortality etc.)?

A man who was 65 in 2000 would have been born in 1935.

The cohort of males born in that year would have had a life expectancy of approx 62 (estimate) at birth.

A man born in 2000 will have a life expectancy of 75.6 years (from table) again at birth.

By the time the male born in 1935 is 65 (ie year 2000) he is now in a subset of the 1935 birth cohort, that is all those who have survived. That he has another 15.7 years expected to live, does not mean someone born in 1935 has a longer life expectancy than someone born in 2000.

RenovationMan

StevieJ wrote: »

Not true, my mum was only not working up to me starting nursery/school.

My gran took care of me, my sister and two cousins while our mothers worked.

Loughton_Monkey

ultrawomble wrote: »

Why does a man who was 65 in 2000 (i.e. born in the pre-antibiotic and pre-NHS era) have a longer life expectancy than a male born in 2000 (in an era of very low infant mortality etc.)?

This is perfectly logical. Every person's life expectancy continues to rise with age. This is for the simple reason that having lived another year, you have avoided the small chance of dying last year with a resulting increase in life expectancy.

It gets particularly marked in older age. A male aged 60 has a life expectancy of in the order of 21 years. That's 81. Half his peers, therefore, will have died before then. The other half survive. So if he has survived, he now has a life expectancy of another 7 years. Even at age 100, a male still has a life expectancy of about 2 years.

Actuaries are clever individuals. Out of a large number of people, they can predict within a decimal point how many will die next year. The trouble is, they cannot name which ones.