The aging population

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

Everyone gets old!

I hope the ageists remember this when they are in need in their dotage

That's the thing though you have to be mature enough to be able to realise it don't you.
We all think we're invincible when we're younger,it's only natural because we have'nt the experience to think anything else.

treliac

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.

Having cared for an elderly parent full time would be a way around the state taking the proceeds of the older person's house sale - if they did end up with needs so great that they had to go into institutional care.

But it's still very difficult and many elderly parents don't want to move in with their children any more than the children would.

suburbanwifey

ceridwen wrote: »

Takes hat off in admiration at such bravery....

Call me a wimp - I wouldnt want any "extra time" at all thanks:)

Why on earth would anyone not want to not die? When we get ill, we go for treatment to get better so we don't die, people who get cancer endure horrific treatments in the hope of staying alive, yet many of you are saying you would not choose to live forever? I know I would and I don't ever want to die, though at this point in history, that isn't an option that I can exercise.

I would have thought we all would want to live forever, what are your reasons for not wanting to? Life does get better as each generation passes, you are missing out on a future that will probably be better than our present, why don't you want to see that? I know I do ...

ultrawomble

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Life does get better as each generation passes

To an extent you are right, but what we are seeing now is huge expansion of geriatric medicine to cope with formerly 'rare' conditions. It would be great to enjoy a fit and mentally coherent life, but that's obviously not the case for a significant proportion of our population. Couple that with the growing incidence of antibiotic resistance and we are highly likely to find that life may actually be getting worse for everyone, where the diseases of excess* such as obesity (mentioned above) will pale into insignificance.

* great phrase margaretclare :T

Torry_Quine

margaretclare wrote: »

DH and I are both 75 and we both left school at 16. If you were doing 'O' levels, now GCSE, you stayed on to 16.

NI 'stamp' didn't only fund retirement. It also funded unemployment and sickness benefits.

Not everyone did get the chance to study for qualifications though and left before then.

Davesnave

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

We all think we're invincible when we're younger,it's only natural because we have'nt the experience to think anything else.

I think it's important to go on thinking you are invincible as long as possible, maybe not in the devil-may-care ways of youth, but by refusing to accept limitations suggested by the law of averages.

For example, the average 80 year-old doesn't ride a racing bike or wear jeans & trainers, but someone I knew did, until the age of 89, when he decided he was getting a bit wobbly and ought to dress more appropriately. The point is, it was his decision and he wasn't pressured into it, so he made the transition to old man when he was good and ready.

He still managed 6 years as an 'old fogey' too. Personally, I think that's quite long enough.

treliac

Davesnave wrote: »

I think it's important to go on thinking you are invincible as long as possible, maybe not in the devil-may-care ways of youth, but by refusing to accept limitations suggested by the law of averages.

For example, the average 80 year-old doesn't ride a racing bike or wear jeans & trainers, but someone I knew did, until the age of 89, when he decided he was getting a bit wobbly and ought to dress more appropriately. The point is, it was his decision and he wasn't pressured into it, so he made the transition to old man when he was good and ready.

He still managed 6 years as an 'old fogey' too. Personally, I think that's quite long enough.

It's funny you should say this DN. We've just got back from the outlaws. They're both quite young in attitude and up to date in many ways but FIL commented on 80 year olds who parade around in jeans and trainers. They think 80 year olds should 'look' what they are (as if they are trying to deny it, I think) and FIL doesn't feel right unless he is dressed 'properly' in trousers and a shirt.

PasturesNew

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.

My mum left school at 14 and went to work in a factory, it was the start of the war; after a couple of years she lied about her age and got put onto essential war work, she was so good at that she wasn't conscripted into the women's army, but stayed making gun sights for the gunners, using lasers on rubies.

After the war she was chucked out of her job (the men were back and she was a trained engineer but that was men's work), so she got other jobs.

She always worked, throughout our childhoods she always had jobs. Then at age 60 she was retired off.... that lasted a few months before I found her at a bus stop in town, by Parkers' Piece - she'd just been for an interview at one of the Colleges, lunchtime servery. She stayed there as long as she could, but had to have two breaks due to cancer operations. I think she left there when she was nearly 70, when my dad was laid off and so retired.

She paid some "extra stamp", not the reduced women's one. Upon retirement she was entitled to £12/week pension, I think she gets about £13 now for that.

She worked for 55 years in all. Tough jobs, poorly paying jobs (before equal pay). Little or no holiday pay whatsoever (that's a new thing too). Family Allowance was very low (no tax credits etc and top ups in those days). You went to work, you earnt your money and that was it... if you wanted/needed more you worked more.

PasturesNew

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?

By the time I retire I'll have clocked up 50 years.

PasturesNew

RenovationMan wrote: »

Just read the first page, so apologies if someone else has already made this point.

Whatever happened to people looking after their own elderly relatives? My Mum and Dad were struggling financially and struggling to maintain their house and so they moved in with us, albiet in a granny annexe attached to our home.

All manner of reasons. Most people don't have a handy annexe on their home, so it'd involve coordinating two sales and one purchase.

Geography's another one - most older people will want to stay where they live, whereas most younger people have moved away to find work.

And then there's practicalities like: when there's just one of them there and they've gone a bit ga-ga - and you're out at work, working away all week .... they're on their own all week and a bit do-lally.

If you lived on your own, 200 miles from your parents, in a 2-bed house, out of the house 12 hours/day - could you have done it?

And you say "we" ... so presumably there's another couple of parents floating around somewhere - where are you going to put them when it's their turn? Do you have room for them too?