The aging population

CLAPTON

michaels wrote: »

So many issues:




Which brings us to immigration - Keeping the age profile constant will prevent the relative number of dependants increasing compared to the number economically active. Increasing longevity (without a commensurate increase in the retirement age) by definition will increase the number of dependents to workers, immigration (which tends to be of younger workers) will help increase the relative number of workers.

although true it does mean that the population must over time increase to infinity as all those once young immigrates will grow old and so need a new influx in due course.

however, not to mind as we will be dead by then and that will be a problem for our grandchildren

nearlynew

ultrawomble wrote: »

But if people saved more wouldn't the economy shrink?

And what is wrong with that?

PasturesNew

I bet it's cheaper to keep one old person, than it is to breed/keep 3-4 young ones theoretically to "fund" them, when those 3-4 will end up in prison or breeding themselves.

Breeding to "fund" older people is, imho, a ponzi scheme.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

mostlycheerful

PasturesNew : “I bet it's cheaper to keep one old person, than it is to breed/keep 3-4 young ones theoretically to "fund" them, when those 3-4 will end up in prison or breeding themselves.

Breeding to "fund" older people is, imho, a ponzi scheme.”

Well, yes.

“It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.”

Er, yes, but government policy is to always make sure that there is a vast pool of low paid labour in order that all the dirty jobs get done so that the 2% of rich people who own the planet can continue to live their worthless idle lives of luxury in the pursuit of happiness and any whim that enters their selfish empty heads.

Well, not all of them, plenty of rich people work very hard running businesses and doing good works and advancing the world and making progress that all of us benefit from.

However, it is necessary policy that there are plenty of spare people and that 98% of them are kept poor enough to have to go out to work every day doing wage slave labour. In the 1950s and 60s there was a shortage of workers and Britain advertised abroad to recruit workers.

The 5% or so of wastage being kept alive on benefits is sustainable as they spend nearly all their benefits thereby creating cash flow in the economy and providing lots of tax for the government as nearly all products and services are heavily taxed.

This is similar to the idea promoted a few years ago in America of giving all citizens $10,000, the notion being that most of them would spend it all quickly and so within months or a year or two at most nearly all of it would be back in the hands of the government and rich owners of big business.

olly300

CLAPTON wrote: »

although true it does mean that the population must over time increase to infinity as all those once young immigrates will grow old and so need a new influx in due course.

Recent immigrants tend to have more children.

CLAPTON wrote: »

however, not to mind as we will be dead by then and that will be a problem for our grandchildren

However their own children don't hence you need more immigrants after 2 generations.

treliac

Lemonjelly, I have no idea. People are living longer and longer. They are supposed to be working til later in life but job availability and entrenched ageism have to make major changes for that to happen.

Living longer is only going to be worthwhile if older people are able to live in reasonable health and active lifestyles. Councils are allegedly likely to cut back on funding for care and support.

With the phasing out of occupational pensions, losses on private pensions and declining house values more older people will be struggling to manage.

It looks pretty grim. Dementia is one of the most serious problems we face. My hope is that medical science will provide some of the answers before too long. As for affordability of our changing demography, we don't have answers yet but I don't think continuing expansion of the population is solving anything.

Asheron

lemonjelly wrote: »

I know this is an issue which a few mse-ers feel is an important economic issue.

The fact remains that as we age, the costs of supporting the elderly continue increasing, and that cost burden is placed upon those of working age (in the main). We all know that people are living longer. I assume we all accept too that more people are living longer, stretching that burden wider.

In addition to this, the significant volume of expenditure per person increases exponentially during the last 12 months of their lives. This has a huge knock-on impact on NHS budgets, including palliative care, home services etc.

Today we have news reports that councils will likely have to increases charges for home care services. I was interested in how many people this would affect.

Combine this with the fact that we have a great deal of vitriol generally aimed at young people nowadays, with 1 in 5 under 25's being out of work, and them generally being seen as workshy chavvy so & so's, I was amazed to learn that, for example, in Birmingham, more than two thirds of the over 50's in the area are economically inactive.:eek: (Defined in the study as: Economically active means anyone who does anything which puts money into the economy and this mainly refers to working, but it could be selling shares, or spending savings).

I read more details on this over the weekend, & this report is more detailed than the breif highlights I'm linking to below. It anticipates that areas in Staffordshire will have over 50% of their population aged over 50 by 2029, and areas of Warwickshire there are less over 50's who are economically inactive than Birmingham (less than 30%:eek:).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11695154
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-11688268
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-11687146

Not looking good for our futures is it?

What does this say about how we're going to take our economy forward?

Value all thoughts...

Oooooooooooo it's because of the old people the economy is so Bad, let's kill anyone over the age of 40?

Don't you see what the Media is doing ?

They want us to blame ourselves.

What a load of BS.

The bankers stole your pensions, and now your wealth by printing money out of thin air!

treliac

Asheron wrote: »

Oooooooooooo it's because of the old people the economy is so Bad, let's kill anyone over the age of 40?

I wondered when euthanasia would put in an appearance.

Asheron, you're feeding into those who suggest you are of extreme youth.

Asheron

Just makes me so Angry.. they want the young to hate the old, and cause a divide.

Divide and Conquer

The Media never says about how we should all have more children!

treliac

Asheron wrote: »

Just makes me so Angry.. they want the young to hate the old, and cause a divide.

Divide and Conquer

The Media never says about how we should all have more children!

Trouble is everyone gets old....... unless the alternative, that is