The aging population

blueboy43

Generali wrote: »

If people are going to insist on living longer, as it appears they are, then they'll have to work longer.

IIRC when the state pension was introduced, life expectancy for a worker at 65 was 18 months. Now it's about 20 years.

It might be unfair or horrid but life isn't fair and is sometimes horrid.

This much repeated statement is simply wrong, and wrong by a long way.

Life expectancy may have been between 66-67, but this was from birth (eg life expectancy was about 65 in the USA in 1935).

There was substantially higher infant mortality but if you lived until 65, you probably had at least another 10 years to live.


Here is a "life remaining table" at various ages and points in time.

Even in 1840, if you got to 65, you would have another 10 years to live.

http://www.ohe.org/page/knowledge/schools/appendix/life_expectancy.cfm

blueboy43

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

In the middle ages people lived to 40, so were old at 36.

50 years ago people died at 70, so a retirement age of about 63 was reasonable.

Now we live to 85, so retirement should be at 77.


Expressed in that way, the aged population always remains constant, and there will always be enough younger people to work to support them. It's only a man-made problem of definition.

No they weren't.

You are confusing age or "old" with life expectancy.

Life expectancy was so low, because of child mortality, disease and women dying in childbirth.

Plato was 81 years old when he died. Socrates was 70 (and killed himself)

ultrawomble

blueboy43 wrote: »

Here is a "life remaining table" at various ages and points in time.

Even in 1840, if you got to 65, you would have another 10 years to live.

http://www.ohe.org/page/knowledge/schools/appendix/life_expectancy.cfm

That may be so, but it will be restricted to a small minority of lucky individuals who actually managed to get to 65 given that average life expectancy for a person born in 1840 was about 40 years, and a 65 year average wasn't reached until the mind 1940s.

FTBFun

suburbanwifey wrote: »

No, with regards to Europe I'm not sure but i know that when I have been over in America, they pay a pittance in VAT compared to us and as far as I have been told by other people, the same applies to Europe..whatever they pay, I think 20% VAT is scandalous and is not the way out of the problems this country has, people will just buy less, which means jobs will be lost, more people claiming, its false economy and of that I am sure

There is no Federal sales tax in the US, only at a state level. Also the state tax is on everything - and that includes basic food which is zero rated in the UK.

Also - the US is the only major developed nation without a publicly funded healthcare system - so there might be some lower taxes, but there's a trade-off.

StevieJ

blueboy43 wrote: »

No they weren't.

You are confusing age or "old" with life expectancy.

Life expectancy was so low, because of child mortality, disease and women dying in childbirth.

Plato was 81 years old when he died. Socrates was 70 (and killed himself)

Not to mention Methuselah :eek:

StevieJ

ultrawomble wrote: »

That may be so, but it will be restricted to a small minority of lucky individuals who actually managed to get to 65 given that average life expectancy for a person born in 1840 was about 40 years, and a 65 year average wasn't reached until the mind 1940s.

I assume with high child mortality, if you actually reached 16 then life expectancy from that point would have been a great deal higher than 40.

ninky_2

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.

...

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

ninky wrote: »

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.

What a nightmare scenario. :eek:

ninky_2

treliac wrote: »

What a nightmare scenario. :eek:

not necessarily. it may seem a nightmare to some of us because it is so different to our reality. the thought of living forever is scary if you assume everyone else continues to die but assuming it is the norm around you then you are more likely to develop pity for earlier human generations who were not so fortunate.

RenovationMan

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. This weekend saw myself, Dad and Daughter raking/sweeping up leaves that had fallen onto our path/drives and lawns (our house is practically in a forest and we were knee deep in leaves).

We had three generations of the family working together and enjoying each other's company. Lovely.

I simply don't understand why more families dont pool their resources and live together like this, instead of expecting the state (aka poorly paid and trained strangers) to look after the people who gave them life and nurtured them for years, while at the same time moaning that they are being 'diddled' out of their inheritance because their parents home is being sold to fund said state care.