The aging population

Oldernotwiser

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

I
Also no I've never worked outside the home for money,but what has that got to do with anything.

Quite a lot, I'd have thought.

If you'd been in the normal situation of working full time whilst raising a family you would have found it impossible to give full time care to an older family member.

You obviously also have other family members who live, as you seem to do, close to the older people concerned which, again, isn't the norm these days.

I do agree with you that people don't do enough for the older generations of their families and I fully respect that your family does, but that does seem to be only possible because you live in some kind of a time warp, living a lifestyle that was current half a century ago.

CLAPTON

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

Which means they've still been working a lot longer than todays youngsters who don't even think of proper work till leaving university.

I hated school from 5 to 16 by far the worst period of my life
enjoyed 16 to 18 studying for A/Ls
loved uni
loved work

what exactly is your point here

should I eventually get a lower pension because I enjoyed work?

CLAPTON

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I have a relative who left school at 14 and is not yet 78. It looks like it wasn't strictly adhered to.

some more facts would be good

but of course it could possibily be because the school year and the calender year don't coincide

eve13_2

My daughter and her fiance are both in their early twenties, have both worked since 16. Although they hate their work they like the people they work with. I hate the thought that they will probably have to work until they drop, also hate that after paying private rent there is just about enough for them to live off- savings impossible. They are thinking of moving to one of the permanent caravan sites which will significantly decrease their outgoings but have a dog the size of a horse which is their baby (can't have kids). They work so hard that I don't think it would be right for them to look after me when I get older, although if I die earlier they have agreed to be her brother's guardian/carer (autistic 25 yrs old). I guess I'm trying to say everyone is so individual that the future can only be guesswork.

Torry_Quine

CLAPTON wrote: »

some more facts would be good

but of course it could possibily be because the school year and the calender year don't coincide

That is all I know, sorry.

RenovationMan

treliac wrote: »

I understand your point and you paint a lovely picture of family harmony. However, for most this is not the case. By the time elderly people start to need support and care they are becoming very demanding, of time if not emotionally.

It is incredibly difficult for most people to provide personal intimate care for their frail parents (who may have become incontinent, confused, unsteady on their feet and a great deal worse) as it is for the parents to receive it from their children and care needs would not be so high at the time they moved in. It can reach the point where they need 24 hour care and supervision, so cannot be left on their own.

That's alongside having to hold down paid jobs and help teenage children through turbulent times.

The pressures on most peoples lives just do not allow for even greater responsibilities, at least unless huge sacrifices are made. And, though some are able to do it, the majority are not prepared or able to cope.
....

And yet most families outside the UK just do it without a second thought. When I mentioned our plans to my friends and work colleagues, the standard response from Brits was horror and how it would negatively impact their lives. Contrast this with the response from friends from Italy, India, Scandinavia, France and Germany who focused on the positive impact for both ourselves and our parents.

What we are doing is viewed as being on the 'fringe' by many in the UK, yet before the Welfare State began its sytematic destruction of family values, British families looked after their own and had the same extended family viewpoint as people from Italy, Ireland and other countries.

The welfare state lets us ease our conscience and push our 'awkward, demanding and time-consuming' elderly onto other people to care for. When I had awkward, time consuming and demanding babies, toddlers and now teenagers I didn't try to palm them off onto the state and I wont with my parents.

ultrawomble

blueboy43 wrote: »

Look, walk round any old graveyard in England and look at the headstones.

Infant mortality in 1840 would have been about 20-25%.

For arguments sake I'll use 25%.

That means if 4 people were born and one died at birth, the other 3 would have to live to 53 years, to get a life expectancy of 40 years (159 years divided by 4 people).

Trust me, you would have to go way, way back in history, before 40 would be considered old.

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.

Loughton_Monkey

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.

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.

ultrawomble

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

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.

Indeed, but you have to use the population as a whole rather than a selected 'hardy' group. For example, using the link provided by blueboy43

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

A male born in 2000 has a predicted life expectancy of 75.6 years, whilst a male already 65 in 2000 can expect a further 15.7 years of life - taking them to 80.7 years. That could be interpreted that being born in 1935 in the pre-antibiotic era means you will have a greater life-span than a child born at the dawn of the 21st century. In reality, it means that to have made 65 years makes you pretty tough (given that in 1930-32 expected male life-span was 58.7 years). In other words, you're looking at a selected group.

gauly

RenovationMan wrote: »

And yet most families outside the UK just do it without a second thought. When I mentioned our plans to my friends and work colleagues, the standard response from Brits was horror and how it would negatively impact their lives. Contrast this with the response from friends from Italy, India, Scandinavia, France and Germany who focused on the positive impact for both ourselves and our parents.

What we are doing is viewed as being on the 'fringe' by many in the UK, yet before the Welfare State began its sytematic destruction of family values, British families looked after their own and had the same extended family viewpoint as people from Italy, Ireland and other countries.

The welfare state lets us ease our conscience and push our 'awkward, demanding and time-consuming' elderly onto other people to care for. When I had awkward, time consuming and demanding babies, toddlers and now teenagers I didn't try to palm them off onto the state and I wont with my parents.

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.