Frustrated young person

Fieldsofgold

ringo_24601 wrote: »

With increased numbers of older people, we'll see much more need for diabetes and cancer treatments. Loads more 'life elongation' stuff.. forgetting that yes, there are more and more expensive treatments available, we're going to have a glut of old people in a few years time.

Why do you think we're happy to have a bunch of new immigrants in the UK? They bring with them a bottoming out of that graph, and an increase in young people. The NHS runs on a pyramid scheme, needing lots more young people than old, to ensure there's enough tax to pay for it.

That rather assumes that the young people are paying tax and the pensioners are n' t, which is n' t necessarily the case.

Fieldsofgold

cells wrote: »

As technology improves we should have more of everything.

The problem over the last 40 years, if you want to call it a problem at all, is that most of this productivity gain has gone to the old.

Go back even just 50 years and the average retirement was just 3 years and then death. Now the average retirement is about 14 years. So society has given the old 11 more years of leasure time at a yearly cost of some circa £200k a head. So not only is retirement costing society 200k more per person but there are also now a lot more of these persons.

However nothing much can be done about it
the only slight way to improve fairness would be to increase the retirement age quite rapidly to 70 and then maybe push it further towards 72-73

I wish my pension was £200k pa as you seem to think.:rotfl:

PaulF81

cells wrote: »

There is no choice but to pay for it, the only option is does the country

Increase taxes to pay for it
Lower spending elsewhere to pay for it
Try to improve the proportion of young to old.

There is one final salvation and that is technology and medicine lowers the real cost of heathcare....but the chances are they will help current conditions but mean people need even more care at an even older age to die from something else

Yes there is. Might want to look at what other countries do who can't afford it. NICE are already rationing the most expensive drugs and treatments based upon age and rationing is only going to increase as budgets become tighter.

I don't take your point about as technology advances it becoming cheaper. It's hardly how the pharma industry rolls. And it doesn't represent how expenditure expenditure per capita has changed as technology has improved.

The other option is restrict treatments and allow median ages to fall to something more sensible, will also sort the pensions burden out too.

Every pound spent on the NHs is a pound wasted on investment, infrastructure, education, defence, foreign aid budgets...

pcgtron

But it also boils down to the relative cost of things we use all the time.
The products that we buy less frequently, i.e: TV's, dishwashers, cookers, computers, (electronic and high end goods) have come down in real cost massively since the 70's and the 80's. I remember my dad buying a stereo for £800 in about 1985!

The problem is, whilst we like to buy these things, they are infrequent purchases, and although help, they do not provide the true picture. Yes, housing is expensive relatively. The proportion of income spent on food, gas electric, petrol, water etc is far higher than the baby boom generation and these are things we buy and use everyday.
So to some up, yes interest rates are low, yes my TV and computer is relatively cheap compared to the prices my parents paid but to fill my car with fuel to enable me to get to work costs far more in real terms than it cost my dad.

Fieldsofgold

pcgtron wrote: »

But it also boils down to the relative cost of things we use all the time.
The products that we buy less frequently, i.e: TV's, dishwashers, cookers, computers, (electronic and high end goods) have come down in real cost massively since the 70's and the 80's. I remember my dad buying a stereo for £800 in about 1985!

The problem is, whilst we like to buy these things, they are infrequent purchases, and although help, they do not provide the true picture. Yes, housing is expensive relatively. The proportion of income spent on food, gas electric, petrol, water etc is far higher than the baby boom generation and these are things we buy and use everyday.
So to some up, yes interest rates are low, yes my TV and computer is relatively cheap compared to the prices my parents paid but to fill my car with fuel to enable me to get to work costs far more in real terms than it cost my dad.

Although food prices are currently rising, in fact the proportion of household income spent on food is thefar lower than it was for earlier generations. In addition, the fact that you go to work in your own car is something you totally take for granted, and assume it was always like this.

ukcarper

pcgtron wrote: »

But it also boils down to the relative cost of things we use all the time.
The products that we buy less frequently, i.e: TV's, dishwashers, cookers, computers, (electronic and high end goods) have come down in real cost massively since the 70's and the 80's. I remember my dad buying a stereo for £800 in about 1985!

The problem is, whilst we like to buy these things, they are infrequent purchases, and although help, they do not provide the true picture. Yes, housing is expensive relatively. The proportion of income spent on food, gas electric, petrol, water etc is far higher than the baby boom generation and these are things we buy and use everyday.
So to some up, yes interest rates are low, yes my TV and computer is relatively cheap compared to the prices my parents paid but to fill my car with fuel to enable me to get to work costs far more in real terms than it cost my dad.

What makes you think that it's not true.

wotsthat

ringo_24601 wrote: »

What's going to kill the NHS? Baby boomers, in about 10-20 years time, when they all start very slowly falling apart yet never dying.

At the same time the walking undead boomers hit the NHS their obese, diabetic and slothful offspring will be putting pressure on it too. There's a perfect storm coming in healthcare.

ukcarper

pcgtron wrote: »

But it also boils down to the relative cost of things we use all the time.
The products that we buy less frequently, i.e: TV's, dishwashers, cookers, computers, (electronic and high end goods) have come down in real cost massively since the 70's and the 80's. I remember my dad buying a stereo for £800 in about 1985!

The problem is, whilst we like to buy these things, they are infrequent purchases, and although help, they do not provide the true picture. Yes, housing is expensive relatively. The proportion of income spent on food, gas electric, petrol, water etc is far higher than the baby boom generation and these are things we buy and use everyday.
So to some up, yes interest rates are low, yes my TV and computer is relatively cheap compared to the prices my parents paid but to fill my car with fuel to enable me to get to work costs far more in real terms than it cost my dad.

in 1972 petrol was 35.25p a gallon compared to £6 now about 17x according to measuring worth earnings increased 17.8x between 1972 and 2011.

Linton

ukcarper wrote: »

in 1972 petrol was 35.25p a gallon compared to £6 now about 17x according to measuring worth earnings increased 17.8x between 1972 and 2011.

and cars are a lot more efficient now than in the 1970s.

But I think you are wasting your time on mere facts. They are much happier feeling hard done by than getting down to living well within their means and saving for the future.

ukcarper

ukcarper wrote: »

in 1972 petrol was 35.25p a gallon compared to £6 now about 17x according to measuring worth earnings increased 17.8x between 1972 and 2011.

Here are a few more examples
Pint of milk: 1972: 6p, 17.8x £1.06p Now £49p
Loaf of bread: 1972: 9½p, 17.8x £1.69 now £1.00
Bunch of bananas: 1972: 18p, 17.8x £3.20 now £1.37p