UK faces " Randontimeinthefuturethatnobodyknows BOMB" from ageing population

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And we all know your solution.

But I'm looking at what the IEA state here and their solutions. Would you support some chargeable services in the NHS?

It's coming. As suggested, the average under 30 cannot earn enough to pay their life expenses (at current trends).... so we need to start doing something now to try and sort this out.

I think we're going to see a gradual change in attitudes and culture over the next 50 years or so. I think this country will be a very different place by the time I retire. I fully expect the state pension to become aggressively means tested and I expect that at some point there NHS will simply stop providing most treatment, beyond doling out pain relief, to people over a certain, not particularly high age.

God knows what will happen to old age care but it won't be as well funded per old person as it is now. As it is already fairly ropey I expect it will simply be diabolical. Life expectancy will keep going up but people's brains are likely to stop working at the same point in their lives. At some point we're going to have to accept the limitations of the human body and realise that spending huge amounts of money on keeping people alive when they don't really know where they are and probably stuffing them into dormitories with others who are in a similar state is a bad idea for everyone involved.

I get that this may sound rather brutal but that's what I think the future probably holds.

Either that or a technological and healthcare revolution will mean that robots do all the work and we all live til 200 and just spend the whole time on holiday.

purch

Whenever we get a thread claiming there is a "Timebomb" there is never any mention of the TIME it is due to explode. :eek:

It's always some random date in the future that no one knows, so really it should be called a "Randontimeinthe futurethatnobodyknowsBOMB" instead

System

There's a debt time-bomb, but that's caused by having too much debt. Nothing to do with an ageing population.
If people are living longer and are more healthy then that's a potential asset to the workforce. It's simply a matter of devising an employment system and ethic that can tap into that asset.
National debt is paid for by national income - it's got nothing to do with the age distribution of the population.

Thrugelmir

purch wrote: »

Whenever we get a thread claiming there is a "Timebomb" there is never any mention of the TIME it is due to explode. :eek:

The explosive is in place. Requires the spark i.e. an event to light the fuse. In over 200 financial crisises. No one has ever managed to turned matters around without defaulting on debt in some way.

BobQ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I think we're going to see a gradual change in attitudes and culture over the next 50 years or so. I think this country will be a very different place by the time I retire. I fully expect the state pension to become aggressively means tested and I expect that at some point there NHS will simply stop providing most treatment, beyond doling out pain relief, to people over a certain, not particularly high age.

God knows what will happen to old age care but it won't be as well funded per old person as it is now. As it is already fairly ropey I expect it will simply be diabolical. Life expectancy will keep going up but people's brains are likely to stop working at the same point in their lives. At some point we're going to have to accept the limitations of the human body and realise that spending huge amounts of money on keeping people alive when they don't really know where they are and probably stuffing them into dormitories with others who are in a similar state is a bad idea for everyone involved

I get that this may sound rather brutal but that's what I think the future probably holds.

Either that or a technological and healthcare revolution will mean that robots do all the work and we all live til 200 and just spend the whole time on holiday.

My view of the future is much the same although I would add that the automation you predict will ensure that <20% of the population will be living very comfortably, whereas the majority will scrape a living with whatever low wage jobs they can find. Automation will inevitably reduce the need for manual labour.

michaels

BobQ wrote: »

My view of the future is much the same although I would add that the automation you predict will ensure that <20% of the population will be living very comfortably, whereas the majority will scrape a living with whatever low wage jobs they can find. Automation will inevitably reduce the need for manual labour.

Don't worry in 10 years time we will have robot pets that can do most mundane chores for us...and in 30 years time the robots will keep us as pets....

TickersPlaysPop

How about this....

Ban big business multi nationals, make it socially unacceptable to put your business their way.... no more Starbucks, no more Google....

Only businesses that pay tax will be allowed to do business here...

Then we have UK businesses paying their way with tax...

Also, charge people for appointments on NHS, when they turn up they get the money back.

Stop winter fuel payments to people living abroad

kabayiri

We need to create higher value jobs which reflect the changing nature of a demanding world.

This is exactly what the pioneers behind Google; Ebay; Amazon; et al have done.

They recognised the internet as a source to build a truly global brand in astonishingly rapid timescales.

So why is it that all these rising stars are American? We have no ambition. We seem content to attract hundreds of thousands of bottle washers; dog walkers; and turnip pluckers.

Cut back the nanny state dramatically, and make people hungry to succeed once more.

BobQ

kabayiri wrote: »

We need to create higher value jobs which reflect the changing nature of a demanding world.

This is exactly what the pioneers behind Google; Ebay; Amazon; et al have done.

They recognised the internet as a source to build a truly global brand in astonishingly rapid timescales.

So why is it that all these rising stars are American? We have no ambition. We seem content to attract hundreds of thousands of bottle washers; dog walkers; and turnip pluckers.

Cut back the nanny state dramatically, and make people hungry to succeed once more.

Sure those at the top in Google et al are doing OK but they are still major players in the low wage economy. The guy that delivers your Amazon box is not sharing in this brave new world, he or she is just surviving, and soon may be replaced by unmanned vehicles delivering goods to a delivery bin near you.

I do not accept the implication of your last sentence that people lack ambition and drive. The bottle washers and dog walkers just do not see any prospect of advancement in this society, not everyone is an entrepreneur but that does not mean that those people are worthless.

Linton

kabayiri wrote: »

We need to create higher value jobs which reflect the changing nature of a demanding world.

This is exactly what the pioneers behind Google; Ebay; Amazon; et al have done.

They recognised the internet as a source to build a truly global brand in astonishingly rapid timescales.

So why is it that all these rising stars are American? We have no ambition. We seem content to attract hundreds of thousands of bottle washers; dog walkers; and turnip pluckers.

Cut back the nanny state dramatically, and make people hungry to succeed once more.

Why are (almost, there are now Chinese rising stars) all the rising stars American?
- the US has a large population of software developers
- the US has a culture of investing in blue-skies companies and is not afraid of failure, and most blue skies companies fail
- the US is (was?) the largest market and a population which tends to be suspicious of non-US products. The rising star products require a large market to succeed and in general are of a nature where increased size leads to increased growth. A free market of dozens of Facebooks would be unstable.

The US also has a large population of bottle washers etc, I would guess a higher percentage than the UK.

As to the nanny state, make people hungry comment - why should the majority of the population support or even acquiesce in a state focused on generating wealth for the few? And it always will be a relative few who "succeed". The thrusting entrepreneurs are dependent on the bottle washers who should therefore have a full share of the national wealth. I dont think most successful pioneers did what they did with the intention of becoming billionaires, they did it for the challenge or the technical interest. They would still do it if they remained mere millionaires. Plenty of pioneers have developed world changing products without any great material reward whatsoever, and conversely one can see many examples of people achieving great wealth without producing much to the benefit of humanity.