Makes my blood boil

Malthusian

Tromking wrote: »

You have a local council that hasn't outsourced its waste collection services to a private company?

Hardly matters. It's the same people but it's easier to funnel money from the taxpayer into your pocket if you're set up as a private company than as a government department.

agarnett

I still don't get it, Tromking.

Which bits of the public sector keep haemorrhaging staff?

Are they the same departments who are top heavy with late baby boomers ready to retire ?

Tromking

agarnett wrote: »

I still don't get it, Tromking.

Which bits of the public sector keep haemorrhaging staff?

Are they the same departments who are top heavy with late baby boomers ready to retire ?

I ascertained that you didn't get it pages ago.
I don't know what age a late baby boomer is.
Sorry.

BobQ

mollycat wrote: »

Bob, agree with the sentiment but not with your figures

Yes, I was in a hurry.:) I was trying to add that it is a subject that might be of interest to 5% of the population, probably those close to 55 who start taking an interest in pensions. But as you say they will never have seen this "seminal" discussion.

agarnett

Tromking wrote: »

I ascertained that you didn't get it pages ago.

I set 'em up - you knock 'em down ...

I don't know what age a late baby boomer is.
Sorry.

These are US Birth Rates by Birth Year - no reason to suppose the UK pattern was much different between 1946 and 1964.

So ... end of the red bit ... late baby boomer territory in my parlance ...

Having said that, whilst the raw birth rate figures for the UK do indeed tail off after 1964 same as US, in age band terms, there are some further significant humps occurring later - immigration effects?

(Population pyramid for the United Kingdom as at the 2011 census as shown on Wikipedia)

Malthusian

Oh look, it's Alfred Hitchcock wearing a Pickelhaube.

atush

Tromking wrote: »

I ascertained that you didn't get it pages ago.
I don't know what age a late baby boomer is.
Sorry.

The end of the baby boom was 1960. So babies born then (ie age 56) is the youngest they can be.

agarnett

Malthusian wrote: »

Oh look, it's Alfred Hitchcock wearing a Pickelhaube.

-- or Kaiser Wilhelm back to back with Leonid Brezhnev!

It's a weird distribution, and I have been trying to get my head around it.

I think rather than any immigration effect I ventured, it must be a kind of generational ripple effect of the original post WW2 boom, and that will all have got slightly muddled by a post WW1 mini baby boom also, but that one will have been smaller I guess - largely cancelled out by the much greater numbers of men who never returned to beget more offspring or to ever reach middle or old age.

We really do need to get to grips with these patterns.

My very sad fear is, if we do not manage them peaceably, the only way we can avoid the out of control effects they will cause to pensions provision and other social service / welfare provision is by having another major war that is akin to a hard reboot of the system for better or for worse.

atush wrote: »

The end of the baby boom was 1960. So babies born then (ie age 56) is the youngest they can be.

Atush, I Googled/I Wiki'd/I Conquered - it is too small to ascertain the dates here in the thread, but where do you think the red line in the top chart ends? 1960 or 1964?

atush

Malthusian wrote: »

Oh look, it's Alfred Hitchcock wearing a Pickelhaube.

Geez, i had to go look up what that was

agarnett

atush wrote: »

Geez, i had to go look up what that was

I too did a double take, but then my obsession with world war effects soon reminded me so on this occasion I didn't need to Google! Just for laughs, though:

Why don't we all stand like that, thesedays ... gentlemen? We all still have the knees for it, surely? Or maybe it's the elbows that have sharpened, and the idea of a fair fight has been bred out of us ...