A tale of two 60s

Nebulous2

I've just come across this report, from the centre for aging better.

I've only skimmed it so far, but it highlights something I've been aware of pretty much all my working life in care, the inequalities that exist in society.

On MSE we tend to have a financially literate membership, who are often careful with their money, and save for their retirement.

That isn't always possible though, with this report highlighting things such as business failure, relationship breakdown and ill health that can contribute to a precarious retirement.

A tale of two 60s

missile

Sad but true

Organgrinder

I find all this fascinating and somewhat saddening at the same time.

We are about to move into an era where AI will replace so many jobs. Call centres, admin etc etc.

Personally I find the pursuit of so much wealth when there is so much inequality somewhat abhorrent. However I'll get myself a telling off for being political if I'm not careful!

MarzipanCrumble

There is a fundamental problem - money savvy is not taught in schools. It should be part of the circulum from primary school. Far more relevant than RE.

And no, I wasn't money savvy until had children and the internet arrived. Now I would say I am an 'improver' but try to educate myself as I go along.

As a pensioner I am very glad that I do not have to worry too much about my income/spending ratio.

Humboldt

A really interesting report @Nebulous2, thank you for sharing. Lots to take on board, but the two things that stood out for me were:

1. Self-reported health issues are presenting at similar levels now as two decades ago but healthy life expectancy is declining, showing that longer working lives are not being paired with longer healthy lives.
2. There remains a group of around three in ten people in their 60s at risk of financial insecurity in this stage of life. This is broadly consistent with the 2002-2003 cohort.

How to tackle these issues is ultimately the responsibility of those who have the power to make a real difference. However, it is my view, that the knowledge, support and inspiration shared on this MSE forum should not be underestimated in terms of making a small, but meaningful difference to others who find themselves in similar situations.

QrizB

There remains a group of around three in ten people in their 60s at risk of financial insecurity in this stage of life. This is broadly consistent with the 2002-2003 cohort.

Sorry Humboldt I'm not picking on you, it's just that you've phrased this in the way that it's easiest to reply to.

The report seems to underplay the change from 34% to 29% living precariously. That's a difference of 5%, and to my mind that's a significant improvement. Yes there's still a ways to go but it's moving in the right direction.

Pollycat

Didn't read any of the downloads.

I'm 73. 🤔

Nebulous2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82160774#Comment_82160774

I think you've hit it right on the head, by highlighting these two points @Humboldt

There was some discussion within healthcare - probably before covid - to focus on 'compression of morbidity.' The idea was that while everyone was concerned about the increasing numbers of old people, and whether health systems could cope, that was something which should be celebrated, rather than feared. What was important was the time that people spent in ill-health, not how long they lived. If we could reduce the time that people spent in ill-health, rather than focus on longevity, that would relieve the pressure on health-care.

I don't keep up with all the healthcare discussions, but I haven't seen that idea promoted for some time.

It is sad to see that metric is actually going backwards.

Nebulous2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82160838#Comment_82160838

I'd agree that is a significant decrease, and the report doesn't give it much coverage. The methodology has also changed, and moved from three groups to two.

One possible explanation for some of the reduction is that more people in the cohort would still be working?

In the first study SPA would have been 65 for men and 60 for women. By 2023/24 it would have been 66 for both. That would mean much more of the 60-69 age group did not yet qualify for their state pension.