Multi-Million/Billionaires Owning Farms
Society & Culture0 min ago
Good News For Us Oldies...............
16 Answers
Apparently we are not the problem that many see us to be.
http://
I bet, however, that certain ABers wil find reasons to disagree!!
http://
I bet, however, that certain ABers wil find reasons to disagree!!
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LoftyLottie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm not sure his argument follows.
". As we've been getting older and older since the 1860s have we been getting poorer and poorer? Is it the case that somehow at the same time, because all these old people were dragging the economy back, we were getting poorer?"
This does not account for the fact that for a huge swathe of time 'since the 1860s', care for the elderly was not publicly funded.
"Britain is expected to move from four to two working people supporting every over-65 year-old.[...]
Ferudi said this move was not historically unprecedented, pointing to 1900 where 14 working people supported every elderly person."
I don't really understand the relevance of this point, so I may have misunderstood it. But it seems to me that the cost of one person's divided by 14 is considerably less costly to the latter than one person's care divided by 3 or 4.
I am NOT saying that care for the elderly is wrong, or anything in that league. But I do think it's naive to pretend that the population shift that my generation will have to deal with is not going to be incredibly costly. As usual, The Economist provides an excellent analysis:
http://
". As we've been getting older and older since the 1860s have we been getting poorer and poorer? Is it the case that somehow at the same time, because all these old people were dragging the economy back, we were getting poorer?"
This does not account for the fact that for a huge swathe of time 'since the 1860s', care for the elderly was not publicly funded.
"Britain is expected to move from four to two working people supporting every over-65 year-old.[...]
Ferudi said this move was not historically unprecedented, pointing to 1900 where 14 working people supported every elderly person."
I don't really understand the relevance of this point, so I may have misunderstood it. But it seems to me that the cost of one person's divided by 14 is considerably less costly to the latter than one person's care divided by 3 or 4.
I am NOT saying that care for the elderly is wrong, or anything in that league. But I do think it's naive to pretend that the population shift that my generation will have to deal with is not going to be incredibly costly. As usual, The Economist provides an excellent analysis:
http://
I'm pretty sure his argument doesn't follow
Firstly in previous years there was a large younger population what we're facing now is retired people making up a much largerproportion of the population than ever before
Secondly the health system now is spending more and more resources on expensive treatments a large proportion of which is targeted at the older population - in previous generations there was no nationally funded health service.
Personally I'd not frame it in terms of older people are the 'problem' the declining birth rate is at least as responsible
Firstly in previous years there was a large younger population what we're facing now is retired people making up a much largerproportion of the population than ever before
Secondly the health system now is spending more and more resources on expensive treatments a large proportion of which is targeted at the older population - in previous generations there was no nationally funded health service.
Personally I'd not frame it in terms of older people are the 'problem' the declining birth rate is at least as responsible
It is an odd argument. It seems to say an increase in older people will not be a burden on the rest, then gives figures that support the counter argument that they will. It says in 1900 it took 14 people to support 1 pensioner and it now takes 4 people and soon that will be 2.
He also says history shows it is not a problem, but it doesn't because we are in unchartered waters. The baby boom after the war are now coming up for retirement now.
Last year the number of people coming to retirement age leapt 30% and for he first time in our history, there were more OAPs than the rest. In the next 5 years, another 3.3million will join them in retirement age.
It is difficult to argue that the increased welfare bill for all these extra retirees will not cost the unretired more in taxes.
He also says history shows it is not a problem, but it doesn't because we are in unchartered waters. The baby boom after the war are now coming up for retirement now.
Last year the number of people coming to retirement age leapt 30% and for he first time in our history, there were more OAPs than the rest. In the next 5 years, another 3.3million will join them in retirement age.
It is difficult to argue that the increased welfare bill for all these extra retirees will not cost the unretired more in taxes.
/// Apparently we are not the problem that many see us to be. ///
Try convincing some ABers on here.
Things have somehow changed not for the better may I add.
Years ago Granddad and Grand Mother were all part of the family, not as they are not today, but I can never remember any going into care homes and not many cases of senile dementia.
Granddad and Grand Ma generally lived two or three houses down the street, and someone was always 'popping in' and out, and when they got too old to look after themselves they generally moved in with their off springs and were then looked after by them until the old folk died.
Try convincing some ABers on here.
Things have somehow changed not for the better may I add.
Years ago Granddad and Grand Mother were all part of the family, not as they are not today, but I can never remember any going into care homes and not many cases of senile dementia.
Granddad and Grand Ma generally lived two or three houses down the street, and someone was always 'popping in' and out, and when they got too old to look after themselves they generally moved in with their off springs and were then looked after by them until the old folk died.
/and not many cases of senile dementia/
that is an understandable perception
the number of people living well beyond '3 score years and 10' is increasing massively
The prevalence of Senile Dementia between the ages 75-79 is currently only 5.04% of men and 6.64% of women
When we look at the age group 85-89 it rises dramatically to 18.45% of men and 22.76% of women
For the age group 90-94 senile dementia affects 32.1% of men and 32.25 of women
(source: Alzheimers Research UK)
that is an understandable perception
the number of people living well beyond '3 score years and 10' is increasing massively
The prevalence of Senile Dementia between the ages 75-79 is currently only 5.04% of men and 6.64% of women
When we look at the age group 85-89 it rises dramatically to 18.45% of men and 22.76% of women
For the age group 90-94 senile dementia affects 32.1% of men and 32.25 of women
(source: Alzheimers Research UK)
Actually I agreed it is a flawed argument that is presented in the article, but I just wanted to stir things up. Personally though, I am absolutely sick of people inferring that us baby boomers have had a cushy time of it. Our expectations were far less materially and we didn't every dream of falling back on the banks of Mum and Dad. Jobs were more plentiful in the 60's and 70's but we didn't expect large salaries or to have any surplus funds whilst we raised our families. Most of us scrimped and saved and lived on a shoestring probably through most of our lives. We didn't have the benefit of inheritances because very few people in our parents' generation owned their own houses.
So don't begrudge us our winter fuel allowance or bus passes - They form a very tiny, tiny part of the national economy.
I'm glad ummmm lives grumpy old people!! ;o)
So don't begrudge us our winter fuel allowance or bus passes - They form a very tiny, tiny part of the national economy.
I'm glad ummmm lives grumpy old people!! ;o)
1 to 16 of 16
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.