Can we talk about the aging population?

[Kendodd]

Anyone know much?
I don't see much serious discussion in politics about this and the challenges it will create. Policy just seems to be more of the same ignoring the fact society will fundamentally change and lots of the numbers just won't add up anymore (elder care, healthcare etc) Having said that I think we are quite well placed in the UK to cope being open to immigration from higher birthrate countries. Plus we will have a heads up watching how low birthrate and low immigration countries in Asia cope and what they do right or wrong.

Overall, I think, lower numbers of people are good for the planet, if predictions are even correct, people across the world might decide to just start birthing their own care workers though and upend the current trajectory. Anyway I don't think we should continue to ignore it's challenges.

Yes - I agree. It's just that a few posts above seemed to be heavily focused on the costs of care rather than any other costs.

It had been a useful thread for me, I hadn't realised how few people end up in care so it's made me more hopeful about my DPs situation.

The root issue is people are living longer. Our diet of ultra processed food and lack of normal exercise such as walking is slowly addressing that, but not fast enough and there are and will be more net dependents than contributors to the economy, which is simply not sustainable.

There seems little point in living longer if you have to work longer. I'm 53 and 60 can't come soon enough- thankfully most of my work pensions will mature then. I may continue to do something, but not my high stress current job - and I'm an office worker, I can only imagine how teachers, nurses and care assistants must feel about the prospect of never retiring.

The lack of walking, eating processed convenience foods and a generally sedentary lifestyle is not such an issue for the very elderly, rather a timebomb for the current younger generation.

The problem will be that even if they die sooner they will live with ill-health for longer, so may not be able to work, and we will have a dwindling population of people to pay for services. Reduced population will be good for the country and the planet, but people who can work may have quite a high burden of cost for those who can't. I also think it is not the Instagram fitness non-smoking generation that gas the weight and inactivity problem, but the 40/50+ who will ne the ones needing care at a younger age.

Yes, or even slightly younger, I think older people have more of a habit of walking and physical work. There is a higher level of disposable income now, I have colleagues in their 30s who have cleaners, dog walkers and car valets. Every day activity seems reduced.

Maybe it's a good thing that younger generations won't live as long.

I look at my parents who have kept themselves mostly physically healthy except for DMs osteoporosis- having a low BMI is not always the golden ticket it's seen as - but their minds are gradually going so they do very little and it's a poisoned chalice as neither of them want to be at the stage of needing to be looked after, but unless their bodies give out that's what is likely to happen.

Sounds awful but based on them I can't see the benefit of living past your early 80s.

I think many people can lead productive lives well into very old age, it's just opportunity, really. Also circumstance.

But exercise, not drinking too much or smoking, and a moderate BMI will help minimise your risk of dementia in later life. If your DPs hadn't taken care of themselves their mental decline might have started in their seventies along with physical decline, and robbed them of years they spent hiking or whatever.

No, nor me. But, my Dad (widowed by then), had to offer up the family home for care home costs.

As it happened, I managed to get him `continuous NHS funding, but, until this, the council certainly wanted his house sold to pay for his care.

Not sure why people think it's just savings that count. There are sone exceptions though.

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/paying-for-care/paying-for-a-care-home/do-i-have-to-sell-my-home-to-pay-for-care/

I think you might have been misunderstanding what people are saying.

Simplified: your home absolutely may have to be sold for care home costs if you're no longer using it, (unless your spouse is still living there). But your house won't have to be sold (or have a charge put on it) to pay for the cost of care in your home while you're still living there, basically only savings count for that.

When my mother came out of hospital she had four visits a day for washing and changing paid by the council at their rate of £60 a day for six weeks only. After that she had to pay herself and she was charged £160 a day by the same company...

Thing is, it's not just care, it's all the other work that needs doing in society and also the money that needs to be generated to pay for everything.