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.

Exactly. So much lazy thinking and ignorance on this thread, as usual.

Almost as if, @IClaudine , being born into a certain demographic doesn't make everyone the same and with identical experiences.....

I dont think the state pension will exist for my Gen x/ Alpha children or they won't be claiming it until they are over 70.

But this is already the position for many people! You're right, it's not popular, but many people in care homes are currently self-funding.

@IClaudine google said mid 1964 but I guess it's a bit vague at the end.

@Fifthtimelucky I was talking about all care though as not everyone goes into a care home

Workhouses are cheap and they could pick oakum to cover the cost of their gruel.

Agree with another poster. Population needs to managed down, it needs to happen at some point so just get on with it. Take the hit over the next 2 generations for the sake of future generations.

Oversimplification saying 'have more babies' as this is so complex. Support required is not just for aging population it's for all those with poor health due to diabetes etc. The welfare bill is through the roof for people of working age, immigration for worker was over 1 million last year. Not sustainable when so many here can't/won't work.

Shared family care of elders only works if there is someone to share with. I'm an only DC - apparently in the 70s there was concern about rising population so they only had one - so for me to do hands on care would most likely involve me giving up my reasonably paid high stress, whose modest pension I'm counting on to keep me self sufficient in my old age.

Definitely get rid of the triple lock, and do more means tested additional pension credits for those who need them.

Fuck off with the protected baby boomers comments. I am 61. My state pension age is 67, it has shifted twice that I remember since I started work.

I have a defined contribution pension, despite going into work expecting a final salary pension. I will probably work at least part time into my 70s if I am able. Many of us baby boomers are in the same boat.

My parents were part of the silent generation. They did have final salary pensions.
I agree that things look as if they are only going to get tougher but quit with the casual & uninformed ageism.

Those who rent won't be able to afford this though as they will be spending their money on rent.

Don't. Some people on here will think that's a good idea. Probably for "protected baby boomers" 😂

I don’t know why people scream ageism in these conversations. It’s not a personal attack to say the baby boomer generation has affected society massively. It’s simply fact. The benefits system has been too generous, investment in systems and infrastructure has been lacking, the housing situation benefitted then and the pension schemes were gold plated. It simply is what it is. But later generations won’t have that and without massive change it will get progressively more difficult and more costly for each generation when the expectation was always continual improvement in living standards.

@RoyKentFanclub and again, the Babt boomer pension schemes were not gold plated. That was the previous generation in the main, many of whom also benefited from the housing situation. Not many of us boomers ever had a council house we could by.
so yes it is inaccurate gratuitous ageism.

I think part time work needs to be easier to find.
If you’re on disability benefits it needs to be easier to work part time or even very part time. without losing a safety net. Lots of people can’t work full time but might be able to manage one or two half days a week.

A lot of the baby boomers had their final salary schemes changed to less favourable terms, it was the silent generation that had the best pension schemes

I think we need to reconsider euthanasia, I think public opinion is generally in favour although politicians seem to shy away from it.

Hang on I’m only a few years younger than the baby boomers. It isn’t ageism it’s a sensible factual conversation and it involves talking about people as general groups. Of course there will always be exceptions. Fact remains things are getting worse for each group

not a personal attack to say the baby boomer generation has affected society massively

The focus on threads about older people are relentlessly negative and assume one demographic is homogenous.

This happens also on threads bashing disabled people or immigrants or benefit claimants etc. etc.. It is all bigotry and of course people will take it personally.

I am aware of that. What i am saying is tackling an older population is bigger than tackling who provides care for dementia patients. The conversation often focus on how we musnt be keeping people alive at all costs and who pays the care home fees and assisted dying. But more people live in their own homes with minimal care and die after a short illness. Even if we euthanized everyone who was about to go into a nursing home, there would still be a problem with an aging population. Its very hard to discuss it though.

And what age would you have as our cut off point? 60? 70? 80?

Euthanasia might be worthwhile for those who are at the painful end of agonising terminal illnesses of any age but to suggest it as a solution for an ageing population is outrageous.

It’s not a personal attack to say the baby boomer generation has affected society massively

True. The Boomers helped to bring about improved pay and conditions that everyone benefitted from. They campaigned for equal rights for women and for an end to legal rape and against homophobia and racism. They were much more politically active at a young age than people today. That is just a few things that come to mind.

With respect that’s a very inward looking approach in this type of conversation which is about population trends. Nobody is saying it’s personally anyone’s fault, it simply is what it is.

@AtlasPine I'm sure plenty of elderly people would be happy to go, reducing the burden on their families and the state.

Thus far, people's home are only taken into consideration when mean's tested for care homes. People cared for in their own home are tested on income & savings.

They should move to the method that person's home should be taken into account when at-home care is supplied.

The funds can be retrieved whenever the property is sold - either is the person is going into a care home or after death.

And I say this as a child whose parent self funded both at home care & care home whilst subsidising LA funded residents.