In 4 years, 2029, UK deaths will exceed births!

[TheMintCritic]

Just came across this and thought it was wild… according to the ONS, by 2029 the number of deaths in the UK is expected to outnumber the number of births for the first time in decades.

• Our fertility rate is only about 1.5 kids per woman, well below replacement.
• Meanwhile, the population is ageing — all those baby boomers are moving into their 70s and 80s.
• The result? The natural population growth turns negative, meaning any population increase will rely entirely on immigration.

It’s crazy to think that in just 4 years, births won’t even keep up with deaths. Makes you wonder what that’ll mean for schools, NHS, pensions, and housing.

I was led to believe that's why they're called "boomers" because there was a "baby boom".

Not an expert on this but I've also been informed I'm a "zoomer". Not sure where the idea for that one came from

Exactly. Elderly care is one of the biggest reasons our economy is in such a bad state. Just not enough previous governments prepared to tackle the problem. As it currently stands our health and social care as a nation is unaffordable. It's funded by working people's tax receipts and there just isn't enough. The biggest benefit pay out by far is state pension.

The fact that they're called boomers should make is so obvious the scale of them in comparison to before/after generations and at one end wealth concentrated into Boomer properties. At the other pensioners without adequate means to live on.

Yeah but stop the boats and give the pensioners back their fuel wotsit
blah blah blah diddy blah

Exactly. The generation before baby boomers. Those who created the boom

Where did you get this fact?

Not sure why though that the younger generations are so bitter towards the ‘boomers’. They didn’t create the situation they found themselves in. It was outside sources. Who wouldn’t take advantage of that and live the best way they could with what society gave them? Or are this generation saying they would have declined it all for the good of future generations, and that’s assuming it would have benefitted future generations anyway.

To be fair a lot of people are saying they’re not having kids to help future generations.

I’m a 1990s baby so a millennial and while I have 3 kids, the majority of my friends have none or 1.

The only people who care about the future of the next few generations are the ones who have kids.

@NoKidsSendDogs I know lots of people without dc who care about what they are leaving behind.

at least don't pretend like you're worried about all of us

What made you think I was worried about you or everyone else?

You all claim to care so much about the future of the planet but treat vegan people like shit, the one group of people who actually do the most to make a difference. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Did you hit the booze last night? How on earth do you know how I feel about vegans?!

To be fair there are some grim bits. I know Dundee better and there are blocks in Dundee where the posties and council workers only go in pairs for safety. When folk move out they take off the letterbox front and put on a metal plate so the other tenants don’t post needles through the letter box. They tried just having post boxes downstairs but they were vandalised and removed.

Theres been a big drug problem in Dundee for years snd I think it’s the legacy of that.

Fewer people means there will be less pressure on housing, resources, services etc.

Nope fewer workers vs older people mean more pressure on the above, we don't even have housing that is suitable for ageing needs.

@StMarie4me I'm not sure what your response to my point about funding means. Funding is based on head counts is all I said...

As a Boomer, we get blamed for everything (yawn) but we worked bloody hard and we parented.

Parenting is far more intensive today!

And I don’t have life on a silver platter. Was left as a single mum in the 90s and never recovered financially (he did) so I’ll work till I die.

I'm sorry for you but i don't understand what these anecdotes have to do with the actual topic? We have an ageing population & that's expensive & new uncharted territory, you being a single parents or not doesn't make any difference to that.

@Snowiethesnowman yes, I believe that is correct. The boomers are such a big cohort due to baby booms.

@Livelovebehappy why does recognising we have an ageing population & that pensions & the NHS are unaffordable = bitterness towards boomers?

I think there will have to be a much bigger move to supporting yourself in old age. Here in Australia we pay into a very generous pension throughout working life (12% of salary contributed by employer and you top up yourself) and only the very poorest get a state pension. It started I think around 30 years ago so the U.K. better get on with it!

There won’t be state pension in the U.K. in a few years and there will be a big move to using housing wealth to support your own needs. The idea of leaving a lot of money for your children probably won’t happen. The state cannot continue how it is, it’s in severe deficit NOW, let alone in another 30 years.

My only advice to young people would be to put as much as they can afford into a pension, regularly, and take advantage of compounding interest. Don’t waste your money on trinkets, fancy cars, get yourself on the property ladder if you can, save money and only have the children you can afford while still saving money. Don’t live beyond your means.

There won’t be state pension in the U.K. in a few years and there will be a big move to using housing wealth to support your own needs.

I agree with this, the country is broke so having all that money sitting there tied up in housing makes even less sense.

Oh and I certainly wouldn’t be bothering with a degree unless I could guarantee that it would propel me into a higher paid job than I could get otherwise.

Read your own posts.

Read your own posts.

What have I said that was bitter?

How did Boomers have too many children??? The birth rate has been slightly less than 2 children per woman since the 1980s.

The most depressing thing is because so many don't want to even acknowledge the issues and have a proper debate about it more voters are turning to Reform. It's unbelievable to me that people are still falling for Nigel's rhetoric but they prefer the idea of low tax & great public services 😆😆.

We need a cross party consensus that will take years to change things but the electorate aren't interested.

It’s not the boomers who had too many kids - they ARE the too many kids! It wasn’t their fault though, presumably the birth rate had been severely down during the war, and then all the men came back and they all procreated at once!

There's a real threat of food and water shortages linked to that but it will take money to address those crises and that's the conundrum: how do you remain prosperous as a country outside of the traditional growth model which rests on population increase? The whole system has to be drastically reinvented but at the moment all we're getting is a billionaire kleptocrat class highjacking politics for their own self-preserving interests.

Exactly it was the boomers parents who had too many children that's why they're called boomers.
Most boomers are in their 60s/70s now so things may be difficult for a couple decades with so many older people but eventually they will pass away and things will rebalance.

Mass immigration to solve a temporary problem like people always say on these threads is a terrible idea

We will be relying on immigration. By 2050 there will be many countries competing for working age immigrants, especially those who are skilled/qualified.

See what affect the ai has on the job market by then