The "Demographic Timebomb"

[BlasterBates]

That's the age where cigarettes and alcohol catch up with you....

[SueEllen]

Going back to the old farts issue, it is hard to know what to believe, as I said. Almost every day in the news there is something about lack of care for elderly/bed blocking.

The problem with that is that "boomers", i.e. those born in the birth boom after the war, are still in their late 60s/very early 70s and mostly pretty fit. It is the really elderly, those approaching, or in, their 80s or 90s that one sees in all these news clips. If there really is a problem with those born when population increase was quite low, what will it be like when the real boomers get that old?

Personally, I am more inclined to believe the Demographic Time bomb it is all bollux as that 2nd article says. The government is finding an excuse for all the funding cuts/doctor shortages (thanks in part to Labour's crazy pay boosts) at a time of expanding population generally. When I went to A&E with my bro in law last year, he was one of the very few old farts there, the place was mostly full of youngish sorts with kids.

There is a demographic time bomb and it was known about since the late 70s.

The birth rate dropped at lot around the mid-70s then only increased again significantly about 10 years ago. There is birth rate data which you probably find from the ONS. (I studied it in school and Japan was used as the most extreme example of birth rate problems.)

However the current government is using that as an excuse to do heavier spending cuts than they should be doing.

[NotAllThere]

Wow rich people can support themselves in old age better than poor people. Who'd a thunk it?

Course they do. Poor people don't live to be old.

[SueEllen]

Course they do. Poor people don't live to be old.

Some of them do.

I'm basing this on some of the decreased 90 years I've met who definitely weren't and aren't rich.

[xoggoth]

That's the age where cigarettes and alcohol catch up with you

Yeh. I've Given up on finding the truth of all this. Time for a vodka and a fag down the greenhouse.

[vetran]

Yeh. I've Given up on finding the truth of all this. Time for a vodka and a fag down the greenhouse.

Don't fall over you may never escape hospital!

[sasguru]

If only that were true. The country's sad obsession with celebrity status has seen a massive hole left in the numbers for science degrees. University pass rates need to be maintained so it's now far easier to get a 2:1 BSc in Physics from a red brick than it was 20 years ago. That's not me saying so, that's a physicist friend with patents granted who is bemoaning the lack of high calibre physics graduates available.

It's true that standards have declined in the last 30 years.
The standard UK maths textbook I used in my first year at university ("Mathematical Methods for Science Students" by G. Stephenson, I still have my copy) is now considered too hard for most undergraduates. I think it's quite basic.
But my point is that educational standards for the lower 90% of the population have declined even more dramatically, even the as the need for knowledge workers rises.
So the top 10% are in more demand than they were in the 50s, say.
It's all relative.

[PurpleGorilla]

It's true that standards have declined in the last 30 years.
The standard UK maths textbook I used in my first year at university ("Mathematical Methods for Science Students" by G. Stephenson, I still have my copy) is now considered too hard for most undergraduates. I think it's quite basic.
But my point is that educational standards for the lower 90% of the population have declined even more dramatically, even the as the need for knowledge workers rises.
So the top 10% are in more demand than they were in the 50s, say.
It's all relative.

And the top 10% pay all the tax.

Where is the mathematical logic in that!

[LondonManc]

It's true that standards have declined in the last 30 years.
The standard UK maths textbook I used in my first year at university ("Mathematical Methods for Science Students" by G. Stephenson, I still have my copy) is now considered too hard for most undergraduates. I think it's quite basic.
But my point is that educational standards for the lower 90% of the population have declined even more dramatically, even the as the need for knowledge workers rises.
So the top 10% are in more demand than they were in the 50s, say.
It's all relative.

The problem is that it's the old top 20% that were of use rather than the top 10%.

The decline outside the top 10% has seen the quality of our market change and is partly responsible for opening the door to bobbing. It's the obsession with being able to run before they can walk and wanting instant success that's costing us in a lot of cases but the biggest culprit is league tables.