Reply to: The "Demographic Timebomb"

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[BlasterBates]

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

[xoggoth]

Hmmm. Dunno about that. According to this

The greatest number of admissions by age band was for patients aged 65 to 69 (1.3 million). This age band also saw the greatest increase in the number of admissions, up 5.5 per cent (66,000) from 1.2 million in 2012-13.

Hang on!!! It says here:

Emergency admissions. The increase in the rate for those aged 65 to 84 was lower than for younger adults.
Average length of stay for older people fell by 25%, equivalent to 4 fewer days per hospital spell.
The number of emergency bed days among older people fell by 9%, as the decline in average length of stay outweighed the increase in admissions, and the rate of emergency bed day use fell by 25%.

In other words (I think) while number of admissions has increased, the time they spend in hospital has dropped. What we really need is admissions x time = total time in hospital. That what costs are related to. That last quoted sentence suggests a fall.

[xoggoth]

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.

[LondonManc]

The flip side of that is that rigorous degrees from good institutions (minimum Russell Group) now command a premium in the marketplace.
As I've said before its becoming a "winner takes all" scenario for the cognitively gifted.

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.

[sasguru]

Not the case any more. There are coding apprenticeships starting up; some firms are recognising that an aptitude for coding is more valuable than a degree. Add into that the whole fiasco of degrees being dumbed down (standards of degrees have to drop to fit in with the standards of students admitted dropping) and degrees are getting more and more worthless, while costing more. Not sure where the tipping point will come but at some point there will be a backlash.

The flip side of that is that rigorous degrees from good institutions (minimum Russell Group) now command a premium in the marketplace.
As I've said before its becoming a "winner takes all" scenario for the cognitively gifted.

[LondonManc]

Yes but once they are in debt they must work for the next 50 years to pay it off thus we get a good supply of indentured workers.

Like in America - want a job you must have a degree - want a degree you will get into debt unless your parents are rich.

Want to put your kids through college and not leave them in debt - better hope you are rich.

There is a rather vicious circle here which is not great....

Not the case any more. There are coding apprenticeships starting up; some firms are recognising that an aptitude for coding is more valuable than a degree. Add into that the whole fiasco of degrees being dumbed down (standards of degrees have to drop to fit in with the standards of students admitted dropping) and degrees are getting more and more worthless, while costing more. Not sure where the tipping point will come but at some point there will be a backlash.

[PurpleGorilla]

Yes but once they are in debt they must work for the next 50 years to pay it off thus we get a good supply of indentured workers.

Like in America - want a job you must have a degree - want a degree you will get into debt unless your parents are rich.

Want to put your kids through college and not leave them in debt - better hope you are rich.

There is a rather vicious circle here which is not great....