The UK is ‘woefully under-prepared for the social and economic challenges presented by an ageing
society, a House of Lords committee has warned this week.
The committee predicts ‘a series of crises’ in public service provision
and says that big changes in pensions, health care and employment practices are
needed to help people ‘sustain a good quality of life’ as they age.
The committee is calling on the government to set out its thinking on
the issue before the next election and for all parties to consider the
implications for public spending, in their next election manifestos.
A leading think tank, the International Longevity Centre UK, said the
report should be a wake-up call for government and society as a whole and that
individuals would have to take more responsibility for their health and income
in retirement.
I consider this to be a massive understatement.
The demographic winter, whereby shrinking birth rates and increasing
longevity, contribute to a falling population and distorted age structure is
most marked in Japan. The bar graphs above (from the
Economist) show the structure of Japan’s population in 1950, 2012 and 2055 (more detail here).
For about 50 years after the second world war the combination of
Japan's fast-growing labour force and the rising productivity of its famously
industrious workers created a growth miracle. Within two generations the number
of people of working age increased by 37m and Japan went from ruins to the
world's second-largest economy.
In the next 40 years however that process will go into reverse. The
working-age population will shrink so quickly that by 2050 it will be smaller
than it was in 1950, and four out of ten Japanese will be over 65. Unless
Japan's productivity rises faster than its workforce declines, which seems
unlikely, its economy will shrink.
The changes in the UK’s age structure are not as dramatic as those in Japan but follow a
similar pattern. The graph (right) shows the change between 1901 and 2010.
The
UK’s population is both larger and older than it was a hundred years ago, and
most of the difference in size is due to an increase in the older population.
Between 1901 and 2010, the population under 40 increased only modestly,
from 28.5m to 31.5m. But over the same period, the number of people aged 40 and
older has more than trebled, from 9.7m to 30.8m.
Among the over 65s, the increase has been still more dramatic. Around
5% of the population was aged 65 and older in 1901, compared with 17% in 2010.
The proportion of the population in this age group is projected to rise to 23%
by 2035.
More
than 320,000 of the 400,000 people living in care homes
in England, Wales and Northern Ireland now have dementia or severe memory
problems.
Around one in three people over
the age of 65 will develop dementia in their lifetime and the number of people
with dementia is increasing - 800,000 now will become 950,000 by 2021 and is
estimated to double in the next 40 years. So will the current costs of care.
The £23bn figure being quoted for dementia care today is nearly double
the figure spent on cancer and three times the sum for heart disease. And all
this is in the face of £20bn ’efficiency savings’ needed in NHS spending over
the next few years.
Given that 50% of healthcare costs go on people in the last six months of life, and that people are more likely to die the older they get (see chart left) an age structure such as a the UK's is becoming generates massive healthcare costs.
We have a growing elderly
population supported by a smaller and smaller working population – fuelled by
elderly people living longer and an epidemic of abortion, infertility and small
families.
These demographic changes, together with economic pressure from growing public and personal debt, and increasing pressure for a change in the law to allow euthanasia, produce a toxic cocktail indeed.
Some European politician and economists have been chillingly open about the economic necessity of euthanasia. Jacques Attali, the former president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, said in 1981 in an article in L’Avenir de la vie :
These demographic changes, together with economic pressure from growing public and personal debt, and increasing pressure for a change in the law to allow euthanasia, produce a toxic cocktail indeed.
Some European politician and economists have been chillingly open about the economic necessity of euthanasia. Jacques Attali, the former president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, said in 1981 in an article in L’Avenir de la vie :
‘As soon as he gets beyond 60-65 years of age, man lives beyond his
capacity to produce, and he costs society a lot of money... euthanasia will be
one of the essential instruments of our future societies.’
Sunday Times journalist Minette
Marin in 2011 in an even more apocalyptic analysis called the demographic timebomb ‘an
enormous grey elephant in the room’ and argued that euthanasia will become an economic necessity.
'In 1950 there were 7.2
people of working age (20-64) in the OECD member states for every person more
than 64 years old. By 1980 the ratio had fallen to 5.1; now it is about 4.1 and
by 2050 it will be 2.1….’
It is abundantly clear that
unless something is done to reverse demographic trends, ‘economic necessity’,
together with the ‘culture of death’ ideology which is becoming more openly
accepted, may well mean that the generation that killed its children through
abortion will in turn be killed by its own children through euthanasia.
But the answer is not euthanasia and this makes it even more imperative that we fight hard to combat the two British bills and court cases which threaten to legalise it this year.
But the answer is not euthanasia and this makes it even more imperative that we fight hard to combat the two British bills and court cases which threaten to legalise it this year.
The real answer to Britain’s crisis
is in our grasp, but it requires a completely different mind-set to that which
has led us as a nation, in our reckless pursuit of affluence and personal peace
to mortgage our present, bankrupt our futures, and see those who rely on us as
a burden rather than a privileged responsibility.
The demographic time-bomb is a challenge but as Christians it should lead us to live more simply, give more, save more, serve more, love more, value those who are dependent, both old and young, more deeply, have more children younger and earlier to reverse the demographic trends and replenish the workforce, and work harder to provide good care for all.
The demographic time-bomb is a challenge but as Christians it should lead us to live more simply, give more, save more, serve more, love more, value those who are dependent, both old and young, more deeply, have more children younger and earlier to reverse the demographic trends and replenish the workforce, and work harder to provide good care for all.
Over all it should lead us to
preach the Gospel more.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.