Some thoughts to mull over the weekend.... >Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:01:46 -0800 >From: Craig McKie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: An Aging Society: Part Two - Private Adjustments >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Precedence: Bulk >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Status: > >An Aging Society: Part Two - Private Adjustments > >There is a tendency to interpret the social consequences of societal >aging in entirely fiscal terms: high pension payout totals, a >decreasing proportion of the Canadian population actively working for >pay, increasing expenditures on health care and so on. Contrarians >argue however that, in coping, nothing fundamental will have to >change. After all, didn't we have high dependency ratios before (in >the 1950s when dependents were mainly children being raised by Hugh >and June Cleaver model families)? Typically, an argument is also made >that there will be corresponding offsetting decreases in public >expenditures on education, law enforcement and corrections which when >combined with persons working for pay past the normal retirement age >of 65 will make the transition pain free. > >But, it is possible to take issue with each of these contrarian >arguments: > >1. Seniors are not now nor are they likely in future to be evenly >distributed across the country. Some regions will experience much >greater age-related stress, and earlier, than others. Retirees are >clustering in particular patches of geography. In those clusters, the >requirement for all forms of healthcare: acute, ambulatory, >residential and in-home will be especially pronounced. In a province >with a relatively young and well-educated growing population like >Alberta, (largely educated at taxpayers' expense somewhere else), the >problems are different from those in, say, New Brunswick, with its >dispersed, older, poorly educated, rural-based numerically declining >population. > >2. The 1950s high-dependency-rate family had much larger, more >effective, and geographically concentrated family-based support >networks. Today's families are small, often fractured, dispersed, and >incapable of providing in-home care to anything like the same extent. >The willingness and/or ability to make such sacrifices is also much >more questionable now. > >3. The importance of education is greatly increasing. Contemporary >education to be effective requires much larger investments in teaching >equipment, skilled instructors and support services than was >previously the case. It is necessary to educate the young worker to a >greater degree than before, and to reduce the wastage of abilities to >an absolute minimum in light of already apparent labour shortages, >which in all probability will just increase with time. Education is >thus likely to cost us all more in the future and not less. Even >though the number of young students might fall overall, the number of >adult learners will surely increase. > >4. The costs of law enforcement and corrections are the results of >political decisions concerning the definition of actionable crime, >and, in corrections, of the sentencing guidelines and legislated >sentences. Increasing leniency seems not to be in cards. Quite the >contrary, the call for longer sentences in one of Her Majesty's more >expensive high security villas is the order of the day. Crime and >corrections is thus a growth industry and some would now wish to >further enlarge that industry with longer mandatory sentences. >Decriminalizing the production, sale, and personal use of recreational >drugs seems to be the only potential savings vehicle in this area. > >5. Early retirement is becoming more prevalent, and not less. This is >the result of a number of factors including employers attempting to >replace their older high-earning workers with cheaper young graduates. >The rapid obsolescence of skillsets makes older workers face >obligatory retraining at a time in life when this might be unwelcome. >Re-engaging the energies of a high proportion of the early retirees in >voluntary work is the offsetting policy. > >6. Because of past low fertility (it has been below replacement level >for 30 years), many of the increasingly numerous very old of the next >few decades will have few if any surviving relatives. Those family >members they do have are as likely as not to live far away and thus be >unavailable to help, always assuming that they are able and willing to >do so in addition to their own employment. Many seniors will in fact >be entirely on their own. Who then will drive them to medical >appointments, to the grocery store, to socializing events? When they >become ill, who will look after them in their own residences? After >all, we collectively lack the quantity of institutional accommodation >for the numbers of very aged persons involved. And if they are living >in their own residences, who will do the routine maintenance on those >dwellings? Does one half million persons 85 years of age and over by >2036 sound improbable? Statistics Canada thinks not. > >7. Successful medical interventions for children and adults prepare >the way for expensive and extended chronic illness in very advanced >years. If it hadn't been for penicillin, I would have been dead before >the age of five twice over. Now I am in a position to use up all >manner of medical services perhaps for as much as 30 or 40 more years, >not to mention expensive dental restoration work, meals-on-wheels, >Cancer Society drivers' time, grocery delivery services, and >specialized public transportation systems. I might need a >full-featured motorized wheelchair too with wireless Internet on >board. And if I choose to spend my retirement dollars in the sunny >south for up to six months a year, then my retail tax payments made a >in healthful state of being will not accrue in Canada, whilst my >reappearance for a stock of expensive but free-of-charge medications >and especially expensive surgery is virtually assured. > >8. The Boomers will collectively inherit a massive amount of capital >currently constituted as urban residential real estate where there are >urban parents involved, and very little where rural non-farm property >involved. In the general absence of an estate tax, this will drive >further regional wedges between the well off and the >not-at-all-well-off elderly Boomers. As always, one's choice of >parents is of paramount importance. > >On both the economic and social fronts, the stage is now set for >generational confrontation. In the broadest sense, very elderly >societies have structural conflict built in. Most institutions will be >dominated by the concerns of the aged, unavoidably. Providing the >services is likely to be a challenge even without addressing the >thorny question of who will pay for them. Services, especially those >involving physical labour, will have to be provided by a much smaller >proportion of the population than they are now, notwithstanding the >fact that more and more occupations will require higher technological >skill levels and a much higher level of sophisticated thinking than at >present, all of which preparation represents years lost from potential >labour force activity. Further, who exactly (in an elder-dominated >society) will produce novelty and innovation? By dint of numbers and >accumulated personal wealth, affluent Boomers will be able to enforce >their unchanged tastes in music, entertainment, and information >presentation formats. I seem to have been listening to Led Zep's >Stairway to Heaven for the past 30 years - am I ready for 30 more? >Could not all this be the tiniest bit irritating to the overworked and >likely overtaxed young worker of the future? > >Craig McKie > >Archives: http://www.columns.ca.tt >
