4 ms·

But will 65 always be a meaningful cut-off for "old" - if it even is today? What would the balance look like if you made the cut-off 75, or 80, or 90? Obviousl

by skewart 10y ago

But will 65 always be a meaningful cut-off for "old" - if it even is today? What would the balance look like if you made the cut-off 75, or 80, or 90? Obviously current pension and retirement policy defines "old" at various ages in the 50s or 60s, and 65 is a reasonable cut-off in light of current laws. But the trend is generally longer lives and later retirements. I would be willing to bet that the 65-year-olds of the 2030s will be much less of a "burden" on society than, say, the 65-year-olds of the 1930s were.

ihsw 10y ago
65+ across the board is most definitely a burden -- those entering old age between now and 2030 are universally poor, underemployed, and in poor health, and there is no sign of it slowing down or getting better. They will rely on the young more than ever. That said, 65 isn't a hard number. Many exit regular employment permanently at 50, for example. A century ago and now are incomparable for a variety of reasons, one of them being a burgeoning middle class. The birth of a middle class brings incalculable improvements but many nations haven't ever adapted to that massive middle class approaching old age, but thankfully this will be staggered so we can respond to it gradually.
- skewart 10y ago
  > those entering old age between now and 2030 are universally poor, underemployed, and in poor health, and there is no sign of it slowing down or getting better. They will rely on the young more than ever. Could you elaborate on this? My impression is the exact opposite - that people are generally healthier and/or living longer than they have previously. Obviously things vary tremendously from country to country - and obesity in the US complicates the picture - but is general health and life expectancy around the world going down?

4 ms·

But will 65 always be a meaningful cut-off for "old" - if it even is today? What would the balance look like if you made the cut-off 75, or 80, or 90? Obviousl

by skewart 10y ago

ihsw 10y ago
65+ across the board is most definitely a burden -- those entering old age between now and 2030 are universally poor, underemployed, and in poor health, and there is no sign of it slowing down or getting better. They will rely on the young more than ever. That said, 65 isn't a hard number. Many exit regular employment permanently at 50, for example. A century ago and now are incomparable for a variety of reasons, one of them being a burgeoning middle class. The birth of a middle class brings incalculable improvements but many nations haven't ever adapted to that massive middle class approaching old age, but thankfully this will be staggered so we can respond to it gradually.
- skewart 10y ago
  > those entering old age between now and 2030 are universally poor, underemployed, and in poor health, and there is no sign of it slowing down or getting better. They will rely on the young more than ever. Could you elaborate on this? My impression is the exact opposite - that people are generally healthier and/or living longer than they have previously. Obviously things vary tremendously from country to country - and obesity in the US complicates the picture - but is general health and life expectancy around the world going down?