4 ms·
I guess one thing to point out is that the cost of social care (circa £20 billion) in the UK is not borne by the NHS, but by a mixture of local councils (70%) a
by hyko 6y ago
I guess one thing to point out is that the cost of social care (circa £20 billion) in the UK is not borne by the NHS, but by a mixture of local councils (70%) and private individuals (30%). Nursing home deaths will not really significantly affect the NHS budget (circa £150 billion, 10% of which is spent on people aged over 85).
The wants and needs of nursing home residents create a demand, and we fulfil that demand using some of our productivity. In fact without that demand there would be no need for that sector, and our productivity would fall to match. Perhaps the savings in tax and private wealth would be directed to other sectors, but maybe not.
The case for mere retirees is even more clear cut. They are spending accumulated wealth (or accumulated entitlements) and they account for a massive amount of aggregate demand because of a mixture of hard work and luck. They are not a loss to the economy just because they don’t need to work anymore; retirees are a massive component of the modern economy.
- concordDance 6y agoI thank you for taking the time to look up the figures and correct my misapprehensions. In the case of local councils there are a huge number of improvements they could do locally. Roads, parks, community centers, etc Now, I know this isn't really the place for a lecture on economics but I find this model of economics very unintuitive. Surely the inheritors of the estates of these elderly people will also have plenty of demand for many goods and services? I certainly could do with a cook and chauffeur. A trope of dancers wouldn't be ammiss either. If I promised to spend the savings of these deceased people on cooks and dancers, would you be happy with that money falling to me to keep demand constant?