4 ms·

No, you've learned the wrong lesson. It's almost as if a locally allocated choice between collecting the bins and homing grandma will always go with what incon

No, you've learned the wrong lesson. It's almost as if a locally allocated choice between collecting the bins and homing grandma will always go with what inconveniences voters least. Areas with poor, old populations can never pay their way. The excess gets dumped on the centrally funded NHS. It's a bad model that is a massive disservice to us all.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
>Areas with poor, old populations can never pay their way. The root of the issue is that this area is now the country. Giving all old people the labor necessary to support them in old age was easier when the ratio of working people to non working people was much higher, in conjunction with old people not living as long. Turn that population pyramid upside down due to drastically reduced birthrates and medical technology allowing people to live longer, and you get the current situation.
- oliwarner 4y ago
  You say that like it's an imperative but it's not. This is a choice. Through the government we elected, we choose to starve social care. We choose to starve education and so many other public services. Yes, our age profile made it more expensive, but so what? We choose to underfund it.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    If everyone is taking care of the elderly there is no one left to generate the wealth that props up society.
    - oliwarner 4y ago
      Community care is far cheaper for society than having families take on extra dependants, especially at the most taxable end of their lives. Its interactions with the economy are very much like childcare. But neither are happening. Old people are abandoned to healthcare providers. This, in turn impacts on the life expectancy of much younger people requiring emergency care who won't get it because the hospital and ambulances are full. It's not sustainable for patients or providers. There are two ways out. Choose to do this properly, or choose a much uglier withdrawal of care for the old and infirm. Before you choose, remember that these are people who worked for 45 years being told that their National Insurance payments were paying it forward for this kind of care. If you're going to change the rules —and especially if you're going to start incinerating grandmas when they get "too costly"— you have to expect the next generation probably isn't going to stick around. Many of that exodus will be doctors.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    It's actually through the local governments, many of which are Labour yet have the same issue. Root cause: the law says to raise local taxes beyond a certain amount councils must hold a referendum. They systematically refuse to do this because they know they will lose. Voters by and large think local councils are wasteful and don't really need more money. There's also another issue: some local councils especially in the North have a history of deliberately cutting front line services whilst e.g. expanding the central bureaucracy, because they know they can blame the Tories for not giving them "enough" money and the voters will fall for it. The councils could raise taxes, or rebalance spending, but that wouldn't energize their base.
    - oliwarner 4y ago
      Well I suggest you visit Norfolk. Councils have sold off their long-held land to developers, dumped their investments to their mates, stripped down services and tendered the rest. Serco does everything. Save the odd blip, Norfolk is as blue as it gets. Interestingly they also blame central government. And local tax raising is pretty blunt. How much your house would have been worth in April 1991, if you're working. High-retirement or high-unemployment areas usually have lower rates, and much lower incomes, while needing more than rich areas.
      - origin_path 4y ago
        Yes, I said "many of which are Labour yet have the same issue" i.e. it's an issue with local governments of all stripes. There's a culture of spending more than tax levels allow then expecting central government to make up the difference.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    State provisioned social care is not starved: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun?country=~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long... The burden of providing social care has increasingly been transferred from individual families, to the centralized state.
    - oliwarner 4y ago
      Looking at cash is a poor indicator for what's actually provided. Social care is 12-16% less available now than it was a decade ago. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/care-home-bed-availability https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/care-home-bed-avai... On your second part, this study also shows a significant 25y fall in the number of 85yo+ who are in homes. We aren't increasingly relying on the state.
      - ETH_start 4y ago
        Saying something is starved means saying it's underfunded. The statistics show more funds being allocated to social welfare programs. If those social welfare programs are mismanaging those funds, that's an entirely different argument than arguing it's "starved".
        oliwarner 4y ago
        Your statistics show an actual fall in the past 10 years. It's worse than that because the true picture needs to factor in local government spending now. If we pretend there's been steady investment, and imagine stable demand, the same thing can cost more than it did before. But irl, budgets have collapsed, demand is soaring and costs have already risen and are about to explode due to fuel-driven inflation. So no, starved on three counts. The baseline cost is deviating from the investment. And yes, there are many, many elements to why.
        ETH_start 4y ago
        >>Your statistics show an actual fall in the past 10 years. From 22.79% of GDP in 2010, to 21.49% in 2016 (the last year provided). This is after an increase from 10.44% to 1964 to 22.79% in 2010. The big picture is a massive multi-generational increase in social welfare spending, interspersed with tiny downward fluctuations over a small proportion of the years covered. >>It's worse than that because the true picture needs to factor in local government spending now. This is aggregate public spending, so it should already be factoring in local government spending. >>If we pretend there's been steady investment, and imagine stable demand, the same thing can cost more than it did before. Per capita GDP has increased in inflation-adjusted terms, so when social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP increases, that means a real (inflation-adjusted) increase in per capita social welfare spending. The only possible way this leads to less support for citizens in need is growing mismanagement of the funds by the social welfare programmes.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

>Areas with poor, old populations can never pay their way. The root of the issue is that this area is now the country. Giving all old people the labor necessary to support them in old age was easier when the ratio of working people to non working people was much higher, in conjunction with old people not living as long. Turn that population pyramid upside down due to drastically reduced birthrates and medical technology allowing people to live longer, and you get the current situation.

oliwarner 4y ago
You say that like it's an imperative but it's not. This is a choice. Through the government we elected, we choose to starve social care. We choose to starve education and so many other public services. Yes, our age profile made it more expensive, but so what? We choose to underfund it.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  If everyone is taking care of the elderly there is no one left to generate the wealth that props up society.
  - oliwarner 4y ago
    Community care is far cheaper for society than having families take on extra dependants, especially at the most taxable end of their lives. Its interactions with the economy are very much like childcare. But neither are happening. Old people are abandoned to healthcare providers. This, in turn impacts on the life expectancy of much younger people requiring emergency care who won't get it because the hospital and ambulances are full. It's not sustainable for patients or providers. There are two ways out. Choose to do this properly, or choose a much uglier withdrawal of care for the old and infirm. Before you choose, remember that these are people who worked for 45 years being told that their National Insurance payments were paying it forward for this kind of care. If you're going to change the rules —and especially if you're going to start incinerating grandmas when they get "too costly"— you have to expect the next generation probably isn't going to stick around. Many of that exodus will be doctors.
- origin_path 4y ago
  It's actually through the local governments, many of which are Labour yet have the same issue. Root cause: the law says to raise local taxes beyond a certain amount councils must hold a referendum. They systematically refuse to do this because they know they will lose. Voters by and large think local councils are wasteful and don't really need more money. There's also another issue: some local councils especially in the North have a history of deliberately cutting front line services whilst e.g. expanding the central bureaucracy, because they know they can blame the Tories for not giving them "enough" money and the voters will fall for it. The councils could raise taxes, or rebalance spending, but that wouldn't energize their base.
  - oliwarner 4y ago
    Well I suggest you visit Norfolk. Councils have sold off their long-held land to developers, dumped their investments to their mates, stripped down services and tendered the rest. Serco does everything. Save the odd blip, Norfolk is as blue as it gets. Interestingly they also blame central government. And local tax raising is pretty blunt. How much your house would have been worth in April 1991, if you're working. High-retirement or high-unemployment areas usually have lower rates, and much lower incomes, while needing more than rich areas.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      Yes, I said "many of which are Labour yet have the same issue" i.e. it's an issue with local governments of all stripes. There's a culture of spending more than tax levels allow then expecting central government to make up the difference.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  State provisioned social care is not starved: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun?country=~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long... The burden of providing social care has increasingly been transferred from individual families, to the centralized state.
  - oliwarner 4y ago
    Looking at cash is a poor indicator for what's actually provided. Social care is 12-16% less available now than it was a decade ago. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/care-home-bed-availability https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/care-home-bed-avai... On your second part, this study also shows a significant 25y fall in the number of 85yo+ who are in homes. We aren't increasingly relying on the state.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      Saying something is starved means saying it's underfunded. The statistics show more funds being allocated to social welfare programs. If those social welfare programs are mismanaging those funds, that's an entirely different argument than arguing it's "starved".
      - oliwarner 4y ago
        Your statistics show an actual fall in the past 10 years. It's worse than that because the true picture needs to factor in local government spending now. If we pretend there's been steady investment, and imagine stable demand, the same thing can cost more than it did before. But irl, budgets have collapsed, demand is soaring and costs have already risen and are about to explode due to fuel-driven inflation. So no, starved on three counts. The baseline cost is deviating from the investment. And yes, there are many, many elements to why.
        ETH_start 4y ago
        >>Your statistics show an actual fall in the past 10 years. From 22.79% of GDP in 2010, to 21.49% in 2016 (the last year provided). This is after an increase from 10.44% to 1964 to 22.79% in 2010. The big picture is a massive multi-generational increase in social welfare spending, interspersed with tiny downward fluctuations over a small proportion of the years covered. >>It's worse than that because the true picture needs to factor in local government spending now. This is aggregate public spending, so it should already be factoring in local government spending. >>If we pretend there's been steady investment, and imagine stable demand, the same thing can cost more than it did before. Per capita GDP has increased in inflation-adjusted terms, so when social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP increases, that means a real (inflation-adjusted) increase in per capita social welfare spending. The only possible way this leads to less support for citizens in need is growing mismanagement of the funds by the social welfare programmes.