5 ms·

A big take-away for entrepreneurs in the developed world is the rapidly aging nature of our population - and the opportunities that may exist because of it. Th

• widk 14y ago
  "Importantly, these upcoming retirees have at least a bit of fluency with software (compared to a generation ago), and at could least handle iPad-like tools (touch, big buttons, etc)." I think this is the most patronizing, biased, and ignorant statement I've ever read on Hacker News.
  • peteretep 14y ago
    So explain why and add information rather than whining. This isn't Reddit.
  • JackFr 14y ago
    Have you read much Hacker News?
  • corry 14y ago
    Apologies, I didn't mean it to be patronizing (which I suppose just makes it that much more so). My point is that most people I've come across in my grandparent's generation can barely use a computer without significant coaching/training. Maybe there are troves of people over the age of 70 out there with astounding computer literacy, but I don't think this is that controversial of a statement. For my parent's generation, it seems that the majority of them have basic fluency (can browse the internet, use office applications, email, etc). Tablets start looking like a great alternative as people age. They are portable, have simpler/more intuitive UI (both thanks to touch and because the apps are more constrained), easier to maintain (less to screw up), etc. Which statement do you disagree with so strongly?
  • think-large 14y ago
    I think that his statements were matter of fact and mostly true. While the baby boomers do know how to use computers and can handle their own for the most part. I'd also say that the knowledge gained by growing up with those tools just isn't there. It doesn't seem as intuitive to them. I think that a chart like this would show a similar trend if it was geared toward exposure to computers and aptitude. Now this is just a hypothesis based on data that I've seen and I'd be open to a study that shows the opposite. Also, big buttons are just a logical step, I know that my dad loves anything with big buttons because it doesn't strain his eyes or take as steady a hand. And some day I'm going to want the same thing. Assuming that age doesn't affect our ability to see and interact with tools it just ridiculous. Hacker News is not a place for people to bury their heads in the sand.
• saalweachter 14y ago
  Personally, I think the biggest change with technology and aging is that nursing homes and old age in general are going to get a lot less scary. I haven't visited a nursing home in a couple of years, but the last time I was there it seemed like a depressing end of life inevitability. The world of the elderly slowly shrinks as they wait for death, as their children have less and less time and will to visit them, as their friends slowly become too infirm to visit them or eventually die, as they themselves become too weak to continue to lead their lives. But for the younger generations, we have two worlds: "real life", and the internet. As our "real lives" slowly fade out, I think a significant fraction of us can subsist quite happily in our internet lives. Our last five or ten years in the nursing home might almost in their own way be the happiest of our lives. No commitments, no job, no school, just a room and a computer. Wake up when you feel like it, get on the internet. Chat with your friends and family who can't or won't visit you in the real world; make new friends who would never befriend a homebound 78-year-old in the real world. Argue endlessly on internet forums. Play through games you didn't have time for when you still worked and went outside. Maybe contribute to open source software, now that you finally have the time. Who knows -- maybe the 22nd century will run on Open Source Software (written in Java, Python, and other archaic 21st century programming languages) by a bunch of retirees with all the time in the world and 50 years of real programming experience. You may achieve more lasting fame and satisfaction after you retire than before. Even without any new technology, medicine, or whatever, I think the increasing comfort with technology will already drastically improve the lives of the next generation to grow old.
  • sageikosa 14y ago
    I asssumed they'd be more scary. With a smaller labor pool, and a larger demand (as people live longer), the cost will go up, outstripping savings long before the need for care ends.
    • saalweachter 14y ago
      Eh, I'm not worried about demographics in my lifetime. The birthrate declines in industrialized nations are only a problem if you're an optimistic xenophobe and imagine that borders are going to stay shut. The younger end of the workforce in industrialized nations will be taken over by immigrants from countries with exploding birthrates like Africa or India, and the dreaded population implosion won't happen. Maybe another N decades later once countries with exploding birthrates sort their shit out we might be at risk of an upside-down pyramid, but I think it's just as likely that we'll gradually oscillate around the replacement birthrate until we reach a comfortable steady-state population. Once we hit steady state population, I think we'll be fine. Assuming we don't back-slide on industrialization (say, if post-peak fossil fuels make everything prohibitively expensive), we're already massively over-supplied on labor. Despite its far-below-replacement birthrates and a hearty helping of xenophobia, Europe's suffering from a demand crisis, not a labor crisis. The US peaked at a 63% employment ratio, pre-crash. I don't have the slightest doubt that we could maintain a pretty nice civilization with an employment ratio of 40%. I wouldn't be surprised if a 25% employment ratio is doable with the right social infrastructure to allocate resources. As long as there is enough labor, it's all just bizarre math. Say in 2050 the total personal income in the US is $27 trillion in 2012 dollars (2% yearly growth above inflation from today). The population of the US has grown to about 400 million (assuming a 0.9% growth rate, it'd be 437 million, but 400 million is nice and round). With a 25% employment ratio, that $27 trillion gets divided 100 million ways, so the average income in 2050 would be $270,000 in 2012 dollars. Right now the average income is about $70,000. Now to tax it. Right now the total US government tax revenues are about $5 trillion. We're running a helluva deficit, so let's add another $1 trillion for a balanced budget. Apply the same 2%-above-inflation growth as we did for income, and the US tax revenues in 2050 should be about $12.7 trillion in 2012 dollars. There are also more people on the dole, so let's increase the budget by another 50%, to $19 trillion, and the average tax burden in 2050 is $190,000 / (working) person. End result, the total tax rate in 2050 is about 70%, compared to a tax rate of about 38% in the US now. After-tax income in 2050 is $80,000 / person, after-tax income in 2012 is $43,000 / person. Productive workers have more after-tax income than they do today, and the unproductive elderly are still comfortably cared for by the government, individual savings or no.