Hear hear, Valerie.
The most ridiculous claim of 'dangerous levels of elderly people' is the one about needing more immigrants to look after the aged. We have a continuous supply of under employed people now, who are ideally suited for the role: they're called 'retirees'. Most 50 to 70 year olds are more than fit and healthy enough to look after their older compatriots, and who could be more suitable (or empathic) for the role?
As I've pointed out elsewhere, http://thecomensality.com/avasay/living-off-the-land/feed
Baby Boomers could lead the world again, and be the new pioneer colonists.
Far from being a drag on modern Growth Economies, these colonies could quite conceivably be self sufficient, both in energy and in food
They could quite conceivably even have export industries.
For decades now I've been struck by how many hard working small business people I've witnessed dying, within a remarkably short time into their retirement years. By contrast, those people who hated their jobs and looked forward to retirement as the rest of look forward to a long weekend live on for decades.
Surely it makes more sense to find employment activities that people actually enjoy doing, and don't feel any need to retire from, than forcing people into work they hate? Talk of raising the retirement age for people who are employed and enjoy their jobs is all very well, but what about all those over 50 who can't get a job?
The technological era was supposed to end drudgery. Even growing food these days can be simple, easy and enjoyable, using hydroponics:
http://nakedhydroponics.com

Yeah and amen.

David

Generally , I agree with this article. There may be an interim problem , in the next few years , as more baby boomers retire , through there being insufficient persons of working age to pay taxes for Government funded age pensions .

However , if the current rate of population increase [ said to be insufficient ] continues , the problem will gradually reduce as boomers die . We will then have a reduced population , which will be better for the environment .

People may have to spend less on discretionary items , which will be better for their health and will not reduce their enjoyment of life . If the sellers of discretionary items have to reduce their discretionary expenditure , that too will be good .

I am aged 66 and am a self funded retiree . My taxes continue to support social security recipients of all ages , which I do not resent . Many people of all ages live beyond their means , consuming at an environmentally destructive rate , while demanding that taxpayers continue supporting them .

I do not have a rosy view of all boomers . Some have lived sustainably , during their working lives , and continue doing so . Others lived without making adequate provision for retirement , even though they had the means to achieve that end . Now the latter believe that they are entitled to be provided by the taxpayers with a standard of living equivalent to that of a member of the workforce .

Some boomers perform considerable community service . Others spend their time driving Winnebagos around the country and playing the pokies , while complaining about cost of living pressures .

Bravo Valerie. Well said. While I agree with what you've said, I think we have to put this in the context of a rapidly changing world that may see permanent recession as a result of high oil prices. We have passed the peak of conventional oil production and are only staving off higher prices because unconventional oil (deepwater, tar sands etc) is making up the shortfall. But those sources can only supply so much and prices will rise, probably setting off another global recession from which we may not recover. What does this mean for ageing? It means we're going to have to put up with a lower standard of living and do more work in our retirement such as caring for the elderly, growing food etc. Then, too, there is climate change. The future is going to be hard, I fear.

Baby-boomers and Valerie Yule:
Have you salved your guilt yet?
Or is it that you are justifying your pillage?

You see what the baby boomers have done is take from the generations before them: The baby-boomers had a luxourious start in life compared to their hard-working 1950's parents)

And taking from the generations following: You are destroying the government budget now. The tiny population of Gen X and Gen Y are funding your generous welfare pensions and free medicare health and retimrement living and your heavy use of shared resources (including almost free everything from trains to roads).

And your destruction of the market economy also. The global financil crisis is the result of too many old people making the same investment decisions, cashing out acssets and saving insteading of investing. THe same thing happened in Japan in the 1990's - because Japan's population aged earlier than western nations (they didn't win WWII and so didn't have a baby-boom).

But why? Why did the baby-boomers fail, miserably fail, to even break-even in terms of producing a future in children?

Why did the free-love generation fail to have anywhere like enough children? Why did this generation suicide?

Birth control is a factor. Feminism is a bigger one. Men today don't want to become fathers... Australia has the world's highest rate of vasectomies. Nightclubs are full of 'hen's nights, while men no-longer celebrate 'bucks nights'.

Because when a man tells his mates he's getting martried, his friends look grim and warn him "are you sure about this?" Too many men have had their lives destroyed and their children fed to the lawyers in divorce... Feminism has made marriage a stupid thing for a man. Especially a working or professional man.

...continued...

... continued...

The tragedy for women

Not surprisingly but tragically, the floor of city offices are now full of attractive 30-something women who can't get husbands. Our best and brightest women can't get men to marry them. So

So the downward spiral of fewer and fewer children every generation continues.

Except if you live on welfare - where fathers have been replaced by overgenerous single-mum payments of various sorts, which encourage divorce and bribe these women to have more children than they often want, and tragically often more children than they can look after. Women on welfare can't afford *not* to have large families.

What we need is natalist policies, especially for the professional/middle-class.

We need to stop the complex bureaucracy that bribes the poor. Instead make children reduce your tax.

Income tax splitting for families is the fairest. For a typical family, dad's one income is taxed, and then what's left supports his wife and two kids. The tax system should support kids first.

Take the family income and divide it between everybody in the family, then each pay tax on their share. THis would allow middle-class people to have the children they want.

It would close the huge bureaucracy which administers the stupidly complex payments system (Family tax A and B, Family tax bonus, baby bonus, maternity leave, child care benefit, childcare rebate, health-care cards... etc etc)

And it would reduce the financial incentives that encourage divorce and single-parenthood... Missing out on BOTH natural parents is statistically the main predictor of child neglect/abuse, child disadvantage, drugs/pregnancy/violence etc. and children who never reach their potential