Research on life expectancy and birth rates shows that ill health makes status quo unsustainable

The way I see it there are three realistic choices a country can make.

  1. Raise the pension age. Not very popular with the public as illustrated by protests everywhere this has been mentioned.

  2. Increased migration. Not very popular with the public as seen by the rise of far right parties in both Europe and outside.

  3. Lowered living standards. Not very popular because who wants to pay the same taxes but get less out of it?

This isn’t a UK problem. It’s the entire western world. And no, the populist idea of “just have more kids” doesn’t solve it.

Any ideas?

  • anachronist@midwest.socialEnglish
    9·
    10 months ago

    Isn’t it amazing how we’re supposedly so much richer than we were as a society in the 1950s, when they didn’t have computers, they didn’t have cellphones, they didn’t have jet airplanes or genetic engineering and yet:

    1. we could afford healthcare for everyone
    2. we could afford housing for everyone
    3. we could afford defined benefits pension plans for everyone?

    How did 70 years of supposed progress leave us unable to afford the basic necessities of life?

    • UniquesNotUseful@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      10 months ago

      1950s, the time of plenty… if you ignore the rationing you mean? Life expectancy of 69 (12 years less). Infant mortality was almost 10 times higher, 30 infants died per 1,000 births vs 3.25 per 1,000.

      Healthcare has grown from 3.5% gdp to 9%, more stuff gets treated.

      There are double owner occupier housing now. 1953 was about 30%. 1956 is when protected rents ended and rents started to increase massively.

      Defined pensions were taxed to death by Brown. They do still exist though (I have one, along with a SIPP). More people contribute to pensions than ever before and the age people stop work is starting to decline.