Getting older

[Panto_Villan]

2 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

The graph you are presumably looking at when writing this is based on life expectancy at birth. Therefore a baby born in 1980 would on average be expected to have a lower life expectancy than a baby born in 2019 or now in 2024. However that finding at birth is not replicated in the older generations. An important thing to understand from these ONS figures is that a 66 year old today can expect, on average, to reach an older age than a baby born today. If we look at the ONS life tables (which is the source data for the above graph) they state that a 66 year old male in 1980 could expect, on average, to live an extra 12.35 years (So roughly until 78) whereas now (in 2022 - the last available data) a 66 year old male could expect an extra 17.48 years. (i.e to live until they are 83/84). Which is higher than babies born today (males @78.57 - females @82.57) and therefore why epidemiologists have raised the alarm regarding "declining life expectancy".

Life expectancy is falling. For the first time in our recorded history babies being born today are not expected to reach the same age as their parents/grandparents. It's really important that we don't attribute life expectancy at birth to life expectancy of somebody retiring today.

It's obviously really complicated, but important to note that some of the 'gains' in life expectancy are to do with less 0 year old babies dying. It's too simplistic to attribute these gains only to retired people living to an older age. What we are seeing in these historic times is that I'm not expected to live as long as my parents and my (hypothetical) children are not expected to live as long as me.

Hmmm, I don't think you're interpreting the data correctly there. You're right that gains in life expectancy are averages, so a reduction in child mortality increases it without increasing the expected lifespan of an adult, but seeing large movements because of that tends to happen in countries that are still developing rather than advanced economies with good healthcare. Infant mortality is still decreasing here, but it's already low so there's a limit to how much further it can decrease.

As for the bolded part - check the data. That's true today, but it was also true in 2010 and in 1980 and for every other year in the spreadsheet. It would only not be true if you're in a country where life expectancy is rising EXTREMELY quickly.

The reason why is that any 66 year old alive today by definition is not one of the people who died young and dragged the average down for everyone else. The average life expectancy for a baby born today would probably be closer to 85 or 90 if you stripped out everyone who is going to die before they reach the age of 65 (which is what you're doing when you check the life expectancy of someone who is still alive at 66). It's the inverse effect of child mortality pulling life expectancy down for everyone else; if you survive childhood that means you'll probably outlive the average life expectancy.

[Panto_Villan]

13 minutes ago, Robtaylor200 said:

Not sure how you can compare.  We did save for a deposit, but there was little else to spend money on. No mobile phones, no gadgets, no sky subscription,  we all drove old tatty cars and went to Wales once a year for a holiday and at 19 years of age I was earning £56 aweek. 

It's just an illustration of how you're not necessarily comparing apples and oranges. I'm sure you've worked hard during your life and paid tax and NI while doing it - but ultimately if the next generation are going to have to work hard for even longer and pay more tax and NI while doing it, the fact you've already "paid your way" shouldn't exempt you from sharing any economic pain, right? You're already getting a better deal than if you'd have been born today.

The house comparison was just highlighting that the prices of houses relative to earnings have increased hugely over the past thirty to forty years. It was much easier to buy a house back then than it is now, but that point is sometimes lost on older people who think younger people should just save up and buy a house like they did.

4 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

40% of UK pensioners are living in poverty.

Tory MP David Willets wrote a book called The Pinch, which was an attempt to make a case to shaft the boomer generation.

He basically framed boomers as a kulak class, his party could target for benefit cuts.

Definitely an instance of the politics of envy, his party claimed to despise.

I think the problem is that the media tend to frame boomers as all having moved into the property-owning middle-class, and forget that the vast majority did unskilled jobs, which paid very little money, and didn't provide the luxury of a final-salary pension.

These are the people who would have been made unemployed during Thatcher's jobs cull.

This is the political problem with the pension triple lock, and it not being means tested. There are an awful lot of boomers who became relatively wealthy simply because they owned a house that massively increased in value, or had some money in stocks, or had a pension that would be completely unaffordable today. There's also a lot of boomers who didn't work jobs that allowed them to benefit from rising asset prices, who live in relative poverty.

The triple lock is worth having for people in the latter category. But giving more money to people in the first category is just transferring money from those still working (and who have to deal with buying houses at hugely inflated prices etc) to people who are already very comfortable.

It's not politically sustainable in the long term. That's why I said a few pages back I can definitely imagine the pension becoming means tested. It'll suck for me personally, but it's the right thing to do in my opinion.

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, Robtaylor200 said:

and went to Wales once a year for a holiday 

[Xela]

6 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

I expect you saved up and bought and house when you were younger, too?

Do you think it’s just as easy for the younger generation who have to save up and buy a house today?

I think it has always been tough for people to get on the property ladder. My parents first flat after renting for years had a £50 a month mortgage, when my Dads salary was £200 a month before tax/NI/pension etc

Its only anecdotal to me, but people now seem to want to have their forever home, in a nice area, as their first property, and not work their way up. Just IMO.

[mjmooney]

3 hours ago, Xela said:

Its only anecdotal to me, but people now seem to want to have their forever home, in a nice area, as their first property, and not work their way up. Just IMO.

No. My younger daughter and her partner are both employed, with two school age kids, and renting a very basic house. It's too small for them really, but they would jump at the chance to buy it, or one just the same. Absolutely no chance. They can't save enough to get the large deposit they would need, and the building societies wouldn't give them a mortgage without a big deposit. 

That said, it's true that some are over-picky, but that's not a new thing. We bought our first house in 1984 - a Victorian terrace that needed a lot of work (which we did, steadily, over several years). At the time, I had a slightly younger colleague looking to buy, and he asked me (and another guy who had also just bought) for advice. We both said the same thing - get a terrace in an unfashionable area, and do it up. He was aghast - "Ugh! I'm not living in an old terrace, it must be new, and fully detatched!" First time buyer on a modest wage? Good luck with that, we said. Never found out what happened. 

EDIT: My suspicion is that he borrowed way beyond his limit (because the building societies in those days were handing out 5% mortgages like confetti) and bought a tiny (but new, and detached) crappy house on a Barratt estate. And within two years, interest rates had soared to 15%. Whatever floats your boat. 

Edited March 27 by mjmooney

[Genie]

2 hours ago, Xela said:

I think it has always been tough for people to get on the property ladder. My parents first flat after renting for years had a £50 a month mortgage, when my Dads salary was £200 a month before tax/NI/pension etc

Its only anecdotal to me, but people now seem to want to have their forever home, in a nice area, as their first property, and not work their way up. Just IMO.

I mentioned this before too, it’s difficult to get on the ladder if willing to start at the bottom and work up (kw) but not impossible.

Especially if buying in a couple. 
 

Edited March 27 by Genie

[T-Dog]

1 hour ago, Xela said:

I think it has always been tough for people to get on the property ladder. My parents first flat after renting for years had a £50 a month mortgage, when my Dads salary was £200 a month before tax/NI/pension etc

Its only anecdotal to me, but people now seem to want to have their forever home, in a nice area, as their first property, and not work their way up. Just IMO.

Happy to drop two pennies in here, because I always felt the same.

When I was 30, I was with a woman that I thought was 'the one', we weren't big earners, but we got a lovely place, 2 bed semi, ex council but in a VERY nice area - £124k.

We split up, ten years later (2 years ago for context) - I couldn't find a single thing anywhere near that, and I mean not even close. Luckily, very luckily, I was doing a lot better for myself, and I know I had a room mate if I wanted it (not taken into account for the mortgage at all) - The new place, granted an extra bedroom, but arguably less desirable than the first property, cost over £100k more. I was very lucky that my circumstances had changed, and I'm also very aware that my current yard isn't going to go up 60/70% in ten years either. I know a lot of people, earning decent money, living a decent life, who are not only looking at the market as expensive, but also panicking about the rate it's getting away from them compared to how their salaries are increasing.

It's tough out there right now. Luck and inheritance seems to be a bigger influence than salary on the market.

 

[MakemineVanilla]

Back in the day, I knew a young couple with two kids, who were buying an ordinary semi in Great Barr: he worked two jobs and she worked nights in a factory.

Would that be considered beyond the pale these days?

[T-Dog]

41 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Back in the day, I knew a young couple with two kids, who were buying an ordinary semi in Great Barr: he worked two jobs and she worked nights in a factory.

Would that be considered beyond the pale these days?

I think a lot of that depends on when 'the day' was, and that's not said in a shitty way - My mom worked nights when she was a single parent to make it happen, but she also retrained for a much better job at the same time. Not disregarding anyone's struggle, but I've seen the best and the worst of both sides through both sides of the family, and frankly, they're both in very different places, they're both doing well now, they've both got good kids (adults now) and they're both in a very nice position. 

I think we're in a point where we don't know what the future holds, which didn't exist 30 years ago. Get into public sector, big pension, job for life, get a trade, you'll make a fortune, get a degree, you'll work in the city. As a lad born early 80s, I did none of them (did Public Sector for 6 months in fairness but left) and I'm glad I didn't. I've seen every suggestion do well, but not without it's casualties. I think you just need to chase what you're enjoying most, as crusty as that sounds. 

Had a beer, gone off on a tangent here. Apologies.

[MakemineVanilla]

29 minutes ago, T-Dog said:

I think a lot of that depends on when 'the day' was, and that's not said in a shitty way - My mom worked nights when she was a single parent to make it happen, but she also retrained for a much better job at the same time. Not disregarding anyone's struggle, but I've seen the best and the worst of both sides through both sides of the family, and frankly, they're both in very different places, they're both doing well now, they've both got good kids (adults now) and they're both in a very nice position. 

I think we're in a point where we don't know what the future holds, which didn't exist 30 years ago. Get into public sector, big pension, job for life, get a trade, you'll make a fortune, get a degree, you'll work in the city. As a lad born early 80s, I did none of them (did Public Sector for 6 months in fairness but left) and I'm glad I didn't. I've seen every suggestion do well, but not without it's casualties. I think you just need to chase what you're enjoying most, as crusty as that sounds. 

Had a beer, gone off on a tangent here. Apologies.

What I was getting at, was whether Gen Z-ers who are trying to get on the housing ladder have greater sense of entitlement, when it comes to leisure and consumption, than previous generations.

For me personally, I had to work through my phase of fancy holidays and buying crap, before I could accumulate enough for a deposit on something absolutely minimal.

All my furniture was from junk shops and my vehicle was based on the logic of bangernomics.

 

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

What I was getting at, was whether Gen Z-ers who are trying to get on the housing ladder have greater sense of entitlement, when it comes to leisure and consumption, than previous generations.

For me personally, I had to work through my phase of fancy holidays and buying crap, before I could accumulate enough for a deposit on something absolutely minimal.

All my furniture was from junk shops and my vehicle was based on the logic of bangernomics.

 

I suspect we have to be careful and not presume the frivolous ones you’ll be seeing on their sunny instagram hols are representative of all of them. Very possibly, when you were working through your salad days, some of your contemporaries were drinking the money they had left once they’d bought that shiny Ford Capri. Just as right now, some kids will have a hand me down sofa and be working 6 days a week on a zero hours contract.

 

[mikeyp102]

On 25/03/2024 at 18:18, Xela said:

 

On a separate note, i'm seeing a lot more people staying single now as they don't want to end up financially rinsed when they are older. 

Is that what you tell yourself when alone and crying into your mixed grill? Or just thinking how you can save up to get yourself back out to Asia? 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

As we grow older we develop a viewpoint that "youngsters today" are not as good as they used to be.

I think we do this for 2 reasons.

1. Our aging memories don't recall or realise just how awful we were when  we were young.  

2. Our subconscious envy of their youth and health requires us to develop a balancing factor to make us feel superior.  We tell ourselves that we are wiser, work harder and grew up in a much harder environment.  

I am sure the middle aged of WW2 thought their kids were wasters.  Those kids went on to walk on the moon, connect the world with computers and make massive leaps in medicine and science. 

I was an arrogant, lazy,  little sh!t as a teen.  I'm now an arrogant, lazy, overweight sh!t.  

1980s kids are different to 2010 kids.  Not better or worse. Just different. 

 

Edited March 28 by Mandy Lifeboats
Spelling mishsteaks

[MakemineVanilla]

10 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I suspect we have to be careful and not presume the frivolous ones you’ll be seeing on their sunny instagram hols are representative of all of them. Very possibly, when you were working through your salad days, some of your contemporaries were drinking the money they had left once they’d bought that shiny Ford Capri. Just as right now, some kids will have a hand me down sofa and be working 6 days a week on a zero hours contract.

 

I make no moral judgement about people's personal choices; working your nuts off to buy an asset you will have to maintain and which someone else will get to realise, should not be considered more virtuous than buying a Ford Capri, or otherwise enjoying yourself.

Chomsky is of the opinion that house purchase was encouraged by the state because people with mortgages tend not to go on strike; an opinion I have heard echoed by several of my bosses.

Thatcher's expressed dream of a property-owning democracy was code for the exact same thing.

Selling off council houses was probably meant to achieve the same outcome - creating a docile insecure workforce with fewer political choices.

I would also suggest that the diminishing shelf-life of relationships these days, makes renting a more sensible option.

 

 

 

[VILLAMARV]

17 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

Hmmm, I don't think you're interpreting the data correctly there. You're right that gains in life expectancy are averages, so a reduction in child mortality increases it without increasing the expected lifespan of an adult, but seeing large movements because of that tends to happen in countries that are still developing rather than advanced economies with good healthcare. Infant mortality is still decreasing here, but it's already low so there's a limit to how much further it can decrease.

As for the bolded part - check the data. That's true today, but it was also true in 2010 and in 1980 and for every other year in the spreadsheet. It would only not be true if you're in a country where life expectancy is rising EXTREMELY quickly.

The reason why is that any 66 year old alive today by definition is not one of the people who died young and dragged the average down for everyone else. The average life expectancy for a baby born today would probably be closer to 85 or 90 if you stripped out everyone who is going to die before they reach the age of 65 (which is what you're doing when you check the life expectancy of someone who is still alive at 66). It's the inverse effect of child mortality pulling life expectancy down for everyone else; if you survive childhood that means you'll probably outlive the average life expectancy.

 I've used the word 'therefore' at the end of the bolded bit instead of something better, like 'just one of the many indices that have combined to show an overall trend towards diminshing life expectancy that explain'...why epidemiologists..... etc. But, yeah fair cop, the way I've written it misrepresents the point I was trying to make so fair enough. I'd also, having read back what I wrote, perhaps change the words "recorded history" to "since the second world war". It's a more easily argued position.

But other than some poor choice of wording I'll stand by the rest of the post. The point still stands that life expectancy is declining, for the first time in at least 79 years and unusually during 'peacetime' and outside of any pandemic. The point still stands that epidemiologists have pointed at this trend and suggested we take it seriously.

The point also still stands that you appeared to be using at birth data to make inferences into retirement age when you replied to tinker citing the ONS at birth data. The corrections to your figures stand with or without the editorial changes above. I suppose that's built on the assumption that you were back engineering the data on the graph you posted. If I remove that potentally unfair assumption, I suppose I could just more simply ask, where did you get the 5 and 12 year figures from you were using?

As for the child mortality bit, in my post, I thought I was clearly suggesting a reason as to why we should be careful ascribing causality to raw data. And a reminder that - especially when makng statements without citation - we run the risk of incorperating bias or prejudice. I wonder if your assumptions around how much the UK could further reduce child mortality might fall foul of this type of hubris. Our child mortality rates may compare favourably to those in developing nations but we don't exactly compare all that favouribly with our more developed peers any more. While we may still be on a downward overall trend in child mortality figures the rate of the decline has slowed comparatively with other EU15+ nations.

Quote

........a group of comparable wealthy countries identified as appropriate comparators for UK mortality. These countries are the 15 member states of the European Union in 2004 (excluding the UK) together with Australia, Norway and Canada, referred to as the EU15+..........

..........UK mortality over the past 40 years plotted against EU15+ mortality centiles for the same period. These figures show that in 1970, UK mortality was below the 25th centile in all age groups aside from infancy which was higher (50th centile), and 5–9-year-olds which was lower and fell below the 10th centile. By 2010, the UK's position had declined markedly in all age groups. UK infant mortality was above the 90th centile in 2012, and on the 75th centile for young children 1–4 years. For 5–9-year-olds and 10–19-year-old boys, UK mortality in 2010 was very close to the 50th centile. For 10–19-year-old girls, mortality in the UK was close to the 75th centile. We have previously shown that these differences are statistically significant; mortality in the UK declined significantly less than the EU15+ over the past 40 years.

BMJ - "UK child survival in a European context"

I'd be more inclined to ask Swden et al if there are things we could learn from their comparative success in takling child mortality, than hide behind the notion that we have little progress left to make - as seems to be a point made in your post. I appreciate there are external variables that can skew the figures - that's exactly the point I was making. Seemingly, a point we were both making. And not the only one - I agree the difference is huge between a retiree's life expectancy in 1980 as compared to now - around 5 years - that's a huge difference. We seem to agree that there's been a significant increase in inequality since the 1970's.

The argument of "people are living longer" is ultimately a subjective one. They are if mapped over a period of time which would show an overall increase and within a collective group large enough to dilute the findings to the contrary. Like we agree, that 5 year difference between a 1980 retiree's life expectancy and a retiree now is massive. If we change the time period or the geographical areas (to more localised ones as tinker was suggesting with the West Mids data) or indeed - and this was the crux of the conversation I interjected into - into areas of affluence or areas of poverty we get very different results and ultimately a different answer, that people are not living longer as a standalone statement of fact. People using this data to back up an argument about pensions and people arguing about observed and recorded societal trends. They are not neccessarily mutually exlusive. As you alluded to, people can often pick facts to suit a narrative, rather than go where the research takes them - when you suggest picking a narrative to suit the facts, I'm not sure that sounds like a healthy counterbalance. The facts can speak for themselves imo. We're back to avoiding inference.

What I would assert the research of UK life expectancy shows is that there is an undeniable, observable correlation between higher life expectancies in more affluent areas and lower life expectancies in poorer areas. A correlation that very much replicates outside of the UK. And some places managed to record 17 year gains of around 9 years in life expectancy, nearly double the already agreed upon 'huge' 5 years we were discussing from your example (as tinker also alluded to - as found in some parts of London)

Quote

between 2002 and 2019, life expectancy increases of nine years or more were seen for men and women in some parts of central and north London.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/231119/life-expectancy-declining-many-english-communities/

And yet from the same research -

Quote

These trends created stark geographical differences. In 2019, there was about a 20-year gap in life expectancy for women living in communities with the highest and lowest life expectancies (one region of Camden had a life expectancy of 95.4 years, compared to a community in Leeds with a life expectancy of 74.7 years).

For men, the gap was 27 years (life expectancy in one area within Kensington and Chelsea was 95.3 years, compared to 68.3 years in a part of Blackpool).

These variations are massive. As others have said the numbers of people with debilitating illnesses is increasing, the problems associated with inequality, if we just carry on as we are, will only get worse.

[chrisp65]

15 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I make no moral judgement about people's personal choices; working your nuts off to buy an asset you will have to maintain and which someone else will get to realise, should not be considered more virtuous than buying a Ford Capri, or otherwise enjoying yourself.

Chomsky is of the opinion that house purchase was encouraged by the state because people with mortgages tend not to go on strike; an opinion I have heard echoed by several of my bosses.

Thatcher's expressed dream of a property-owning democracy was code for the exact same thing.

Selling off council houses was probably meant to achieve the same outcome - creating a docile insecure workforce with fewer political choices.

I would also suggest that the diminishing shelf-life of relationships these days, makes renting a more sensible option.

 

 

 

Hmmm, you were asking if kids today had a greater sense of entitlement.

I suggested they didn’t.

For further evidence, I would refer you to the film Quadrophenia for the yoof / older generation friction played out to a half decent soundtrack.

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Teens today can access porn on their phone. 

I had to make do with" Sam Fox Strip Poker" on the Spectrum.  

Only 3 hours of boring and repetitive gameplay in order to see a green, pixelated image of Sam Fox's chest.  

I can't understand why I am so bad at poker.  I played so much. 

[rjw63]

8 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Teens today can access porn on their phone. 

I had to make do with" Sam Fox Strip Poker" on the Spectrum.  

Only 3 hours of boring and repetitive gameplay in order to see a green, pixelated image of Sam Fox's chest.  

I can't understand why I am so bad at poker.  I played so much. 

WHAT??

You mean you didn't go to the local newsagent, hang around for ten minutes til it was quiet, grab some smut from the top shelf...

Then get to the counter and the girl takes so long there are five people behind you, you put the mag on the counter and she squeals "Doreeeeeeeeeeeeen, how much is this RAPIER MAGAZINE?"

When the price is oh-so-blatently printed on the cover.

Ah the good old days...

[Mandy Lifeboats]

21 minutes ago, rjw63 said:

WHAT??

You mean you didn't go to the local newsagent, hang around for ten minutes til it was quiet, grab some smut from the top shelf...

Then get to the counter and the girl takes so long there are five people behind you, you put the mag on the counter and she squeals "Doreeeeeeeeeeeeen, how much is this RAPIER MAGAZINE?"

When the price is oh-so-blatently printed on the cover.

Ah the good old days...

And the five people that suddenly queued behind you were your nan, your teacher, a girl you fancied from school, the police and a Central News reporter doing a story on how easy it is for under 18s to buy porn. 

 

[VILLAMARV]

If my early education taught me anything it was that porn comes from cemeteries