"Here, I have measured economic dependency as the total number of non-workers (the population minus the labour force) divided by the population. So when the measure is 50%, it means that there is one worker for every two non-workers. When it is 40%, it means that there is one worker for every 1.5 non-workers."
Could you explain this please? Surely 50% would divide the workers and non-workers evenly leading to a one-to-one ratio.
You are right. As always, the trick to finding errors in the write-up is to hit publish. I had tested a variety of measures during my analysis and never made sure the final explanation was the correct one. Whoops.
I agree that ageing is not an economic problem - at least, not a problem that cannot be easily solved. It can, however, turn into a serious problem if outdated policies stay around. If governments keep the old retirement age fixed—for example, in Australia, the qualifying age for men has increased by only 2 years since 1909 while life expectancy at the age of 60 increased by 13 years - that may lead to budgetary issues and a breakdown of the social contract. Also, other welfare benefits for the old, like aged care, have to be treated as welfare, not entitlements, and properly means-tested.
On the other hand, I would disagree that ageing has been a huge success. We live longer but not healthier lives. We do not spend more of our life years becoming more educated (not even more schooled) - it is just that more people get educated now, but for a similar number of years as the fewer who were educated in the past.
When it comes to health and life extension, the picture is not as pretty as it seems from the statistics. We live longer, but a large portion of that life is spent in illness, disability, and pain. Official statistics say people live 6 years longer than in 1945, but 2 out of those 6 extra years are spent in ill health. The statistics here are very controversial - the illness and impairment weights used to calculate healthy life years are highly criticised. For example, the weight for a person with managed diabetes is only 0.05. Such a person would officially only spend 2.5 weeks a year in bad health. When it comes to disability, the statistics are even worse. The impairment weight in the case of a person who cannot walk at all - requiring significant assistance, like a wheelchair, or being confined to a bed, is 0.36. Statistics say that such a person spends 33 weeks in good health annually if no other serious conditions exist.
My point is not to say that life extension (no matter the conditions) is not a great achievement, but that the way we achieved it is not so great. Modern medicine is designed to manage disease rather than cure it. Our "healthcare" focuses entirely on sickness care, with very little consideration for health. Some rightfully claim that other factors we consider a success - like industrial food production, our environmental record, and transportation systems, directly undermine health and life expectancy achievements - but it doesn't have to be like that. In that sense, we have failed when it comes to life extension and health.
"Here, I have measured economic dependency as the total number of non-workers (the population minus the labour force) divided by the population. So when the measure is 50%, it means that there is one worker for every two non-workers. When it is 40%, it means that there is one worker for every 1.5 non-workers."
Could you explain this please? Surely 50% would divide the workers and non-workers evenly leading to a one-to-one ratio.
You are right. As always, the trick to finding errors in the write-up is to hit publish. I had tested a variety of measures during my analysis and never made sure the final explanation was the correct one. Whoops.
I agree that ageing is not an economic problem - at least, not a problem that cannot be easily solved. It can, however, turn into a serious problem if outdated policies stay around. If governments keep the old retirement age fixed—for example, in Australia, the qualifying age for men has increased by only 2 years since 1909 while life expectancy at the age of 60 increased by 13 years - that may lead to budgetary issues and a breakdown of the social contract. Also, other welfare benefits for the old, like aged care, have to be treated as welfare, not entitlements, and properly means-tested.
On the other hand, I would disagree that ageing has been a huge success. We live longer but not healthier lives. We do not spend more of our life years becoming more educated (not even more schooled) - it is just that more people get educated now, but for a similar number of years as the fewer who were educated in the past.
When it comes to health and life extension, the picture is not as pretty as it seems from the statistics. We live longer, but a large portion of that life is spent in illness, disability, and pain. Official statistics say people live 6 years longer than in 1945, but 2 out of those 6 extra years are spent in ill health. The statistics here are very controversial - the illness and impairment weights used to calculate healthy life years are highly criticised. For example, the weight for a person with managed diabetes is only 0.05. Such a person would officially only spend 2.5 weeks a year in bad health. When it comes to disability, the statistics are even worse. The impairment weight in the case of a person who cannot walk at all - requiring significant assistance, like a wheelchair, or being confined to a bed, is 0.36. Statistics say that such a person spends 33 weeks in good health annually if no other serious conditions exist.
My point is not to say that life extension (no matter the conditions) is not a great achievement, but that the way we achieved it is not so great. Modern medicine is designed to manage disease rather than cure it. Our "healthcare" focuses entirely on sickness care, with very little consideration for health. Some rightfully claim that other factors we consider a success - like industrial food production, our environmental record, and transportation systems, directly undermine health and life expectancy achievements - but it doesn't have to be like that. In that sense, we have failed when it comes to life extension and health.
"We live longer but not healthier lives."
The data you present shows that 4 out of the 6 extra years are spent in good health. This seems great.
I guess I'm not exactly clear what outcome you think would be better than what we have achieved in terms of longevity and healthspan.
This doesn't stack up when considering employment requiring manual labour and strength (functioning backs and knees) i.e. most blue collar work.
I guess. But that is more about reorganising who does what jobs. Plenty of young strong guys doing non-physical work.
Excellent, simply look at the actual data, instead of creating a crisis out of nothing.
Would the introduction of mandatory superannuation also reduce aged dependency?