Britain becomes a nation of pensioners

[Albus]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/britain-becomes-a-nation-of-pensioners-1059449.html

The United Kingdom is officially a grey nation. The number of pensioners exceeds the number of children under 16 for the first time, figures published yesterday show. The milestone, reached last year and revealed now by the Office for National Statistics, is both a cause for celebration and for consternation.

The ageing of the population is a tribute to the success of the modern world in raising living standards, improving healthcare and extending life expectancy. A boy born in 2005-07 can expect to live for 77.2 years, six more than one born in 1980-82, and a girl can expect to live for 81.5 years, four longer than in 1980-82.

But when allowance is made for further expected improvements in mortality during their lifetime, even these advanced ages understate the real length of likely survival. On this basis, the average projected life expectancy (known as the cohort life expectancy) for babies born in 2006 was 88.1 for boys and a breathtaking 91.5 for girls.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the rapid growth in the very old will place an increasing burden on the young, who must support and care for them. In the 25 years since 1982, the number of over-85s has more than doubled to 1.3 million and will more than double again to 3.1 million in the next 25 years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. I hate professional writers who can't explain their area of interest

This guy is the Independent's Health Editor, yet he manages to contradict himself, within consecutive paragraphs:

"A boy born in 2005-07 can expect to live for 77.2 years"
"the average projected life expectancy (known as the cohort life expectancy) for babies born in 2006 was 88.1 for boys "

There is no difference, in normal English anyway, between "can expect to live" and "the average projected life expectancy". Since he says "further expected improvements in mortality", that rather implies the 2nd figure is the actual prediction people are making for boys born in 2006. But in that case, what is the first one? Is it actually the average life expectancy of all males alive during 2005-07 (ie born in years spread out over the preceding 90 or so)? The average age of all male deaths during 2005-07 (ie mainly those born 70 or more years earlier)? Something else?

Can anyone here actually define the first figure? 11 years less is a lot.

On edit: this appears to be the answer:

Period life expectancy at a given age for an area is the average number of years a person would live, if he or she experienced the particular area’s age-specific mortality rates for that time period throughout his or her life. It makes no allowance for any later actual or projected changes in mortality. In practice, death rates of the area are likely to change in the future so period life expectancy does not therefore give the number of years someone could actually expect to live. Also, people may live in other areas for at least some part of their lives.

Cohort life expectancies are calculated using age-specific mortality rates which allow for known or projected changes in mortality in later years and are thus regarded as a more appropriate measure of how long a person of a given age would be expected to live, on average, than period life expectancy.

For example, period life expectancy at age 65 in 2000 would be worked out using the mortality rate for age 65 in 2000, for age 66 in 2000, for age 67 in 2000, and so on. Cohort life expectancy at age 65 in 2000 would be worked out using the mortality rate for age 65 in 2000, for age 66 in 2001, for age 67 in 2002, and so on.

Period life expectancies are a useful measure of mortality rates actually experienced over a given period and, for past years, provide an objective means of comparison of the trends in mortality over time, between areas of a country and with other countries. Official life tables in the UK and in other countries which relate to past years are generally period life tables for these reasons. Cohort life expectancies, even for past years, usually require projected mortality rates for their calculation and hence, in such cases, involve an element of subjectivity.

http://www.gad.gov.uk/Demography_Data/Life_Tables/Period_and_cohort_eol.asp

And people tend to quote period life expectancy' as just 'life expectancy' - although no individual actually 'experiences' it. But for 'how long do we think people will live?', we need to look at cohort life expectancy tables.

[fedsron2us]

2. Actually Britain is a nation of middle aged people

as most of the UK baby boom generation are in their 40s

[Albus]

3. yep, getting older though

[fedsron2us]

4. That is what tends to happen to everyone as time passes

No one has found an opt out of that conundrum.

In fact by European and Japanese standards the UK age pyramid is not that remarkable. As for supporting all those boomers when they finally retire, it needs to be remembered that existing changes to the State Retirement age mean many born after 1957 wont qualify for a state pension until they are over 65. I think the upcoming 'burden' of the baby boom generation is a bit exaggerated as many will keep working in some capacity either out of choice or necessity. It also needs to be remembered that these same people were just as big a cost to society when they were aged between 6 months and 16 in the 1950s and 1960s when their parents and grandparents generations, who were fewer in number due to 2 World Wars and one major flu pandemic, had to pay for their upkeep and schooling etc. I don't remember society collapsing under the strain of too many children then so I do not see why it should not cope in the future with the same number of pensioners.