Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
The ageing of the Australian population: triumph or disaster?; Sorry Pauk - your argument has been negated
Topic Started: 28 Apr 2014, 09:35 AM (3,472 Views)
peter fraser
Member Avatar


The ageing of the Australian population: triumph or disaster?
A report prepared for the Monash Centre for Population and Urban Research
Katharine Betts, April 2014
Full research paper here.

New research out shows that the transition period as boomers retire won't be as difficult as most commentators think.


9 Conclusion

Labour-force participation rates are rising, especially for women and for older people of both
sexes. Given lower levels of age-based discrimination and more job opportunities they could
well rise even higher. Nevertheless as Australia gradually moves through its current phase of
enjoying the demographic dividend the proportion of the total population in the labour force
will fall. But it will not fall to levels as low as those experienced in the 1960s, and even modest
increases in per capita economic growth will mean that demographic ageing is affordable.

Medical research also shows that the physical and mental health of older people is improving,
and that only seven per cent of Australia’s recent increase in health-care costs is due to aging.
Calculations based on recent projections published by the ABS show that, in most instances,
projected increases in the median age are manageable. They also show that even very high
levels of net overseas migration have a limited effect on the median age while adding large
absolute numbers to the elderly population. If policy makers want to minimise demographic
ageing, supporting the two-child family is a far more cost-effective approach than running large
immigration programs.

An older age structure has many benefits. Besides, the only way to avoid it on a long-term basis
is to have large families and die young. We have tried hard to escape from this way of life and,
now that we have, we can reap the benefits. Frantic efforts to make Australia younger by
making it bigger are no more rational than a middle-aged person trying to look younger by
gaining 40 kilos. It might smooth out some wrinkles but the behaviour would be bizarre, the
cost would be high, and the effects would not last.

There are serious points to consider in the negative case, but it is odd that so many of its
proponents are so uncivil. It is many decades since misanthropes have suggested that it would
be a blessing if some unpopular minority could be diluted by a superior sort of person or, better
still, die off. Older Australians are more than pulling their weight and, though we don’t need
any more speech taboos, rather more courtesy from the negative side would make for a kinder
ambience. Such an ambience would also be conducive to further increasing older people’s
participation in the workplace and the wider society.

As we practice our civility we could also contemplate our liberation from the demography of
the past. There may be some clouds over the sunny uplands — no real story has a totally happy
ending. But the prospect is far more pleasing than either a return to the nineteenth century or a
journey to an overcrowded future blighted by demographic obesity. An older age structure is no
disaster; like other advances in human wellbeing, it is one of our triumphs.
Edited by peter fraser, 28 Apr 2014, 09:37 AM.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Pauk
Unregistered

Peter
And he I was thinking the IGR, UN and BIS were a good source of ageing fiscal information. Silly me.
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
stinkbug
Member Avatar


A century ago most people worked until they died, or lived a few crummy years being looked after by their children. Now we have life expectancy 25 years greater than the age most people expect to retire. It was only a matter of time until something changed.

I've noted a number of the retirement calculators on US finance websites now default to a retirement age of 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------

While it's true that those who win never quit, and those who quit never win, those who never win and never quit are idiots.

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Pauk
Unregistered

So many errors and wrong 'facts' in the paper.
For example, labor force participation rates are not rising and the boomer are 1946-1964, etc etc. All up an emotive pice with very little actual truths.
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


Pauk
28 Apr 2014, 09:49 AM
So many errors and wrong 'facts' in the paper.
For example, labor force participation rates are not rising and the boomer are 1946-1964, etc etc. All up an emotive pice with very little actual truths.
Paul, it's all to do with the number of workers supporting the unemployed, whether they be the aged or another group of unemployed.

In the early sixties very few women were in the workforce, now there is a substantial portion of women working and paying taxes.

I think that if you look hard enough you will find that the workers to unemployed ratio was much higher in the early sixties than the projected numbers.

In any case what do you want aged people to do about it, die en masse to please you?
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Pauk
Unregistered

peter fraser
28 Apr 2014, 11:34 AM
Paul, it's all to do with the number of workers supporting the unemployed, whether they be the aged or another group of unemployed.

In the early sixties very few women were in the workforce, now there is a substantial portion of women working and paying taxes.

I think that if you look hard enough you will find that the workers to unemployed ratio was much higher in the early sixties than the projected numbers.

In any case what do you want aged people to do about it, die en masse to please you?
Peter
There is no point in directing your arguments to me alone and trying to represent that I alone are concerned about the agequake.

The aging of our population is a social triumph, however it will create fiscal headwinds and to argue any else else is denial.

What do I want? Equity. I see no reason why multi million dollar pensioners should get any pension. RM provided by Centrelink would ensure that no one is forced to sell up or move.
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Pauk
Unregistered

peter fraser
28 Apr 2014, 11:34 AM
Paul, it's all to do with the number of workers supporting the unemployed, whether they be the aged or another group of unemployed.

In the early sixties very few women were in the workforce, now there is a substantial portion of women working and paying taxes.

I think that if you look hard enough you will find that the workers to unemployed ratio was much higher in the early sixties than the projected numbers.

In any case what do you want aged people to do about it, die en masse to please you?
"I think that if you look hard enough you will find that the workers to unemployed ratio was much higher in the early sixties than the projected numbers."

There is a stark different between the costs associated with children compared to the aged.

"When we compare the trend national figures for female underemployment and under-utilisation, we see women aged 25-34 have been facing economic headwinds that are as severe now as they were during the worst of the global financial crisis. At that time, 13.5 per cent of young women were unemployed or in part-time jobs where they were unable to obtain the number of hours they wanted to work.

The figure for February this year was 13.4 per cent. This means many young families are deprived of the additional income they want for discretionary spending on restaurant meals, holidays or school fees. This, in turn, has a knock-on effect throughout the economy, espec­ially on services and hospitality sectors. If their family income is high enough to cover basic needs, many of these women stop chasing jobs and join the growing army of hidden unemployed.

For older women, labour under-utilisation historically is lower than it is for younger women, as older women do not have the same problems with costs of childcare for younger children. However, the disadvantage gap between young and older women has been narrowing since the interest rate cuts beginning in mid-2011. For older women, labour under-utilisation is now much worse than it was during the GFC.

In February, the percentage of women aged 55 and older who were actively seeking a job or were in a job where they couldn’t get sufficient hours to work was 10.9 per cent, compared with 9.1 per cent during the GFC.

We can’t tell if the drivers are falling incomes for women transitioning to retirement or retrenchments of older, better-paid professional women by large-scale employers to make way for lower-paid, younger women.

We do know that the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that 162,800 women were chasing part-time jobs in February and that this is the highest figure on record, by a big margin. It now represents 20 per cent of all those unemployed — male and female, part time and full time. To call this a crisis for the economy and for the government is simply stating the obvious."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/jobs-crisis-poses-the-biggest-challenge/story-e6frgd0x-1226875042444#
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


Pauk
28 Apr 2014, 12:42 PM
I see no reason why multi million dollar pensioners should get any pension.
Nor do I, but I can't find any that fit this category. Find me a pensioner living in a palatial multi-million dollar mansion with millions of dollars in the bank.

If Big Joe wants to tidy up a few loose ends then he can go for it, but it won't be much. Why doesn't he tie the politicians wages to a fixed multiple of the aged pension or the unemployment benefits. That would be a great start.

I'm just not particularly concerned about this issue and certainly not going to join those who are panicking about it. The problem won't be nearly as bad as you expect and it's not a reason to commence boomer bashing.

All of the cohorts from now on will be very large compared to the pre-boomer cohorts, we as a nation have to learn how to deal with that not just for the boomers, but for Gen X and Gen Y and following generations as well.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Pauk
Unregistered

""If you included a means test, and only pay the pension to someone who had a house worth less than $1 million ... you would save $1.2 billion right there," he said."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-15/wealthy-pensioners-fear-they-will-be-targeted-in-budget/5390130
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Pauk
Unregistered

Only a mere 400,000 plus of them... dear me...

"ALMOST 400,000 millionaires are receiving the age pension and 51,200 people in the nation's top income bracket also are getting the welfare payment.

As the Government prepares to lift the pension rate for the poorest single age pensioners, it has emerged tens of thousands of people receiving the payment are very well off.

And a key welfare group is calling for a crackdown on the rich receiving the pension, which would include homes worth more than $1 million in the age pension means test.

Research carried out for the Brotherhood of St Laurence has found the age pension system is helping the rich because the means test exempts the family home.

Other very wealthy retirees are able to fiddle their income so they can receive a part-pension.

The research by NATSEM shows 14 per cent of the nation's 2.8 million pensioners have an average net worth of more than $1.6 million when the value of their home is taken into account.

But even if the value of the home is disregarded, 51,200 age pensioners have incomes that place them in the highest income bracket.

Pensioners who own their own home are the most well-off, with 12.6 per cent of them having incomes of more than $200 a week in addition to the pension.

The study found the poorest pensioners are those who rent - 83 per cent of them have private incomes of less than $20 a week.

Half the single age pensioners were in the lowest income band and were found to be most at risk of poverty.

By contrast two thirds of couple pensioners are in the top half of the income range.

The Federal Government has established a review of pension rates due to report this weekend.

It is expected to call for the single pension rate to be increased by between $30-$35 a week to lift single pensioners out of poverty.

The Brotherhood of St Laurence said the government also needs to increase rent assistance by 50 per cent. And it says it is time for the Government to crack down on the rich who are receiving the pension.

It wants the Government to increase the taper rate at which the pension is withdrawn as income increases from 40 per cent to 60 per cent.

And it said the Government should give all retirees a pensioner concession card."

https://www.quicksales.com.au/forum/news-and-current-affairs/400000-millionaires-paid-pensions-323709/
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy