Most of you will be familiar with statistics about the ageing of New Zealand society. Between 2011 and 2031 – less than 20 years now – Statistics New Zealand predict that;
• The number people 65 and over will grow to 21% of the population;
• The number of people aged 85 plus will double, to nearly 150,000.
We have heard a lot about what this will mean for income support, care and specialised housing. We hear less about how the “shape” of families will change. Increased life expectancy and lower birth rates have resulted in “bean-pole” families – with more generations alive at one time than previously, but fewer individuals in each generation. Thus the family tree will more easily fit the “portrait” rather than the “landscape” display mode.
So if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that old age begins at 65, then it can span more than one generation. The oldest people alive today were born somewhere around the beginning of the First World War. The youngest of the 65 plus cohort were born just after the end of the Second World War – nearly four decades later – and are very likely to be the children of the oldest group. We have only to consider the different life experiences of these two generations to realise the great diversity which exists among the older population – a diversity which is often unacknowledged in popular stereotypes, which lump everyone aged 65 plus together.
Demographers call this phenomenon, rather unkindly, “two generation geriatric families”. A good example of this has been the British royal family, when the Queen Mother was alive – and it looks as though the same phenomenon is going to repeat itself with Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles!
At present around half of the people entering what is sometimes called the “retirement age” have a parent still living. With increases in life expectancy, we can predict that even more will be in this position in the future, despite later child-bearing and consequently a wider gap between the generations. The implications are many. Retirees may find themselves with caring responsibilities for dependent older people just at a stage when they expected to be enjoying increased leisure. If they themselves have serious health problems (albeit less common among the “young-old”) this may place a double burden on the generation which follows. They may be called upon to support both their parents and their grandparents. And not only will this generation be smaller in numbers, but the consequences of marriage breakdown may mean that family members have lost touch with one another.
When people dying in their nineties or hundreds leave their worldly goods to their children, these “children” may be well into their retirement. How then will inheritance be viewed? Instead of financing tertiary education or house purchase it may be seen as a retirement nest egg. However, if present policies continue, assets are more and more likely to be used up to pay for long-term care, the need for which increases strongly with advanced age. Thus the potential heirs, of whatever age, may be faced with a trade-off – either they provide care for their older people and inherit, or they face the prospect of the assets, including money tied up in houses, being used up to pay for care.
What about this ‘worst case’ scenario?
You are 90, and looking after your parents, who are 120, when your 60-year-old child comes back home again…
The statistics stated at the beginning in percentages then ti numbers does not make for good or easy understanding, please use a consistent method of comparison. Demographics are constantly changing and if you accept that anthropogenic carbon increase will lead to climate change then I’m sure that the remaining land mass populations are going to become increasingly crowded in the next 2 generations. It is reasonable to assume that what has happened in the past is not reasonably projected to the future.
Whether we like it or not there are going to be either mass reductions of populations in crowded low lying areas or there is going to be a massive redistribution of people. The main thing we need to get our heads around is whether we can sustain a version of the USA type of life style or whether we are going to become a much more egalitarian and homogeneous country similar to the way we were in the 50’s, and accept immigration to a much greater extent.
This scenario seems so unlikely to me that I feel unable to comment further. Certainly centenarians are increasing steadily but few are reaching 120, and though more of them are functioning at home few would be at home after 1010, let alone a pair of them together.