Baby boom generation starting to retire in or around 2030

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029021#Comment_122029021

I'm not advocating cutting or eliminating pensions at all, to be clear. All I am saying is that older people with assets should have to pay some of that for their own medical and/or social care. We already means test unemployment benefit so I don't see why the same can't be done for senior care, aside from politics of course.

David Cameron once told Nick Clegg that nothing gets donors handing money to the Conservative party as quickly or as effectively as the threat from the left/centre of a property tax. It's another unicorn, the same breed as Theresa May's proposed care reforms.

The pension system, at least here in the UK, operates in tandem with the idea of a property own democracy, ie pensioners do not pay rent or a mortgage for the most part. I know that, if I am lucky, I will get old and need one myself but right now, it doesn't even cover 80% of the cost of the rent of my bedroom. I struggle to see what good it will be if I get old enough to claim it, beyond a top up on whatever income I may be getting at the time.

To be clear once again, I do not advocate cutting pensions. I don't think I ever did on this thread unless I got sloppy with my words. Even if I did, it's a non-runner. No politician is that stupid. Well, maybe Liz Truss but that's a topic for another thread…

Peregrinus

Older people who require residential care and who have assets do have to have recourse to their assets to pay for it - the Fair Deal scheme effectively functions like a mortgaging arrangement, with the costs of social care secured with a charge on the house, to be repaid on sale or after death.

Other forms of medical/social care are not funded in this way, but the more older people's wealth is represented by the value of their house, the more unrealistic it is to think of asking them to fund their ongoing medical/care expenses by selling the houses in which they live. You could, I suppose, extend the Fair Deal scheme so that it applies to things like home visits but, honestly, relative to the amount spent on retirement pensions, you'd be doing an awful lot of work and causing an awful lot of upset to recover a comparatively small amount of money.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029378#Comment_122029378

I find it very difficult to sympathise if I am being honest. I'm likely to, at best own a studio while paying for their care. It seems unfair that they should get to keep owning an asset like that while paying nothing themselves for it. I don't know what the best solution is but this is the result of generations of governments elected by boomers torching the social contract.

There's always upset at any form of change. Look at what happened when Macron tried to raise the pension age two years to 64. At some point, boomers are going to have to realise that they're not the dominant demographic any more. Well, either that or they'll die off given their ages.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122026960#Comment_122026960

eveyone competes with everyone else

that is life, its always been that way

of course it matters if you save, I know loads who never saved, moved back in with parents to start saving for a mortgage

of course you are going to struggle

I know loads of people who have somehow afforded to do this earlier, most of my friends have waited like I did, for life reasons

the curve is the curve, you literally have that time to have kids, its not an opinion random woman on the internet

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029390#Comment_122029390

paying nothing for the asset?

how did they manage to acquire the asset for nothing

boomers, you really need to take a few weeks off the internet

AnnieinDundrum

there are certain aspects to elder care.

The HSE provide home helps, via agencies, to help keep people in their homes. This is excellent and a good idea for society. And most people that I’ve met say their parents prefer it.

This care isn’t means tested but it rationed to those who need it, approved by medical people etc.most families add to this by weighing in themselves or by paying for any extras needed.

there are also grants and tax deductions and vat refunds for alternations and items such as accessible ramps.

If the same people were to move to residential care the state would pay a lot more so it makes economic sense too. AFAIK

But I understand that under various fair deal schemes the state would get some money back for this care.

I’d love to see the maths.

Cost of a decade in a nursing home but with refunds from fair deal v cost of home help with no refunds.

i suspect the home help model is still cheaper from the states perspective.

but I do see many people in their 90s still living independently. Also a fair few in nursing homes.

Pensions were designed to stretch for a few years, not decades.

CelticRambler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122028864#Comment_122028864

This anecdote, and @Shelga's testimony - along with the parallel thread on early retirement - demonstrate the overwhelming success of marketing, where everything is turned into a cost-benefit financial equation. On the one hand, we (in the developed world) are promised that we can have everything - greate job, nice house, happy family, long life and good health ; but on the other, we're threatened that The World Will End if we don't spend-save-spend-spend-save-spend money as fast as we earn it.

Where once people bought houses because they wanted a decent place to live, now the process is treated as "the most important investment you'll ever make" ; then they saddle themselves with the maximum amount of debt the bank will give them, for the longest period of time, so that they can - in Ireland, at least - bid against other wannabe homeowners to drive the price to ridiculous heights.

Now, when people think about having children, they cite the "cost of raising a child" as a deciding factor ; yet much of that cost is driven primarily by voluntary consumption of entirely insubstantial services. As can be seen on this forum (and I see it with my Irish-resident siblings and cousins), parents spend what are to me (non-resident) incomprehensible sums on supervised/coordinated activities for their children, and even more astronomical sums on holiday experiences for no real benefit to either parent or child.

Except, perhaps, to convince them that they - like @SharkMX's friend - can have it all as soon as they leave college … and find that perfect job … and keep that perfect job, bearing in mind that they're going to be treated by their corporate employer as nothing more than an economic unit that has to fall on the right side of the cost-benefit equation. And then they're told that they're going to need a pension pot of 2 million to be "comfortable" if/when they retire, so they vote for the politicians that promise to protect whatever wealth they can ferret away, thus ensuring the whole system becomes increasingly ricketty.

Funnily enough, the majority of "baby boomers" I know are already long retired, or at least working entirely at their own rhythm; and myself and my "Gen X" peers are definitely not waiting till 2030 to start retiring. Something we all have in common is that we never let the cost of some future life stop us from making the most of the life we had at the time.

Shelga

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029433#Comment_122029433

I can assure you, no woman is unaware of the fact that there is limited time to have a baby.

What are your suggestions for tackling the issue of men aged 30+ with less interest than ever before in having children?

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029617#Comment_122029617

Where once people bought houses because they wanted a decent place to live, now the process is treated as "the most important investment you'll ever make" ; then they saddle themselves with the maximum amount of debt the bank will give them, for the longest period of time, so that they can - in Ireland, at least - bid against other wannabe homeowners
to drive the price to ridiculous heights.

And we desperately need to get away from that mindset. Unfortunately, over the last few decades, people have been primed to look at homes as "assets" or "property". A tradable commodity. Something that's merely a saleable object and not what it used to be. A place to actually live in, put down roots and raise a family. The next generation.

Our property woes has its seeds in the Celtic Tiger, when this country first got a bit of money and we lost the bloody run of ourselves in many respects. House prices started to go through the roof, when before they were pretty stable, on the whole. Buying a home was attainable for anyone, if you had a job and put a bit by. Nowadays, for many people, it doesn't matter if you're working (and even if your partner's working), because you've been priced out of a "market".

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029653#Comment_122029653

There's a limit for men as well. It's less stringent but it's there nevertheless. Like, if I sort myself out and I'm 45, how many women will want to have a baby with a man that age? I know it's not the same thing as the biological clock but it's worth mentioning.

As for your question, I would suggest that women take charge of their dating lives. If they want to ask someone out, they should consider doing it themselves. A lot of men won't bother making the first move any more in case they appear sleazy. Personally, I just can't be bothered any more. I work in a mainly female environment and I think I've had a few signs of interest but I like my own time and the ability to do what I want. Women who have successful careers may need to be open to dating less successful men depending on how much they want marriage and children.

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029777#Comment_122029777

I grabbed my other half by the hand as she was passing in a niteclub and pulled her into me, trapping her between myself and the wall. I said something drunken too her and we had a dance and a shift. And the rest is history. We now have bought a house together and are going to get married and start a family in the next year or two.

That wasnt too long ago. And if I was to do that now i'd be in jail and she would be cancelled if she even attempted to say I wasnt a sexual predator. So it would have never happened and we would never have met in the first place.

yagan

Ive a friend who'd love to meet someone but has zero interest in having kids.

He's always upfront about this but repeatedly he'll having someone he's dating for a good while start at him about changing his mind.

My wife has a friend who since childhood always wanted to be a mother, she married a guy who everyone knew is gay, they had kids, they still live together as a happy family but he always goes on holiday with his oldest friend.

Btw, money was never an obstacle for her.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029653#Comment_122029653

there are very few people I know who dont have kids, for every 10 its 1 person, so there is plenty of interest

the consensus is enjoy life before having kids rather than after, that is more suitable to men than women, but it has been embraced wholesale in ireland

Theres also too much put on how hard having kids is. Its a joy, do it. Those first years of life are special and nothing is better than that, is it harder than not having kids, of course, but its not even a discussion

Maybe some of the former has droned out the latter

I seriously doubt there isn't more interest in being a dad than ever before but that it has changed massively

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029738#Comment_122029738

Nope, all people do is complain about politicians, like its spectator sport

while sitting on their hoops

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029976#Comment_122029976

Where did I complain about politicians?

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122030004#Comment_122030004

I never said you did, but you stuck your nose into another conversation for some reason

now they are really the only people who can fix an issue like the one posted, not matter how poorly by the op

Poon Tang

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122028956#Comment_122028956

We need to stop classifying a house as a financial asset and more a basic amenity that everyone needs to survive. That's part of why we're in this mess. And a big part of why it costs so much to retire. Being saddled with huge debt your whole working life, just because you need somewhere to live, is absurd. Ultra capitalism, where everything is a commodity, is literally killing society. And yet, people continue to worship this lifestyle.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122030074#Comment_122030074

the thing is when was this not the case, at what point in our idyllic past was this utopia

retirement is a new thing, other than a few elite

you worked until you died basically

it was made up in the middle to end of the 20th century with little forethought

zerosquared

gonna leave this here

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122030113#Comment_122030113

america for one

its all well and good having more money in wages, with much bigger outlays on rent etc. everything…

Geuze

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029276#Comment_122029276

Both of your requests happen already.

LT care is means-tested: Fair Deal scheme

Medical card is means-tested. (GP Visit card is not, it is universal for all over 70)

AnnieinDundrum

pensions were introduced by Bismark in late 1800s and retirement age roughly equalled life expectancy 😂

You can hardly fault people for living beyond that!

Shelga

I also don’t think people view having children as some kind of cost/benefit calculation; it is rather the case that a decent person will give serious consideration to what is the biggest decision they will ever make.

Can I provide this child/children a safe and pleasant home environment? Can I pay for crèche fees and after school care for approximately 10-12 years because I can’t afford to give up work because my house costs so much and also it took me a really long time to get to this place in my career? (This is one that still weighs heavier on women than on men)

Can I teach this child how to be a good person? Can I afford clothes for it, a cot, nappies, a buggy, a car seat, etc? What will the climate be like when the child is 30? Is there going to be a land war in Europe? Is social media rotting kids’ brains these days and could I protect my child from its toxicity? Will I be able to afford to move to a bigger house in a few years as the child grows?

The list goes on and on and on. Now, of course you could overthink it to death and never make a decision, but a lot of people don’t feel this deep-seated existential pull to have children, nor are they completely against it- I think lots of people are in the middle.

Then there is the factor of having children because that’s just the next thing you do in life and is a box to be ticked- this is definitely a factor for some people. Then there are concerns of having a very sick or disabled child, and the supports not being available in Ireland, as we’ve heard repeatedly in recent years.

Wouldn’t most decent people give serious consideration to these things before just jumping in? I actually don’t think it’s a cost/benefit thing at all, it’s about ensuring you can provide everything a child needs, before you ever get to after-school activities and holidays and all the rest of it. Yeah, people spend money on a lot of crap, but just the basics cost insane amounts of money these days.

CelticRambler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122030493#Comment_122030493

a decent person will give serious consideration to what is the biggest decision they will ever make

That's just it: your use of the term "decent person" immediately turns this into a cost-benefit decision, reinforced by everything you list afterwards. There are literally thousands of children born every year to "decent" people who, in the head of a passionate moment, don't give serious consideration to childbearing. Setting aside the choice (if available) of abortion, it's not a decision at all, let along the biggest one they'll make; and yet the vast majority of these unplanned children turn out fine, and so do their parents.

The list that goes on and on and on are all reasons to justify something else in preference to having children - having a "nice" house, having a "good" career, having a "safe" future … Which are essentially all the same fear-mongering marketing tricks used to peddle all kinds of pension plans and other retirement schemes, and for the most part are little more than circular arguments: as you say yourself, the good job is needed to pay for the expensive house which is only expensive because so many people signed up for the programme that said "get a degree and you'll earn more money". Like dating apps, there's a huge amount of money to be made from selling the dream that something/someone better is waiting just around the corner, if you can hang on a little longer, buy another add-on, pay for some small thing to give you an advantage …

As has been mentioned in the early-retirement thread, something that can shock quite a few not-so-early retirees is the simple fact that they are unable to embark on their retirement adventure, either because of health issues or socio-political challenges (e.g. Brexit) ; but that's only a problem because we've been encouraged to think of retirement as a period of happy old age, instead of the very functional "a short time to get your affairs in order before you die" concept originally set up.

Perhaps, if the age at which you could draw your OAP was raised to 75 or 80, it might encourage more people to give serious consideration to changing their view on when to have children and how long to stay in the salaried workforce. I know that if I had my time over again, I would do things exactly as I did first time around : have my children close together in my 20s/30s, so they were grown up and gone independent while I was still a fit and healthy 50-something and free to do whatever I want.

Except maybe have any more …

Tony EH

Perhaps, if the age at which you could draw your OAP was raised to 75 or 80

How many 75 or 80 year olds do you know could do a full time job? Or even a part time one for that matter. It's all well and good for some people in some professions to say we should raise the pension age to such and such. But the reality is that most people in the old age bracket simply wouldn't be able to function in the workplace and an awful lot of people don't have the types of jobs that provide luxury down time and rest periods.

In addition, and this is the biggest issue, ageism is a very real thing in the area of work. The biggest ism, especially in Ireland and the UK, is classism. But the next biggest is ageism. Once you reach a certain age, many employment opportunities are simply closed off to you. When someone reaches their mid 50's, they'll often find themselves in a position where it becomes harder and harder to get work, so raising the pension age to something like 75 means consigning a lot of people to the wilderness for a period of about 20 years.

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122030042#Comment_122030042

Oh, so im not allowed to post here then. I see how it is. Dont be so childish.

CelticRambler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122031514#Comment_122031514

How many 75 or 80 year olds do you know could do a full time job? 

I know dozens of 75- and 80-year olds who are still in good working order, mentally and physically, and invest a huge amount of time - and decades of experience - into non-salaried activities because they want to. They could do a full time job, but they wouldn't - no more than myself, and I'm a while off that age yet. There's no need, financial or otherwise.

That's kind of the point: why does anyone need to work full time from about the age of 45-50 onwards? Right now, only because they've put off having children until they're already in their 30s and 40s, and because they've locked themselves into a 30-year mortgage also starting in their 30s. If you knew in your 20s that you might get 5 years of a full pension, chances are you'd arrange voluntarily arrange to curb your working life well before then, and maybe make significant life choices that made that easier.

But I doubt any politician is ever going to propose such a scheme because (a) self-centred voters have convinced themselves that they're entitled to a long and happy retirement, paid for by someone else ; and (b) way too much of the country's tax revenue is sucked out of salaried employees - so as to leave unearned wealth and corporate profits alone - for any government to want to upset that particular apple cart.

Politicians and voters alike want to keep the status quo, regardless of any warnings of impending collapse.

Tony EH

I know dozens of 75- and 80-year olds who are still in good working order, mentally and physically, and invest a huge amount of time - and decades of experience - into non-salaried activities because they want to. They could do a full time job, but they wouldn't - no more than myself, and I'm a while off that age yet. There's no need, financial or otherwise.

And I'd bet you there's plenty more that aren't doing any of that because they can't, and wouldn't be even remotely capable of doing a full time job or even a part time one. Especially the 80 year old bracket. Out of all the OAPs I currently know there's one guy who might be able to hold down a job at 71 and even he says he has days where he can barely get out of a chair because his back would go. He certainly is in no condition to do another 9 years of work.

But I doubt any politician is ever going to propose such a scheme

No politician would propose such a scheme, because it would a cruel madness to expect septuagenarians and octogenarians to work. The vast majority wouldn't have the physicality to do such a thing.

We may be living longer. But it's not like it is when you're 30 years old and your prime. Some oldies may seem spritely, and in "good working order" (as you put it), but expecting them to put in a shift in a job is an entirely different matter.

anewme

ahh jaysus, who wants to work till they are 75 or 80, able or not.

CelticRambler

Yeah, but you're arguing that point on the basis that people should work "full time" until they collect their state pension. There's no need for anyone to do that, but the majority choose to do so, and then base their opposition to working for longer because they've organised their whole life plan around an expectation that they'll have a good long period of state-sponsored free time to do all the stuff they didn't prioritise earlier.

Logically, there's no reason for today's youth to spend five or ten years in third-level education, when they could leave school at 18, get a trade and be making good money by their early twenties. 20k will buy you a decent house across large parts of Europe, and a trade is one of the most transferable skills, so that's not an unreasonable start in life. Meet a partner, have a few children within the next few years ; if they follow the same route, they'll be supporting themselves by the time our youth & partner are hitting fifty. From then on, our no-longer young youth can easily get by on part-time/intermittent work, making it far easier to continue working years longer than the current standard pension age.

I've heard variations on this theme proposed in different countries for the last thirty or forty years, but none has ever introduced it: it always comes back to that same complaint "you can't expect people to work full time till they're 80" - i.e. refuse to contemplate changing anything about how we work, just up the retirement age to whatever the electorate will tolerate and squeeze as much tax out of those who slave away till they drop.