Continuing Canadian Shift Towards Aged

[Big Guy]

For the first time in Canadian history, more Canadians are 65 and over than are 14 and under.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/statistics-canada-seniors-1.3248295

One in six Canadians is over the age of 65.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

How is federal income and spending going to be effected by this continuing shift?

What changes are needed to accommodate this growing shift?

[ToadBrother]

It's a bad thing, and considering no party really wants to make having babies pay, get ready for a lot more immigration.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[WIP]

It wouldn't be much of a problem If Canadians were living better and more healthy as they age! You can't carry 50 or 100 lbs of excess weight around without becoming a drain on the healthcare system by the time you reach 60. Too many people are in too big of a hurry to buy all the crap they think they need, and not getting enough sleep, exercise, or walking past the snack and prepared foods sections of the supermarket, to buy the basics needed for making homecooked meals today.

So, it's a bad thing...as things are turning out for us today, with so many aging so badly....but it doesn't have to be that way! Take some action against fastfood advertising and apply surtaxes on the garbage that people shouldn't be feeding their kids anyway, and use that money to cut the increasing prices of fruits and vegetables....that would be a start! Whatever happened to those Participaction commercials anyway? At least they served as some simple level of instruction to motivate people to adopt better living habits.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Bonam]

Life expectancies will continue to rise. If the average person is going to live to be, say, 95, then they will spend 15 years being under 15 and 30 years being over 65, so there will be about twice as many people over 65 as under 15, especially as population growth rates trend towards zero. I don't know why people always ignore changing life expectancy when talking about age demographics, retirement age, etc.

So yeah, an ever greater proportion of the population being older is inevitable. This wouldn't be an issue if people didn't keep viewing 65 as some kind of fixed magical number. People live longer and stay healthier longer, and should therefore remain productive participants in the economy longer. I expect to work til I'm at least 150 or so, dunno why anyone that's in their 20s today wouldn't.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Bonam

[Freddy]

It wouldn't be much of a

---SNIP---

to adopt better living habits.

Given the ability you would tax everything....

Canada is a DNA graveyard. It's where DNA go's when it wants to cease to exist

Edited September 30, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[---SNIP---]

[Topaz]

I doubt that my kids will live longer than my parents did, into their 80's. Why. For one reason, the cell phones, are said will give that generation brain cancers, the fast food industry, less movement, too much computer time, stress, which will put on weight, plus all those who are on meds for stress.

[WIP]

People live longer and stay healthier longer, and should therefore remain productive participants in the economy longer. I expect to work til I'm at least 150 or so, dunno why anyone that's in their 20s today wouldn't.

Do you have any numbers to back up your claim that people are staying healthier longer? Because I'm reading about rising type 2 diabetes rates, and increasing obesity likely being a factor in higher cancer rates as well. And, nursing homes...like the one my 97 year old mother is living in now are being stressed not only by increasing numbers of applicants (long expected by changing demographics) but more so because new prospective residents are moving in at younger ages and have higher likelihood of dementia and other mental illnesses, requiring more hours of care than other residents.