Boom in elderly population seen

The Filipino population is aging and there are not enough medical experts to treat the elderly, a University of the Philippines (UP) study on aging revealed.

Though the nation boasts of a reserve of young citizens, the elderly population is now catching up as they compose at least seven to eight million of the current total population.

Filipinos, aged 60 and above, are now the ‘‘fastest growing segment of the Philippine population, the UP Population Institute (UPPI) study showed.

If only there were as much health professionals who are knowledgeable and well-trained to care for them holistically, the country’s senior citizens will grow even bigger in number, said Dr. Shelley Ann dela Vega of the National Institutes of Health in UP Manila.

“The Philippines needs to prepare for the burgeoning population of older persons. The population 60 years and above has grown at a very rapid rate, increasing from 3.2 million in 1990 to 4.6 million in 2000. By the year 2030, ten percent of our population will be composed of senior citizens,” dela Vega said in the study “Status of Geriatric Education in Philippine Medical Schools.”

Dela Vega said we could even catch up with the aging population of Japan if the number of older citizens continue to grow.

She said increasing life expectancy among Filipinos is one major factor for the Filipino aging population.

In 1995, the average life expectancy in the country is 65 to 67 years. Currently, it stands at 72 to 73.

Moreover, she said improvement in healthcare also plays a big factor as well as the vaccines that prevent diseases. Fewer adults are also dying from strokes and heart attacks and there are better drugs now resulting to lower death rate.
Link -
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/262958/boom-elderly-population-seen
========
Aging Populations are not restricted to Japan, Australia or certain other Western countries, it is pretty much universal, but with some exceptions.

The Health Care & services area is set to become a major Global issue, due to the rising Aging ratio, within the increasing total Population levels,

U.S. needs more, not fewer, immigrant workers

Contrary to popular opinion, America does not have an immigration problem, but its current policies are creating one. In particular, America remains an attractive destination for immigrants, a boon for this nation. However, America is rapidly losing its competitive advantage in attracting immigrants to our shores. The loss to America, and its standing in the world, will be catastrophic.

Not surprisingly, America's biggest failure is a lack of understanding about the profound benefits of immigration. Immigration is this country's great "free lunch" and it represents a significant transfer of wealth from the rest of the world to the U.S.

The value of immigration is accentuated when comparing America's demographics with those of the rest of the developed world. Largely due to healthy immigration, America will have a growing population for the remainder of this century, standing alone among major developed nations. Japan and Europe will see their populations decline over the decades to come. More ominously, China - due to its one-child policy - will see its population age and decline by the middle part of this century, calling into question whether China will modernize before it ages. It remains to be seen whether a nation can remain a world leader with a declining population. Recent history has no precedent. The precedent set during the late Middle Ages - when Europe's population declined - provides a dismal omen.

With the need for a stable population in mind, a liberal immigration policy seems not only logical, but in this nation's best interest.
Link -
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7062142.html
============
Contrary to the opinion of the author of this article, there is no such thing as a free lunch. The costs are simply not immediately apparent!

There are two confliction issues are work here, one is the short to medium term and the other is the longer term interests, of any nation and how  the immigration issue is handled.

Yes, there will be short to medium term pain for the National & Global economy, if the total Population level/s are restricted, as this will lead to a general Population decline in many, in not most countries, over the next 20-30 years.

However, in the longer term, exponential growth is simply not possible, as all sorts of resources get depeleted, particularly Enegry (oil), with the final outcome of any such attempt in that direction, being total collapse.

There really is only one choice, in this new paradigm, we must live within our means!

And, in our current circumstances, where resources are being depleted, that will most likely require, lowering the Population level.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2010 at 7:14pm:


Quote:


No problem, I was simply making the observation that Debt, Energy, Aging & Poppulation decline will dominate what politics is all about, for the next 20-30 years, minimum!

Quote:


Quote:


Actually, it does provide some guidance!

In the past, with so many workers and arelatively few retirees, Pensions & Health costs for the aged, were manageable. But with the Boomers now passing into retirement, before passing on, those numberswill become lopsided, the other way, with a few supporting the many.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Our society has always had a small number doing the real work", the ratio was 8/1 & it will be 2/1, what is "real work"?

The aging population will most certainly change our position dramatically, it has never happened before, anywhere near this extent!

Larger population would pose serious problems

Irvin Studin's vision of Canada with a population of 100 million stirs the imagination in terms of increasing our capacity for playing a role of importance on the world stage. Unfortunately, however, what might have been possible in Wilfrid Laurier's time a century ago is no longer realistic today.

For one thing, the ecological footprint of individual Canadians is much larger now, and the environmental impact of such a massive increase in population would be overwhelming.

In terms of current immigration policies, it could also be extremely costly for Canadian taxpayers -- particularly because of our generous system of social programs that did not exist 100 years ago. It is estimated that the benefits newcomers now receive already amount to tens of billions of dollars a year more than what they pay in taxes.

A third and particularly challenging problem would be the integration into Canadian society of huge numbers of people from very different cultural backgrounds. With the connections they can maintain with their former homelands through satellite TV, the Internet, inexpensive overseas travel, etc., assimilation of large concentrations of newcomers is increasingly problematic even today.

Nor would there be significant advantages in terms of economies of scale as a result of domestic population increases, since we are very much part of a global trading community.

Cities such as Toronto and Vancouver are already struggling to cope with rapidly increasing populations due to international migration and will hardly welcome the prospect of dealing with even faster growth.

Martin Collacott Vancouver Martin Collacott served as Canadian ambassador to countries in Asia and the Middle East.

Link -
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Larger+population+would+pose+serious+prob...
===========
There is NOT general agreement that growth is the way to go.

In fact, Population growth, over the next 20-30 years, is absolutely nOT the right course of action, from a long term perspective!

Quote:


You are only considering working people and retired people. You are leaving out the younger generation, which is a far bigger burden than retirees. They have to be educated, housed, fed, etc. Then after all that investment by society into them the first thing they want to do is buy or rent their own house. Obviously if you only consider the ratio of working people to retirees it looks grim, but that ratio is meaningless in term's of our society's ability to cope. The ratio that matters is the ratio of working people to total population. However, even this will be significantly tempered by the reduced infrastructure demands that come with a plateuing population.

Quote:


I think immigrants and their immediate descendants would do a far better job of propping up our economy. Especially those from poorer countries. They tend to be harder working. There are a lot more lazy young people from families that have been here for generations and developed a sense of undeserved entitlement. And yes the stats do back this up.

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2010 at 5:54pm:


Quote:


There are a couple of ways to look at what is called "the Participation rate".

Some refer to the ratio of actual Workers to those who are in the "working years" - ie 15-65ish.

Others refer to the ratio of Workers, to the Total population.

I agree with your assesment, the one that counts more, particularly now, is the comparison to the total population, because that reflects the percentage of Workers (PAYG tax payers), who are the largest support for the total population, including those under 15 years & those over 65 years.

That participation ratio has Peaked and has started to decline in OZ, but the comparions in some overseas countries are already showing a more substantial decline.  

Btw, I am not disregarding the younger generation, simply putting it into perspective.

We have had the younger generation issues with us for quite some time, but this is the first time in history that a generation of this magnitude has passed into retirement, before passing away altogether.

The ramifications of this event, will be massive compared to the issues of the younger brigade and it is going to happen at a time when -
1) The Global Population will actually decline, which is extremely rare.
2) Global Debt is already rampant.
3) The dominant Energy supply on the planet, Oil, is also set to go into decline.

I would prefer to be saying something different, as I have family that are going to live thru whatever happens.

But, if WE don't start taking the correct decisions soon and putting those decisions into action to change the future, then the future may not be all that rosy?

Quote:

Actually that's not entirely correct, the Pollies & economists have actually been underplaying the risks and they are still pushing Growth, both economic & population.

Quote:

There are two competing interests at work, the short to medium term & the longer term.
In the short to medium term, Aging will be difficult, but in the longer term, mankinds very existence could at stake, unless the Global Population starts to shrink and come back into line with the available resources.

Quote:

I am sure there are aspirations in China & India, as there are here & elsewhere and I am sure all would say they are entitled, but I can see many aspirations being unmet!