Skip to main content

Untitled

The Financial Time Bomb of Longer Lives
By NATASHA SINGER Published: October 16, 2010
good news: We’re living longer, healthier lives than ever before.

We’re already so used to the idea of greater longevity, in fact, that it may seem ho-hum to learn that boys and girls born in 2008 in the United States have life expectancies of 75 and 81, respectively.

Those life spans, however, represent a bonus of about three decades, compared with Americans born in 1900, according to a report last year from the Census Bureau. And, by the way, Spain, Greece and Austria fared even better, proportionally: Life expectancies in those countries doubled over the course of the 20th century.

Now for the bad news: At this rate, we can’t afford to live so long.

And by “we,” I don’t just mean you, me and our often insufficient long-term-care insurance policies. I mean “we the people.” I mean the bureaucratic “we.”

For the first time in human history, people aged 65 and over are about to outnumber children under 5. In many countries, older people entitled to government-funded pensions, health services and long-term care will soon outnumber the work force whose taxes help finance those benefits. This demographic shift also means that the number of people living with dementia, whose treatment is estimated to cost $604 billion worldwide this year, is expected to more than triple, to 115 million, by 2050, according to a report this year by Alzheimer’s Disease International, a group representing 73 Alzheimer’s associations around the world.

No other force is as likely to shape the future of national economic health, public finances and national policies, according to a new analysis on global aging from Standard & Poor’s, as the “irreversible rate at which the population is growing older.”

How are the most developed countries handling preparations for the boom in the elderly population — and for the budget-busting expenditures that are sure to follow?

For a majority, not very well.

Unless governments enact sweeping changes to age-related public spending, sovereign debt could become unsustainable, rivaling levels seen during cataclysms like the Great Depression and World War II, according to the S.& P. report.

If the status quo continues, the report projects, the median government debt in the most advanced economies could soar to 329 percent of gross domestic product by 2050. By contrast, Britain’s debt represented only 252 percent of G.D.P. in 1946, in the aftermath of World War II, the report said.

So what is to be done?

For starters, governments should extend the retirement age, says Marko Mrsnik, the associate director of sovereign ratings in Europe for S.& P. and the lead author of the report. Another no-brainer, he says, is that governments should balance their budgets.

Alas, private citizens often don’t see the logic in curbing public benefits in order to maintain national solvency. Witness France last week, where more than one million people took to the streets to protest pension reform that would raise the minimum legal retirement age to 62 from 60.

Moreover, global aging experts say, measures like pension reform are inadequate, piecemeal responses to the giant demographic shift that is upon us.

If the cost of maintaining aging populations could lead to World War II-era levels of government debt, a solution to the crisis will require a mass-scale collaborative response akin to the Manhattan Project or the space race, says Michael W. Hodin, who is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and researches aging issues.

Governments, industry and international agencies, he says, will have to work together to transform the very structure of society, by creating jobs and education programs for people in their 60s and 70s — the hypothetical new middle age — and by tackling diseases like Alzheimer’s whose likelihood increases as people age.

“What we need is a very fundamental and profound transformation that is proportionate to the social shifts that are upon us and that is truly innovative in the public arena, innovation that is driven by industry,” says Mr. Hodin.

Here’s one simple suggestion: Influential international organizations, government agencies, companies and academic institutions should take up aging as a cause, the way they have already done for the environment. Although the United Nations, for example, set eight “millennium development goals” — ensuring environmental sustainability, promoting gender equality, and so on — for 2015, the list did not include ensuring the sustainability and equality of aging populations.

“This is quite unacceptable that aging hasn’t been included in these goals,” says Baroness Greengross, a member of the House of Lords in Britain and chief executive of the International Longevity Centre U.K in London.

Here’s another suggestion: Governments with national health programs or other state coverage could start curbing the growth in medical spending ahead of the looming elderquake.

If countries wait to act, says Peter S. Heller, a senior adjunct professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University, they will have to scramble reactively to cut their budgets in response to burgeoning older populations, the way Greece, Ireland and Spain have done recently. At the same time, he says, politicians must also start educating citizens to understand that greater longevity may entail personal sacrifices, like increased savings and a willingness to pay higher shares of their medical and long-term care costs.

But the carrot may be a better approach than the stick, says Laura L. Carstensen, a professor of psychology at Stanford and the director of the Stanford Center on Longevity. She describes her outfit as a multidisciplinary research center whose “modest aim is to change the course of human aging.”

Rather than uniformly extending the retirement age, she says, governments and the private sector could develop incentives that motivate older people to remain in the work force. Those incentives might include bonuses for people who work until they are 70, exempting employers from paying Social Security taxes for employees over retirement age, more flexible work schedules, telecommuting options, and sabbaticals for education and training.

“Maybe culture needs to change first,” says Professor Carstensen, “and policy will follow.”

FINALLY, some governments and companies may need attitude adjustments so they can view aging populations not as debt loads but as valuable wells of expertise.

“I rather dispute your calling it a problem,” said Lady Greengross when I called to ask her how governments could better handle global aging. “It’s a celebration.”

As one example of how to embrace aging populations, she cites an equality act, recently passed by British legislators, that prohibits discrimination against older people (among others) seeking goods and services like car rentals or mortgages. Separately, she says, Britain next year will eliminate its default retirement age of 65, allowing people to remain in the work force longer.

“In the long run, I’d like to see age irrelevance,” Lady Greengross says, “where people aren’t just labeled by their birthdays.”
A version of this article appeared in print on October 17, 2010, on page BU6 of the New York edition.

Posted via email from ArkiLaw

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

台灣建築獎 PRIZE OF ARCHITECTURE

  土建築師打敗普立茲克獎大師 橫山書法館奪台灣建築獎 2022-11-03 01:22   聯合報 坐落於桃園大園、由新世代建築師潘天壹設計的橫山書法藝術館,奪得2022台灣建築獎首獎。圖/潘天壹建築師事務所提供 2022台灣 建築 獎昨公布得主。新世代建築師潘天壹設計的橫山書法藝術館奪得首獎。普立茲克獎得主庫哈斯與姚仁喜合作的北藝中心、普立茲克獎得主坂茂與石昭永合作的南美館,則與德光教會、巨大集團全球營運總部並列佳作。本土建築師打敗兩位普立茲克獎得主,評審形容,台灣建築獎得主潘天壹年紀雖輕,作品卻能同時展現「隽永中有淡淡驚喜」的兩種張力,為喧囂的時代帶來安定的力量,奪得今年建築獎首獎。 橫山書法館與埤塘為鄰,潘天壹以篆刻硯石為意象,將五個硯石內斂而分散地放置於埤塘旁,形成流動的書寫地景。評審認為本案利用東方的合院概念,塑造現代園林遊園式觀瞻,將書法的意境用建築表現。整體呈現安靜、平和、穩健,有驚奇但不吵雜,節奏疏密拿捏得宜。 評審團召集人劉培森指出,潘天壹將建築物拆散成尺度小的院落式組織,空間處理切合主題。他把內部空間的氛圍處理得非常好,讓人感到心靈的沉澱,節奏上又出現不同的層次。當訪客從外界進入內部,層次的處理非常精彩,感受水平空間的寧靜之時,看到天花板的結構,又能感受到趣味性。潘天壹年紀輕、卻有相當成熟的表現,「30年前覺得台灣建築水準差國際一大截,30年後覺得有許多年輕建築師慢慢冒出、令人欣喜。」 橫山書法藝術館從設計到完成花費四年。潘天壹透露,四年過程中「經歷很大的逆轉過程」,到現在都還覺得有一些「未完成」,希望透過獎項啟動學習和陪伴。他認為,建築作品並非完工之後便停止,「每個案子都是孩子、屬於這個地方、擁有自己的生命力」。迄今他每個月都會去看橫山書法館,「看地景如何陪伴民眾、繼續它的旅程」,也希望在建築的發展過程中,學習如何回應社會責任。 潘天壹是新世代建築師中,罕見從未出國留學的「土建築師」。問他心中的「台灣建築」是什麼?他形容是「只有在台灣才看得到的台灣建築」,從中可以找到社會、文化與產業脈動的浮現。他認為,台灣的大環境比較少談書法、台灣文化,因為資訊都是「和洋混合」的強勢文化衝擊,在這種衝擊之下,大家習慣浸泡在張力之中,失去對自己文化內在的表述。他認為,如果將台灣建築獎歷屆的建築師連起來,他們都在串連台灣的DNA,「只要串得下去...

業界對抑制房價手段 的 反映

  不動產聯盟總會林正雄:高房價政府也是推手 應停止重稅 2023-01-16 22:02   經濟日報/  中華民國不動產聯盟總會理事長林正雄今(16)日指出,這波房價高漲主因惡性通膨所致,尤其政府重稅也是推手之一。他呼籲,政府要「解決缺工」、「停止重稅」等,才能促進房市發展健康化。中華民國不動產聯盟總會提供。 中華民國不動產聯盟總會理事長林正雄今(16)日指出,這波 房價 高漲主因惡性 通膨 所致,尤其政府重稅也是推手之一,政府接連打房只會讓台灣經濟出現破口。他呼籲,政府要「解決缺工」、「停止重稅」等才能促進房市發展健康化。 他指出,近年房價高漲係因通貨膨脹,使各項原物料大幅上漲,全國缺工已經不只是民間 營建業 的大問題,連政府的公共工程都面臨人力短缺的難解課題,尤其營建署在2020年發布的營造業經濟調查報告顯示,全國營建業已缺工近12萬人,2022年以來,營建業的缺工的數字更是呈倍數成長。 他表示,營建業缺工問題亦使工資不斷墊高,在工料雙漲情況下,業者只能反映成本,這也是目前房價居高不下的原因;然而營造物價高漲是國際貿易問題,不易緩解,但「缺工」問題,政府可以透過制度適度鬆綁,修正外籍移工引進規定來解決,如此才能根本解決高房價問題,才是各黨能否獲得「執政」的關鍵! 另外,林正雄強調,政府歷次打房政策與金融限縮,以及大環境通膨,使得業者經營成本增加,諸多限制與稅制閉鎖期違反市場自然運作,連帶使消費者選擇減少。經過兩年多來的強力打房,民眾們應該要清醒了,政府以加徵重稅來打房,其實無助平抑房價,反而重重傷害了眾多相關從業人員的生計。 林正雄呼籲,政府要「解決缺工」、「停止重稅」,不要再以重稅打房,尊重市場機制,才是房市健康化的開始。

都市脈絡 與 公共建築間的互動

  打造一座偉大的棒球場並非如此簡單:金鶯公園與台北大巨蛋 丁桀   25 Aug, 2022 金鶯公園與台北大巨蛋。 圖/美聯社、聯合報系資料照 本月初,巴爾的摩金鶯隊(Baltimore Orioles)於主場金鶯公園(Oriole Park at Camden Yards) 慶祝 這座廣受 媒體 讚譽的「復古經典式球場(Retro-classic Ball Park)」啟用滿三十週年。金鶯公園的啟用,不但改變1990年代後 美國 職業 棒球 場的設計概念,也讓運動一躍成為美國在談論市中心再生時的關鍵詞。金鶯公園作為美國都市再生的標竿案例,自然也受到美國其他城市,如克里夫蘭、亞特蘭大、聖地牙哥、匹茲堡等,仿效其棒球場設計與規劃模式。 看似只適合美國都市脈絡的規劃設計手法,竟也被台北挪用至 大巨蛋 一案選址合理性的理由。即便從尺度、歷史、文化、甚至是運動發展進程而言,巴爾的摩與台北是完全不同的城市。更何況,一座是營運三十年的金鶯球場,另一座是興建超過三十年的台北大巨蛋。兩座八竿子打不著邊的棒球場,如何在雙城扮演關鍵的發展角色呢? 本文選擇金鶯球場及台北大巨蛋的選址、規劃、設計三個面向,提供大家重新思考,所謂「永遠改變」棒球的棒球場,具體改變了什麼?這些改變對於都市發展是好是壞?對未來棒球場興建規劃的影響為何? 棒球場館選址:一成不變的政治遊戲 1980年代,巴爾的摩能在康登車場(Camden Yards)興建金鶯公園的主因有三。首先,曾任巴爾的摩市長(1971-1987)及馬里蘭州州長(1987-1995)的民主黨人威廉・雪弗(William Schaefer)為防止金鶯離開巴爾的摩,獲得馬里蘭州議會共255億美元支持(球場興建與土地取得費用)。 其次,康登車場雙球場計畫(金鶯公園與 M&T銀行球場 )共計約502億美元的計畫,能呼應1970年代規劃的內港主要計畫(Inner Harbor Master Plan)——一舉翻新市中心衰頹樣貌。其三,反對陣營雖獲得大眾支持,但公民投票的 連署 請求並未受到洲議會及法院青睞,反而大幅削弱反對陣營的聲音。 巴爾的摩金鶯隊(Baltimore Orioles)的主場金鶯公園。 圖/美聯社 同時期,台北市雖在1980年代左右就啟動評估在關渡或七號公園(現大安森林公園)興建一座五萬人座的室內體育場,但...