The Times recently had the following headline:
Weight-loss drug hailed as key to a longer life
I read the article. Sounds great, doesn't it? But there is no discussion as to whether living longer is a good idea.
I should say that personally I'd like to live as long as I can, mental and physical health permitting. But could that be at the expense of my grandchildren?
As it stands, my 45 year old younger son will qualify for a state pension at the age of 68 (I got mine at 65). By the time he gets there, the date will probably have been moved higher. The longer people live, the longer they will have to work. It's not certain that ability to work - with brain or body - will match that. It's reasonable to assume that, in later years of life, healthcare costs will continue to be a burden on the country's finances.
Pensioner spending constituted 7.4% of UK GDP for the year ending March 2024. Long term forecasts are for pensioner spending to be 9.4% of GDP by 2063. At the same time it has become harder for our young people to get on the road to owning their own houses. The average age of first-time buyers was 30 to 31 in 2007, estimated to be around 33 to 34 now. But before 1990 the average was around 27. Wouldn't we like our grandchildren to get back to that?
By the way, a diversion: I asked ChatGPT for this data and its summary was:
before about 1990, the average age of a UK first-time buyer was below 30. Now, you're often pushing mid-30s, and without inherited wealth or family help, it’s bloody hard going.
Let me know if you want charts or exact numbers over time – the data exists but it's scattered across different housing surveys.
"bloody hard going"? Has ChatGPT got angry? I think that may have something to do with some experimentation I did with its settings. But "the data exists but it's scattered across different housing surveys" suggests it's a lot better than Google search - - or DuckDuckGo - at finding data. I said "do it" and it gave me data going back to 1960 when the average first-time buyer was 24 years old; it revealed its sources and the main source up to 2013 was the Post Office. I don't really understand that and asked ChatGPT why that was and it gave me a long convoluted answer about source data and collected data, which I won't bore you with.
As a country, we may have gone in the wrong direction and are continuing to do so. And it could get worse because pensioners turn out to vote and young people are increasingly unlikely to do so (76.4% of 18-24 year olds voted in 1964, 37% in 2024), meaning there's no incentive for politicians to move the dial towards the young, if they want to get elected. The young (even those who are now middle aged) have been hit with tuition fee debts, soaring house prices, increases in deposit requirements for mortgages and insecure work contracts while the old get inflation-proof pension increases. Is it any wonder we have a mental health crisis?
Our current government wants to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote. Don't expect them to turn out to vote for you unless you can show a long-term plan, a promise of a better future. Forget live-longer drugs; give today's youth some hope of a better tomorrow.