By mid-century Australia will need almost one million aged care workers. That means almost five per cent of our entire national workforce will be engaged in caring for the burgeoning ranks of the old and frail.

We ain't none of us gettin' any younger. Photo: Alice Prokopec.

Yet, today, we are struggling to maintain an aged care workforce just one quarter that size, leaving many vulnerable, elderly Australians at the mercy of rushed, impersonal “work flows” and a constantly changing roster of carers—and raising the dreadful prospect of “warehousing” the aged into the future, with little more than perfunctory physical care.

This should not come as a surprise. The entry level award wage for personal carers, for example, is significantly lower than the award for new zookeepers charged with the well being of animals.

This particular anomaly was highlighted in the final report of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into aged care released on Monday. But, there are many more.

Take the pay of a worker with certificate III qualifications in aged care and compare it to that of metalworker with the same level qualifications. The metal worker comes out at least 44 per cent better off.

While Australians are, understandably, focused on how they will fund their care in old age—and especially if they will be able to hang onto the family home— it’s just as important to ask who will care for us. The Productivity Commission’s report finally suggests some answers.

The Commission found that, despite existing shortages of aged care workers, competition for staff has not pushed up wages. For these essential workers at the very bottom end of Australia’s pay scales, “market forces” are not working.

This is partly because the pricing of aged care services has long been constrained by various Federal funding formulas, so employers have been able to cry poor. As a result aged care workers have fallen progressively behind community income standards, and their work is now historically undervalued— eroding the attractiveness of aged care jobs.

Should the Federal Government adopt the Commission’s recommendation of sweeping deregulation of the aged care sector, prices for care will rise for those who can afford to pay, and government funding must increase to subsidise those who can’t.

However, the Commission also concluded that we cannot rely on the “market” to right the wages gap, even in competitive, deregulated aged care market. Instead, an “independent mechanism” is needed if we are to succeed in recruiting, training and retaining the qualified workers we need to provide kind, personal, attentive care.

Specifically, the additional funds to ensure “fair and competitive wages” should be separated from the cost of the broader aged care reform agenda.

The alternative is untenable; that is, a failure to meet the emotional, social and physical needs of older Australians as the ranks of the aged swell from 13 per cent of over 65s in 2007 to 23-25 per cent in 2056, and from two per cent to five to seven per cent of over 85s.

In other industries, successive Australian Governments have plugged labour shortages by bringing in migrant workers. But, this is not even a potential, short term “band-aid,” except to assist aged Australians with specific language and cultural needs.

Globally, health and care workers are already in short supply and while demand for aged care workers in Australia and New Zealand triples to 2050; it will double in the much larger markets of the US and Japan.

Based on conversations with our members in aged care, we know many would love nothing more than to be able to draw a decent wage, and to make provision for their own retirement, by caring for others. They are passionate about the role they play in our society and dedicated to their jobs.

But, many of our member currently report persistent time stresses that might limit one-on-one care, for example, to ten minutes a day.

Over half of our residential aged care workers say they don’t have enough time with residents. Yet, we know that well being of the elderly depends on more than simply meeting physical needs like food and hygiene. The result is high staff turnover and low retention rates; only 28 per cent of aged care workers stay in the same job for more than six years.

The Productivity Commission report presents an unprecedented opportunity for change. But, providing dignified care for an ageing population will cost Australian as a nation more. It will also require employers to recognise that wages and conditions must shift upwards.

That’s why we commissioned independent research to coincide with release of the Productivity Commission Report.

The results were encouraging. Australians overwhelmingly believe aged care must be more generously funded by the Federal Government.

Ninety-three per cent of Australians said more aged care funding was “very important” or “quite important”, ahead of renewable energy, public transport and defence. In fact, it was clearly at the top of the funding list.

If this need for increased funding is not met, the alternative is simply untenable – the failure to meet the emotional, social and physical needs of millions of older Australians.

92 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Against the Man says:

      06:16am | 18/08/11

      No worries, with the corrupt Roxon and her cronies in the Nursing Union making decisions to benefit themselves and not us aged care is well ‘taken care’ of. Its not like the ALP ever lies to Australia right Miss No Carbon Tax in a Government I lead!

    • John A Neve says:

      09:57am | 18/08/11

      AtM,
      Just once I’d love to see you address the subject matter, rather than repeat one of your very old rants.
      Please tell, do you ever think?

    • Against the Man says:

      11:39am | 18/08/11

      John A, do you think anyone really cares about what you think?

      You have been exposed as a ALP hound and coward. Remember your regular beatdowns on the Punch before you disappeared for a while, oops I brought up something you might want others to forget!

      Go back to the minority corner and lick your wounds with your alter ego Seano Parkhill. This multiposting by you is getting boring smile

    • Loxy says:

      12:32pm | 18/08/11

      Actually AtM I think that it’s your opinions that we don’t care about. People want to see comments that are relevant and applicable to the article, not off-topic bitter, I hate the ALP comments. And there was no need to be so nasty to John, it was a reasonable comment he made.

    • Loxy says:

      12:32pm | 18/08/11

      Actually AtM I think that it’s your opinions that we don’t care about. People want to see comments that are relevant and applicable to the article, not off-topic bitter, I hate the ALP comments. And there was no need to be so nasty to John, it was a reasonable comment he made.

    • Loxy says:

      12:32pm | 18/08/11

      Actually AtM I think that it’s your opinions that we don’t care about. People want to see comments that are relevant and applicable to the article, not off-topic bitter, I hate the ALP comments. And there was no need to be so nasty to John, it was a reasonable comment he made.

    • John A Neve says:

      12:50pm | 18/08/11

      AtM,
      I’d really like to meet you one day. It would be fun, I don’t really know what sad looks like. Tell us, what do you see when you look in the mirror?

    • egg says:

      01:45pm | 18/08/11

      against the man, so what is your point? that you hate julia gillard, is that it? gee, i’m sure glad you posted. i was wondering, after all… you’re just not very forthcoming with your opinions on this, so it had been bugging me for a while.

      now tell us how you feel about something else completely unrelated, please! this is fun. smile

    • Against the Man says:

      02:11pm | 18/08/11

      John Seano Parkhill if you ever met me you would feel a mountain of inadequacies, I doubt you have either my level of qualifications or ability. And than the fun would really begin.

      I don’t like Juliar, if you guys don’t like it go take a leap at a rolling doughnut on a gravel highway smile

      And you know what would be really fun…...if karma treats you guys as well as it will treat Juliar HaHaHAHa

      And thanks for not denying the ALP corruption at least it is good to know you guys have accepted the ALP MO smile

    • masks inc. says:

      03:20pm | 18/08/11

      JohnNSeanoDamianP,  just once, don’t respond -  it’s the style of response that gives the game away.  Shouldn’t laugh, I know.
      Aged care?  We should be so foolish - to believe Roxon.
      Another problem on its way -  the nursing staff, reluctant to look after the coarse, vulgar, ill-mannered women and men that make up society today,  when they are OLD and coarse, vulgar, ill-mannered.  No nurse will want to go near them.

    • John A Neve says:

      04:54pm | 18/08/11

      AtM,
      Love your modesty, Australia needs more people like you. Your false modesty belies your arrogance. As to your “ability”, meeting you would be fun.
      I still remember your “little girl”, still need help do you?

    • John A Neve says:

      05:03pm | 18/08/11

      Mask inc,
      Dos this mean you are AtM in disguise?
      Get a life, AtM is a troll and a paid one at that. He, she, it has never had an original thought. He, she it, is bought and paid for, sad really, to think it votes!

    • masks inc. says:

      05:31pm | 18/08/11

      Don’t know what AtM does,  but I’m a nurse.  Female.  Theatre.  Any ops scheduled??

    • Against the Man says:

      05:49pm | 18/08/11

      John A Neve seems to like ‘little girls’, well confession is the 1st step before the cops take over.

      Why do you always set yourself up for a fall John/Seano? Not very bright I see…......

      Give it up man, Gillrad/Roxon/ALP are vrap. I challange you to list their significant achievements? Comn on, show us why their poll numbers shouldn’t be so low?

      Yes, as expected all talk but can’t back up the ALP party line!

      Give up loser, multiposting only gets you in more hot water! smile

      Oh BTW how is Craig Thompson doing? Say hi to him down at the ‘party room meeting’ when you meet up with him tonight smile

    • John A Neve says:

      08:22pm | 18/08/11

      AtM,
      Your repetitive posts are truly pathetic. If you really are the voice of the coalition, there is no hope for this country.
      I feel sorry for your carer.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      08:32pm | 18/08/11

      @AtM- not sure how keeping aged care nursing wages artificially low benefits “corrupt Roxon” or the nursing union but then finding logic in any of your posts is impossible at best. By the way, if you have any evidence that Roxon is “corrupt” hadn’t you better take it to the Australian Federal Police?
      Fail Troll is still Fail.

    • Fiona says:

      12:49pm | 19/08/11

      AGTM, thanks for slinging off at nurses yet again.  Do you know and hate a nurse IRL? When’s the last time you set foot in a nursing home anyway? They are understaffed and also rely rely heavily on un/under qualified help. It has only gotten worse since I registered. Adequate nursing care (which means not only numbers, but correctly qualified staff) along with making sure the staff aren’t overworked (and rosters are fair) makes a world of difference . Nursing homes also have trouble attracting suitable/enough geriatic specialist doctors.
      The fact that you told everyone about how wonderful you are smacks of someone who really doesn’t believe his own hype, or is just a troll.

    • TomZ says:

      06:19pm | 19/08/11

      Fiona, the nurses union has zero interest in nurses working in the health system except to use them as a stepping stone to power and an endless source of funds for their union’s disgusting political views.

      No-one is knocking nurses on the ward. However, they have no connection with by parasites such as Roxon. Try to keep the distinction clear in your mind.

    • Aimee Jane says:

      06:49am | 18/08/11

      Great post, Louise! I completely agree. Who is going to take care of me in a few years?! I’m not going to stay this young forever, and I want to make sure I have care from people who have to do the job can afford to surivive-otherwise, what incentive do they have?!
      I hope the government does something about this!

    • Erick says:

      09:54am | 18/08/11

      As a man I don’t have to worry, because I will almost certainly die before I get old enough to need care.

    • marley says:

      10:05am | 18/08/11

      @Erick - well, I think you’re being a bit optimistic if you think you won’t need any care before your early 80s, which is male life expectancy these days.

    • egg says:

      01:48pm | 18/08/11

      @ erick, conspiracyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! feminazi life extension! fight the power! *raises a fist in solidarity*

    • Erick says:

      04:30pm | 18/08/11

      @egg - Don’t be silly, there is no conspiracy. It’s simply a fact that life expectancy for women in Australia is 84 years, while for men it is only 79. Therefore, most men will die before most women.

      This means that aged care is more of an issue for women than for men.

    • marley says:

      02:34pm | 19/08/11

      @Erick - actually, you’re wrong - not about the life expectancy rates, but about dying before you’ll need care. 

      There are two statistics you have to contend with - one is life expectancy, but the other, more important one in this context, is “healthy life expectancy”  - which, as it suggests, is how long you can expect to live a healthy life. 

      For men that was around 71 years (in 2005- latest figures I could find) and for women, around 74 years.  In other words, statistically, you’re going to need care at a younger age than your female counterpart will.  So this is actually a more pressing issue for men of your age than for women of your age.  (Of course, that’s statistical averaging - if your own parents lived into their 80s, you can probably throw the stats out the window)

    • Tezza says:

      05:17pm | 19/08/11

      WTF. In 2065 I will be 119 years old - except I wont be, I’ll be dead.
      And who says we will need four times as many aged care workers then as now.
      A lot can happen in 54 years.
      54 years ago (i.e. 1957) there were telegram boys, and bus conductors - two jobs that no longer exist. (And 54 years before that we had horses and carts instead of motor cars).
      In 1957 there were no supermarkets; instead we had guys wearing aprons behind the counter of grocery stores selling biscuits in brown paper bags. And nobody in my family had ever gone to university.
      In 1957 there were no jobs in television studios because Australia didn’t have television yet, much less the internet. And in 1957 my father worked in the Accounts Department of an insurance company and he had the amazing skill of adding columns of figures in his head - which was very handy because there were no computers or electronic adding machines.
      What a pointless article!
      Society changes, the economy changes, employment changes, life changes.
      We adapt, because that’s what humankind does.

    • Col. of Blackburn says:

      07:10am | 18/08/11

      Ms Tarrant
      As someone who is a member of your union, you don’t have to count me in your formula, I can’t see myself being able to retire at 65, in fact I fully expect to be working at 70, fortunately I am in an industry where that is entirely feasible. I once worked with a co-worker who told me he was 80 and still working.
      Did you ever think that if your fellow travelers in the ALP hadn’t wasted so much money on Pink Batts, School Halls at schools that already had them and the ‘Dept of Climate Change, that the incumbent government might have had some more money to put into the aged care sector?

    • KH says:

      07:47am | 18/08/11

      If you aren’t close to 65, it will actually be 67 by the time you get there.  That will be the retirement age for most of us under 50 now.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      08:15am | 18/08/11

      Col,
      What about the 380 billion dollars wasted by the Howard government on middle class welfare such as baby bonuses, first home owners grants, 30% rebates on private health! Surely whilst the sun was shining and the money was flowing into the coffers, all without a GFC, why didn’t they invest in aged care, or even just healthcare for that matter?

    • marley says:

      08:55am | 18/08/11

      @Evan - well,  rue, but of course the ALP has rectified all of that since they came to power, haven’t they.  Oh wait…

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:45am | 18/08/11

      @Evan and @Marley:

      LMFAO.  You guys are so into the me-tooism, you should just get a room.  Seriously.

      This is a good article, and you’re both worrying about what each other did?  Who cares!!! Just fix the damn problem.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      09:53am | 18/08/11

      Well Marley,
      They do have health care reforms going before parliament this term and now are looking at aged care and disability reforms.
      All it takes on your behalf is to do a little bit of reading and research. But like most conservatives it’s easier to spread mis-truths and run off at the mouth rather than quoting facts.

    • marley says:

      10:06am | 18/08/11

      @Evan - I was specifically referring to your plaint about “middle class welfare.”

    • marley says:

      01:30pm | 18/08/11

      @Mahrat - nah, I don’t think Evan is my type.  And I’m damn sure I’m not his!

      My point really is that both parties have bad records of frittering away taxpayers’ money on short-sighted cash splashes to help their standing in the polls - and for all the complaints (justified) of Howard’s profligacy, the ALP has done no better - while real, looming issues such as this one, are ignored by all.

    • Mayday says:

      07:26am | 18/08/11

      My mother recently spent two months in an aged care facility…....now I understand why the subject of euthanasia is often discussed.

    • Alison says:

      07:32am | 18/08/11

      Col, the retiring age for Australians is no longer 65 but 67years.  This was changed by Kevin Rudd in his term as Prime Minister.  Funny at the time unionists, like yourself, didn’t complain.  You don’t even seem to know it.  Unions seem to complain at Liberal party policy but extending the work years and Carbon tax which results in job loss and they are quiet.  Funny about that.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      10:05am | 18/08/11

      Alison,
      The current retiring age is still 65. It does not jump to age 67 until 2023.

    • Budz says:

      10:46am | 18/08/11

      It should actually increased to be a lot higher. When the age pension was introduced life expectancy was also 65, so not many people were ever eligible for it. It should have changed years ago so people realised that they have to save for themselves.

      The age pension shouldn’t be a right the way a lot of retirees think it should be. I see all the oldies slag the Gen Y people for having a sense of entitlement, but it’s exactly the same when it comes to the Baby boomers and their age pension. I hope all the baby boomers also realise that you guys are as bad as ‘dole bludgers’ once you go on the AP, getting money from the Government for doing nothing!

    • Tubesteak says:

      11:12am | 18/08/11

      If you want to access your super and you were born after the mid-60s then you will need to be 67 before you can access it.

      Of course, retirement is not a function of age but of income. If your investments generate a sustainable level of cash-flow then you can retire whenever you want.

    • marley says:

      12:29pm | 18/08/11

      @Budz - uhh, well you may think retired boomers regard the pension as an entitlement - but given that the oldest boomer is 65, I suspect the people you’re complaining about may just not be boomers. 

      As for why boomers should get it - well, perhaps 45 years of paying for it through taxation should be taken into account? 

      But I agree, it shouldn’t be a right.

    • Mouse says:

      01:05pm | 18/08/11

      The difference being of course Budz, is that the majority of Baby Boomers have paid tax all their working lives. They also did not have mandatory superannuation when they started working and lived with the knowledge that after they worked and then retired they would be eligible for their Aged Pension. Unlike Gen Y, the Baby Boomers also did not get paid to have babies, buy houses or a lot of other concessions that are available today.  I know poor old Gen Y have got it tough, but times change and Gen Y will be the old, money sucking fogies when Gen Z start running the world!

    • egg says:

      01:55pm | 18/08/11

      @tubesteak, sitting here at work (a superannuation company) & checking through the legal documents we’ve been issued regarding this, i can assure you that if you are over 65, regardless of having retired, you can access your funds.

      i don’t know where you’re getting your information from…

    • Budz says:

      04:43pm | 18/08/11

      @Mouse, they didn’t have all those things, but they also were buying houses that were a lot cheaper. I wouldn’t go getting rid of the age pension on those people that didn’t know there wasn’t going to be one, because that’s unfair, but that’s why they should have started increasing the eligibility age a long time ago so people knew they had to start saving for themselves if they wanted to retire before the AP age.

      @Marley:  But an AP shouldn’t be a right just beacuse you paid taxes for 40 years, it should be seen more as a safety net, like the dole is. May be all those right wingers are right about the entitlement mentality.

    • C1 says:

      07:36am | 18/08/11

      I was watching Logan’s Run the other day…......

    • adam says:

      09:44am | 18/08/11

      i keep thinking the same thing, time for the Carousel runner

    • Snow says:

      07:37am | 18/08/11

      As someone with a grandmother in aged care, this is something I worry about a lot. I watch the carers at her facility, and they really want to spend time with my grandmother and take care of her. But they’re so rushed! It’s just not fair. I know my grandmother loves her carers-and I want to be able to love the people taking care of me, too.

    • JohnB says:

      07:38am | 18/08/11

      Our government is squandering our future. They’ve allowed so much of Australia to be sold (85% of mining is foreign owned) there will be nothing left by 2065. They are selling farm land at an horrendous rate. Sure they changed the rules to make us think they’ve done something. The outcome is very different. They just buy lots, and lots, and lots of small parcels (that aint that small). Governments incompetently bumble on in their term. There is no plan for the future. The government let us think we’re rich by giving us access to so much debt using our houses as a ridiculously inflated ATM, while they sell every last bit of family silver we have. That can only lead to disaster.

      The coalition had a future fund, I think Labor spent that before the future arrived on televisions. Nothing to worry about, we’re in really safe hands.

    • Andrew says:

      10:55am | 18/08/11

      So you are against foreign investment too? If we left it to local capital a of lot our current industries would not exist.

    • Tubesteak says:

      11:17am | 18/08/11

      The coalition’s future fund only existed to fund the future pension obligations of public servants. It was not a sovereign wealth fund.

      Labor decided to spend it to combat the GFC and keep us out of recession.

      Personally, I’d rather we stay out of recession now so I could have a job rather than fund the future retirement of public servants because I don’t work in the PS.

    • Donny says:

      11:07pm | 18/08/11

      Tubesteak - How is it you think you fund the future retirement of Public Servants?  Although technically part of your taxes may be paying for their Super, they have to have the Compulsory Super paid by their employer like everyone other Australian worker.  If we cancel the Public Servants Compulsory Super, are we also going to cancel everybody else’s?

    • Euthanistic Enthusiast says:

      07:59am | 18/08/11

      This is the excuse given by capitalists to have a bigger Australia - but what then?  Who will look after those people when they get old? Will we import even more, and more?  It’s time for a SUSTAINABLE POPULATION GROWTH or we won’t have enough water, food, dorcotrs, nurses, policeman etc. and anarchy will reign.

    • Fiddler says:

      08:01am | 18/08/11

      I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again. Soylent Green

    • Dave-o says:

      12:52pm | 18/08/11

      The soloution for both global warming and aged care!

    • djc says:

      08:13am | 18/08/11

      Every government in recent years (not just Gillard Labor) has avoided this crisis. We have to wake people up to what’s happening, make aged care an important and at least equally attractive career option, and applaud writers like Louise.

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:50am | 18/08/11

      This is what happens when governments run the show. Give it to the private sector and tell everyone they need to have the money themselves to fund their retirement and care needs.

      If you don’t provide for yourself then you’re not going to enjoy your twilight years. It’s up to you.

    • David says:

      09:06am | 18/08/11

      Great post, if I have to put parents into care I want to know that those who look after them are paid decently and have time to care for them properly.

    • Joe says:

      09:23am | 18/08/11

      Your comment:No we won’t, well will require probably a quarter of the people currently employed to look after 4 times as many people.  Why? Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and Automation is going to be used to a much greater degree.  Sure it won’t be cheap but it will be a lot cheaper than employing the 4 times as many workers that you are on about.  Our workers of the future will be required to interact and guide these robots, that will be the one big change in the workforce over the next twenty years.

      So you can take a breather on the mass immigration program that you and our other human resource consultants have planned to supply all these workers, because they won’t be required.

    • Benvolio says:

      09:39am | 18/08/11

      Putting the elderly into ‘care’ when they dont need it seems a curiously Anglo Saxon thing. Look after them yourselves, family. Or would that interfere with your lifestyle?
      We should not just care for them ( a la people farm ) but care FOR them.

    • Budz says:

      10:50am | 18/08/11

      That’s certainly right. In a lot of Eastern European and Asian cultures the parents move back in with the kids once they can’t look after them, no questions asked. It’s the least you can do after they looked after you for 20+ years.

    • Loxy says:

      12:37pm | 18/08/11

      Benvoio & Budz, given it’s the women in these cultures that does all the looking after i.e. forgoes a career to stay at home and look after her parents or in-laws I don’t think it’s fair for blokes to be saying this is how it should work.

    • adam says:

      01:56pm | 18/08/11

      Budz,
      Who got their parents to look after ‘em for 20+years? I got out into the real world as soon as I could and so did everyone I know. If you’re still nuzzling the parental teat after your teens you cannot call yourself an adult. And you CAN study and hold down a job concurrently

    • Benvolio says:

      06:59pm | 18/08/11

      @Loxy, who says its a ‘given’ that the women whose families collectively look after the elders give up their careers etc?
      Not in my experience. An enriching life experience caring for your own.

    • Loxy says:

      10:17am | 19/08/11

      Benvolio, let me rephrase it is usually the women who does all the caring and I have certainly never seen a man doing it. Let’s face it, if the elderly folk need to move in with their children or children in-law then they are at the stage where they can’t live in their own place and need assistance - which usually means they can’t be left at home for long periods - so how can you have a career if you are the carer (which surely you can admit is usually the women)?

    • Andrew says:

      10:01am | 18/08/11

      Tell the generation of childless parents this, who will care for them in their old age?

    • Kika says:

      10:21am | 18/08/11

      Childless parents? How can you be a parent if you are childless?

      And more to the point - who is taking care of the oldies now? My grandmother had 4 kids and not one of them is there by her side taking care of her.

    • Benvolio says:

      10:33am | 18/08/11

      It’s off to the dump with them (you?)

    • Budz says:

      10:48am | 18/08/11

      @Andrew: If they didn’t have kids they should have saved an extra $940,000 based on averages, which they can use to fund their retirement.

    • Andrew says:

      11:01am | 18/08/11

      For the record I took care of my grandmother before she went into assisted living.
      The point is, we have a shift in the age demographics in this country, whose taxes are going to pay for a massive increase in non-productive members of society?

      Budz, they should but something tells me that money wont be there when it is needed.

    • Kika says:

      11:46am | 18/08/11

      Andrew how can you assume that ALL childless people are frivolous spenders? I don’t have kids. I save my cash. I don’t have money worries. I don’t have a mortgage and my husband and I are saving a nest egg together. We will have a child in the near future. You cannot dump ALL childless people and call them selfish, which is what you are saying, accusing them of not putting the national interest first when planning to have kids.

      How irresponsible. How can you have a child on the basis that they will be there for you in your old age. Good chances they won’t. The retirement age is going up and up and up, working hours are getting longer and cost of living is rising too. It would be a fair few who can afford to stop working full time to support an elderly relative. My grandmother is 81 this year and is still fiercely independant. She is planning on selling up her home to move in with my mum. However Mum won’t be able to stop working to take care of her. She simply cannot afford to.

    • andrew says:

      12:54pm | 18/08/11

      Calm down Kika, I am not saying that at all.
      My point is that we have large change coming in the age demographic of this country, and going hand in hand with that will be the cost to society to care for them.
      You outlined some of the challenges you faced in your own post.
      I believe it is a valid question to ask how we as a society are going to adapt to this change.

    • Kika says:

      01:52pm | 18/08/11

      “Tell the generation of childless parents this, who will care for them in their old age?”
      “whose taxes are going to pay for a massive increase in non-productive members of society?”
      “Budz, they should but something tells me that money wont be there when it is needed”

      The simple answer is there will be no pension post the baby boomers. We will all have to be self funded retirees. That is a fact.

    • andrew says:

      02:44pm | 18/08/11

      So what happens if our old people cannot afford to self-funded retirees and there is no old age pension?

    • Kika says:

      10:25am | 18/08/11

      Nursing homes are horrible. They are just death camps for oldies. They are bad now, WITH the baby boomers still in the workforce, what happens to them when they retire and get old?

      I hardly see them wanting to sign up for nursing homes and retirement villages.

      Home care - that’s what the next step is. You can’t say a gap in the birth rate will be to blame when we are already doing a lousy job at looking after the old people already even when we have a big workforce.

    • Richard the Lionheart says:

      10:35am | 18/08/11

      We were able to keep Dad (92) in his own home before his fall with help of home carers coming in. (thankyou Mr Howard) The final 3 months of institutionalised care were horrendous despite paying $120 + per night. Maybe insurance companies should be looking at intensive care policies. For myself, I am allowing at least $1500 a week for live in care, in my own home, when my time comes.

    • No to Death's Witing Rooms says:

      10:53am | 18/08/11

      Euthenasia please before a Death’s Waiting Room - at my request.  But there are so many excellent Community Health groups who are trying to keep older people in their own homes, a old aged home should be the last resort.  Or why not give the aged’s children incentive money to add on a gran/pa flat to their own home?

    • marley says:

      12:37pm | 18/08/11

      Just to give another perspective on this, my mother is in a retirement home (not, thankfully, a nursing home).  She has her own little apartment, but gets meals with the rest of the residents.  There’s someone around 24/7 so if she needs anything, help is available.  She gets some assistance with bathing and with housekeeping, gets trips to the shops and little excursions from time to time - and is quite happy. 

      It was her choice to move to the home when she could no longer manage on her own - even though my sister has a granny flat and offered it to her.  Mom’s always been an independent character.

      She’s been in the retirement home for about 4 years, and we’re satisfied she’s well cared for (my sister sees her a couple of times a week - the place is five minutes walk from her house). 

      So it’s not always a question of warehousing the older folk or of not wanting to look after them.  They’re not children, have minds of their own, and can make their own choices.  I don’t think Mom made a bad one.  And at 94, no one’s going to argue with her!

    • deb says:

      11:21am | 18/08/11

      My mother was enjoying her life in an aged care home.Probably for the first time in her life she was worry free.Then a week ago she fell and broke her hip.Now in a hospital many miles from her hostel she has become frail and scared and worried.
      Breaks my heart to see her like this.no fair to get old and suffer even more. Hard to reassure her when at 83 the thought of months of recovery seem endless.

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      11:34am | 18/08/11

      As a carer for nearly 10 years I feel entitled to comment.  I am now over the age of retirement and can see nothing for me as I am on my own, no children and still a carer.  I pray this is sorted out by the time I need it but do not hold out much hope until there are so many of us that government is forced to do something truly constructive.  We all will need care at some time.  I have seen enough of the “system” today to know it is totally broken. SHAME - Gillard would have been better off “fixing” this and not Howard’s working policies.  $700 + million would have made a difference instead of spending it on boat people in detention centres, Add $ 300 million for the Malaysian “solution” and we have $1 + billion dollars to invest.  Strange priorities for Labor don’t you think ?  Labor has lost touch with the people and will pay the price.

    • the future is not all doom says:

      12:33pm | 18/08/11

      No we won’t. If we still have a functioning society by 2065, those elderly people will be more capable of looking after themselves due to improved health treatments and they will also have access to far more sophisticated technological aids. They’ll be far fitter, more mobile and less prone to crippling mental decline.

    • Joe says:

      02:59pm | 18/08/11

      I agree 100% with your proviso.  I doubt we will be a functioning society by 2065 if we continue to be guided by all the individual rights rubbish we have been rail roaded into by the UN.  The sum effect of all these sacrosanct individual rights is a totally dysfunctional Western society when the people of welfare are having the most children, producing further dysfunction.  May God help us because the UN certainly won’t, our politicians who are guided by special interest groups won’t either.

    • Fiona says:

      01:04pm | 19/08/11

      Just because we are living longer and longer, doesn’t mean we are living better.

    • Al Chunk says:

      01:29pm | 18/08/11

      There’s a lot to be said for a diet full of trans fats and its reward of a reasonably quick coronary failure exit that only speeding traffic can match.  It reflects on us all that the lowest paid workers in the country are the ones we charge with the care of our young children and aged parents, while the highest paid play with meaningless financial abstractions.  My ambition to have lots of things above anything else means I trample on decency, sneer at care and avoid family duties because I am addicted to consensual consumption.  I hope when I am dumped in the nursing home, a visit from Dr Nitshcke is the Keno prize, but the nursing home just might be when I finally get what I deserve.

    • Joe says:

      03:12pm | 18/08/11

      Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and Automation will be providing the answer in twenty years.

      Foxconn which is a contract manufacturer based out of Tiawan but has its operations around the world where it can find the cheapest labour.  It is commencing a project to replace 1,000,000 workers with 300,000 robots.

      http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1574523/Foxconn-1-million-robots-in-3-years

      Humans won’t be taken completely out of the loop but they will need to be more highly skilled and trained.

      However the age of the unskilled worker is going at a rate of knots.  So hold off on that mass immigration agenda to solve this perceived future shortage which in all likelihood will never eventuate.

      If you have a young smart child my advice is to get them to study Mandarin (early in life its much easier) and robotic engineering (at uni).  This should set them up nicely for the future.

    • Mr Pastry says:

      09:01pm | 18/08/11

      Robots will never be as cheap to set up as the poor in a poor country.  Why bother? it is like sicentists, at vast expense, trying to replicate with machines the capability of a dogs nose in detecting cancers and other ailments - just use a bl00dy dog.

    • Nikki Heat says:

      02:47pm | 18/08/11

      Only one man can tell you what will happen in 2065 !
      Thats Rick Castle,Rick Castle! Coming soon to Seven !

    • Greg says:

      05:57pm | 18/08/11

      The aging population will also prompt the need for more health care workers, which as indicated in this article, are also in short supply.

      So where is the campaign to pay doctors more?

      The fact is that low skilled occupations can be filled by more people. More supply means less demand. Less demand means lower pay. Market forces are working perfectly.

      And polling will always produce results indicating that government funding on services should be increased, as long as the person being polled doesn’t have to pay for it through higher taxes.

    • Jane2 says:

      07:21pm | 18/08/11

      Why dont we have “Aged Care Insurance” in this country? The US does. I want it. I am willing to pay for it for myself (39yo) and my mother to ensure both of us have care.

      Im unmarried and earn only an “average” salary, if Mum needs care and she doesnt have the resources to get into a facility, I will have to give up my job to become a full time carer so that would be 2 people who are a burden on the tax payer.

      Bring “Care Insurance” to Australia

    • malc says:

      08:30pm | 18/08/11

      I’ll either be dead or 114 in 2065. Can’t say I really care

    • Matt says:

      09:46am | 19/08/11

      OH god!  I shutter to think what the world will be like in 2065, aged care will probably be the least of our problems. 
      This article is also very depressing to me as I will be 87, hopefully I won’t last that long !

    • Millicent says:

      11:24am | 19/08/11

      Perhaps it would be easier to just shoot everyone when the turn 67, that way you would not have to worry about the cost!

    • P. Dantic says:

      12:17pm | 19/08/11

      For God’s sake, we don’t want 4 times more aged care workers, we need young ones, no point in the blind leading the blind.

    • The Badger says:

      01:10pm | 19/08/11

      Two young businessmen in Sydney were sitting down for a break in their soon-to-be new store in the shopping mall. As yet, the store wasn’t ready, with only a few shelves and display racks set up.

      One said to the other, “I’ll bet that any minute now some nosy pensioner is going to walk by, put his face to the window, and ask what we’re selling.” Sure enough, just a moment later, a curious senior gentleman walked up to the window, looked around intensely and rapped on the glass, then in a loud voice asked, ” Hey! What are you selling’ here?” One of the men replied sarcastically, “We’re selling arse-holes.”

      Without skipping a beat, the old timer said, “You must be doing well. Only two left.”

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 Very difficult to believe the excitment of 'Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme' website doesn't have ppl all over it.

Malcolm Farr

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 As for the 'Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping' website, just how do you contain your excitement?

Malcolm Farr

RT @lynlinking: @farrm51 Well the links should be posted on Twitter more, by people that care about the Government. Perhaps the MSM could help cheers lyn

Malcolm Farr

941 web sites and nothing to read. The rarely visited http://t.co/vPfJmesu sites. http://t.co/MhXMyvZv

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

Reports of Ron Paul’s political demise have been greatly exaggerated and his tactical genius is…

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not…

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Ten million children vaccinated. 2.5 million people with access to safe drinking water. And 30 million…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: The greatest ending to a football season ever?

Dave B says:

Congratulations & well deserved win! I've been a Utd supporter from 7 years of age, even stuck with them when they went down to the 2nd Div. However, despite the X-town rivalry & even as a devout MU fan, I can say that I truly admired the determination, courage & skill shown by the Blues - What a spectacle,… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Real women like men who drink beer

Real women like men who drink beer

British comedian John Cleese calls them “beer fairies”.  It’s a euphemism for… Read more

198 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter