Population of Seniors in US Reaches 1 in 5

Listening to NPR and new stats of 1 in 5 United States citizens will be aged 65 and older very shortly.

Listen Up America.  This generation is followed by another record breaking generation no one's mentioning -- the Baby Boomer's Children or Generation X.

And, with life expectations lengthening, we'll soon have a record breaking population of Seniors in the 65 to 95 age bracket.

What are we doing to increase the health and well being of our aging population?

Well, we're continuing to break them down with ageism and lack of accommodation.

Example:  Daughter's in a class that includes a man in his 70's who is being "harassed" by a man in his 50's. 

Both had to pass exceptional ability tests of all ages few survived including those in their twenties and early thirties.

Both "belong" by these standards and by their daily performance, but this man is already concerned there won't be enough "share of the pi" to go around, apparently. 

Of course, the "younger" man cites the "older man" should "make way for the much younger generation" but the 50's something guy should be glad the 70 something man is there.

Replacing him with a 20 or 30 something individual would be statistically more detrimental to the 50 something man. Think about it -- younger, more years to work, better investment for a company, etc etc.

The 50's something man is typical of his age group and of our society as a whole.

He's reached the age of seeing the future and he doesn't like it. He's experienced the end of life as he knew it -- no longer employed.

By 40 something in most jobs, there's weeding of personnel. Those who are "chosen" get the opportunities and advancement, those who are "left behind" begin the weeding process that starts around this age and by 50 is in full swing.

Early retirement to forced retirement or even lay offs, discontinuation of a position (change of position with requirements known the individual cannot fulfill) and so many other ways to "cull and remove".

The 50's something guy is smart. He's realized he has to retrain and do it quickly in a field that needs so many more people than it has because he has a higher chance of getting a coveted job simply because of the scarcity.


He also knows he has to survive and survival means "attacking" or somehow overcoming any member of the species that seems "weaker" or "vulnerable".

He's found what he believes is an easy target and one he believes others will also select for "removal" or at least for "overlooking" in their own favors.

However, as with any other skill set or requirement, soon there will be an influx of "newbies" trained along the way from high school onward and needing a little extra "monitoring" but still workable and hireable. 

Many are "taking courses" on line for the "new" world we've created. It's common knowledge in the computer coding community, for example, people are training and learning by themselves and therefore need less "help" and instruction. 

Machines instructing could be replacing the vast collegiate market created with the Baby Boomer generation. 

Already they're being used as the "main instructor" with previous lead instructors becoming mentors, advisors and providing clarification or assistance rather than being a main source of securing basic information and instruction.

Then what? With this advent of learning when and where you want, what will our economy look like in the future with less need for "classroom" instruction and those college degrees that cost so much and took so much time? 

What will we do to control the influx of new talent and ability to maintain a balance within the 25+ age groups if we reduce the age of challenging others for space in the job market reduces from 20 something to 18+?

When we become a nation of data entry, data movers and data providers, isn't that moving the needle backwards to the time of having more jobs at lower pay because less education was needed? Or, at the very least, positions that are easier to fill and therefore have a higher turnover rate?

My opinion is the most affected segment of the population are those currently past 65 and the many more entering this age group daily and the Millennials who are behind the next generation of Seniors and in front of those who were "born into" the Computer Age and basically given internet access as a birthright and entitlement. 

After all, schools have changed and society has changed -- computer access can be everywhere including at libraries and training starts early in the most current computer procedures, applications and configurations.

Yes, the 50 something man has the most challenging role to play in life as he sees it. But he's already in the Senior category and if he doesn't value that age group and their needs and rights now, he'll soon be experiencing first hand what he failed to recognize and take action to change.

Our society cannot succeed with so many NEW Seniors "put out to pasture" at an age that once was "acceptable" for "retirement" but now leaves the door of many more years of life for which to provide.

Seniors today can do just so much "socializing". Faced with many more years and skyrocketing medical and even basic costs of living including the cost of food, utilities, property taxes, transportation, the savings for many has been greatly affected by each decade's monetary crisis from the 1970's onward and from dynamically climbing costs of living.

Yes, there are and will continue to be a select number of people who are "well off" but those figures are swiftly declining as our economy shifts to placing even our younger members into the ranks of the unemployed while we adjust to the "new economy" and "new work world".

Jobs should not be allocated or designed to exclude or eliminate. All age groups are valuable assets. 

Ageism is the new way we control economic adjustments we haven't been able to control with creating jobs that value and recognize differences and abilities.