Howard Baker Quotes

The changes taking place in the age structure of the countries around the world are stunning.

Our population is headed for a stable plateau, which means an aging population.

By the year 2020, the year of perfect vision, the old will outnumber the young.

The aging and declining population will have far-reaching impacts. Declining fertility rates will possibly increase immigration. The structure of family and society will inevitably change.

Japan actually is an aging population, and so as the population has aged, they have had a lot more problems with health.

If there are healthy - and growing - numbers of people working and paying taxes, we are better able to pay the costs of people living longer.

Every industry is going to be affected (by the aging population). This creates tremendous opportunities and tremendous challenges.

With longer life spans and better health and education, many feel that giving birth to a baby a mere couple of decades after they themselves were in the cradle is a little premature.

The aging of the U.S. population is a theme that we believe strongly in and the health care sector is really right in the bulls eye of this particular theme.

I don't feel that 40 is anything these days. Our life expectancy is so much greater that maybe 50 is the new 40.

This is a very difficult question. If you take a look at the aging population and demographics, we are going to have a big increase in the number of health care jobs needed in the state and in the country.

Most people understand life expectancy has changed since Social Security started in 1937 when folks lived to be 59 years old. Today, they live to be 77 years old.

People over 100 are the fastest-growing group in America. People soon will be working 'til 100 - some because they have to - and living 'til 125 or even 135. What do I know, I'm just a weatherman, but I've made a hobby of studying this, and it's phenomenal.

I think America may be growing up and accepting the fact that the bulk of life exists beyond 50. Because demographically... the vast population is over 50.

When the social security age was first established as 65, most people didn't live to be that old.

As more people live longer, we can expect there to be additional costs for society.

We are living on average today 34 years longer than our great-grandparents did.

Over time, the welfare state has become dysfunctional in a surprising way. But in a way it became a victim of its own success: It became so successful at prolonging life, that it becomes financially unsustainable, unless you make major changes to things like retirement ages.

Who are benefits promised to, overwhelmingly? Well, they're promised to older people. And if you have a society like Europe that is upside down where there are a lot more older people than younger people, you have economic calamity.

The debate around the ageing population should, in my view, focus much more on how we grow the active, working population.

People use so much more health care when they live longer.

While prosperity and longevity arrive together, they cannot be treated the same. With greater wealth, people in Asia may not have to work as many hours as they do now. But living longer means they will have to work more years, not fewer.

The life expectancy is much longer today than it was when Social Security was created.

People are going to be living quite soon for 100 years. Our idea of how a family works no longer applies. It's no good saying you're going to have children for 15 years and then you're going to retire and have hobbies, because you've got 40 more years to go after 60 and you're in good health until 90 or something.

Modern medicine has presented us with a Faustian bargain: Our aging bodies can bankrupt our children and grandchildren. We have run into the 'law of diminishing returns' in health care, where we are often doing more and more, with higher and higher technology, at more and more cost, for less and less benefit.