Baby boomtime

A third area of intervention relates to population policy. To what extent do we act to increase the numbers in the working ages to offset the burgeoning numbers of baby boomers? There is a failure to appreciate that while Australia’s population is increasing at the fastest rate for 19 years, much of the growth is occurring in the older age groups as large baby boomer cohorts replace much smaller World War II-Depression cohorts. Hence between the 2001 and 2006 censuses the number of Australians in the prime workforce ages of 20 to 39 increased by 1.7 per cent while the numbers aged 50-59 increased by 14.9 per cent.

This pattern will be exacerbated over the next two decades where under even the most optimistic ABS projections the population aged 20-59 will increase by 21.2 per cent between 2004 and 2031 while those aged 65+ will increase by 136.3 per cent. Hence most population growth in Australia over the next quarter century will be confined to the older age groups.

To maintain the workforce age groups at around current numbers will necessitate keeping fertility near current levels (Total Fertility Rate 2007 - 1.855) and a substantial net gain of immigrants concentrated in the young adult ages.

None of these three areas of policy intervention offers a “silver bullet” simple solution to the pressures to arise from the retirement of baby boomers but together they can ensure that Australia can cope with this parametric shock to its demography and economy. However, the necessity is that relevant policy change is initiated in all these areas as a matter of some urgency.

While the “crunch” of baby boomers moving into the high risk “old old” age groups is two decades away for those interventions to be effective they need to be introduced now. Australia can cope with the ageing shock of the baby boomers but only if there is no complacency and these changes are made now.

While there has been a flurry of activity to examine the demographic and economic implications of the ageing of baby boomers much less is understood about the social and cultural impacts. As a group, baby boomers are as heterogeneous as any other Australian generation but they do differ from earlier and later generations in some significant ways which will influence their experience in old age and impact on Australian society more generally. While there is little empirical research on how baby boomers are likely to behave in their older years a few informed speculations can be made here from a demographic perspective.

An important question relates to where will the baby boomers live in the older years. Traditionally in Australia older people have been the least likely of all Australians to move house. Over the 2001-06 period only 22.0 per cent of Australians aged over 65 moved house compared with 54.0 per cent of those aged 45 or less. Will baby boomers follow this pattern or will they be more likely to move during their older years?

Even if only the same proportion move the fact that there are so many of them will mean that some trends in older population movement which are already in evidence will involve many more people. Hence sea-change and tree-change moves will be much more substantial. Within major metropolitan areas there are some indications that baby boomers are significant in the migration into central, inner and seaside suburbs. Will they move to be closer to their children (and grandchildren)? What is the significance of such a high percentage not having a partner? Does that mean new forms of group housing may become popular in particular locations?

Nothing is known about the mobility intentions of baby boomers after retirement and research is needed. What seems certain, however, is that the spatial distribution of baby boomers as older people in Australia will be quite different to the current distribution of older Australians. Most are likely to stay in the house in which they brought up their families and the bulk of these are in low density outer suburban areas.

What does this mean for the spatial patterning of future demand for aged care services? Is there a spatial mismatch between where the services are and where older Australians will be? Does the low density of public transport and highly concentrated pattern of services location mean that baby boomers will suffer from significant isolation once they are no longer able to drive their own motor vehicles? Will suburbs have to be retrofitted if they are going to become elder friendly?

One of the new mobility tendencies among recent retirees in Australia is the “grey nomad” phenomenon in which many are taking to the road for significant parts of the year. If baby boomers engage in this to a greater extent it will mean that there will be greatly increased numbers of temporarily present populations in many parts of Australia, especially the north. The economic and environmental impacts could be considerable.

More baby boomers have survived to enter the older ages that any previous generation. Superficially then they may appear, and probably perceive themselves, as the fittest generation to enter old age. However this must be questioned. Baby boomers have the highest incidence of overweight and obesity of any current Australian generation - 72 per cent of men and 58 per cent of women aged 55-64 in 2004. The total cost to the community of obesity among baby boomers in 2005 was estimated by Access Economics to be $3.8 billion, half of it due to lost productivity. Obesity and overweight among baby boomers is almost totally neglected in Australia where the overwhelming discourse on obesity focuses on children and young families. While this indeed is an important national issue, obesity among baby boomers is also deserving of urgent attention for the following reasons: