Age Is More Than a Number When It Comes to Policy

Why how long people have been alive is not a good yardstick for judging who is 'old'

- Sarah O'Connor

I think there is an unwritten law that every article or policy discussion about the ageing population must begin with some scary statistics to frame the debate. So here are a few from the UN: Between 2015 and 2050, the proportion of the world's population who are over 60 years old will nearly double from 12 per cent to 22 per cent. In 2021, there were 17 people aged 65 and over for every 100 people aged 20 to 64 (this is the so-called "old-age dependency ratio"); by 2050, there will be 29 for every 100.

So far, so familiar. But what if these statistics aren't a useful frame for the debate? What if "65 and over" is a bad definition of "old age"? In fact, what if chronological age isn't a good yardstick for ageing at all?

The only thing a person's chronological age really tells you is how many years they have been alive. Policymakers fret over statistics like the ones above because they're using chronological age as a proxy for other things they're worried about, such as the number of frail or ill people who will need health or social care in future, or the economic and fiscal impact of fewer workers and more pensioners, and so on.