The rise of the parensioner

A new trend in England  is interesting; I wonder if other countries are having the same trend and if the issue will be something to think about as more of us retire.

A 'parensioner' is defined as any man over the age of 45 and any woman over the age of 40 that became a parent to a new child from 1992 to 2012
- Almost one million adults in the UK are parensioners: people having children in their 40s, 50s and 60s who will reach retirement age while financially supporting young offspring - 49 and 43 are now widely considered to be the 'cut-off' ages for men and women to have children - 33% of male parensioners were between 50 and 70 when they became fathers. 6% of women were over 45 - Current average retirement savings of a parensioner would leave them over £2000 short per year compared to the average annual cost of raising a child
Steve Martin, Elton John, Susan Sarandon, Michael Douglas, Sarah Jessica Parker and almost one million(1) people in the UK can, from today, officially class themselves as 'parensioners'(2). They're the rapidly growing group of men and women having children in their 40s, 50s, 60s and beyond, and will be of retirement age when they are still financially supporting their young offspring.
The rise of the parensioners was discovered during a new study into parenting trends by retirement specialist LV=(3). In the twenty years between 1992 and 2012, the number of people having children after the age of 40 (45 for men) has risen by 298% for women and 149% for men(4).
Looking at the ages when this group became parensioners(5), one in eight (12% or 65,022) gents were over 60, while a quarter (24% or 135,508) were in their 50s when their last child was born. For the ladies, while the majority (94% or 347,126) were between 40 and 44 years of age, one in 20 (6% 18,781) were over 45 when they last welcomed new life into their world.
Never too old?
The results of the research also point to a marked attitudinal change in what the nation now believes is the acceptable 'cut-off age' for having children. For today's chaps the acceptable last chance saloon for parenthood is now considered to be 49 on average, with almost a quarter (22%) saying 55 is the acceptable cut off point for men. Understandably the age drops for women, with the acceptable cut-off point for having a baby cited as 43 years of age. Today's average ages are both seven years later than the perceived acceptable cut-off age for the previous generation having children.
The top reasons people have become parensioners include:
Wanting to have one more child before they were "too old" (32%)
Having a child later that they hoped after trying to conceive for some time (24%)
Not meeting the right person to have a child with until they were older        (20%)
The pregnancy was unplanned (13%)
The feeling that they were not ready to be a parent at a younger age             (13%)
The desire to enjoy the freedom of not having a child for as long as possible (10%)
Advancements in IVF (7%)
The financial demands of modern life, such as getting on the property ladder first (7%)
The desire to establish a successful career before starting a family           (6%)
The power of the celebrity
In this celebrity-obsessed world, high-profile cases of parensionhood have also influenced when some everyday men and women choose to become parents. One in fourteen (7%) admitted they were directly influenced to have children later in life by the likes of Elton John (65), Sir Paul McCartney (70), Rod Stewart (68), Madonna (54), Steve Martin (67) and the fictional portrayals of parensioners in TV shows such as 'Modern Family'.
However, while 'it's no sacrifice' for Elton John and co., whose kids will grow up in the lap of luxury, the everyday parensioners of Britain face a very real crisis: how to fund their fast-approaching retirement while financially supporting a young family.
Stretching the finances
The potential financial strains of parensionhood are thrust into the light when comparing the GBP 10,593.23 average annual cost of raising a child(6) alongside the savings parensioners currently have for retirement(7), which would give them an annual income of GBP 8,407. That is, of course, if they have a private pension. Worryingly 27% of parensioners confessed to not having put away a single penny for their lives after work.
Nearly a quarter (22% or 219,311) of parensioners have children that will be aged 15 or younger when they reach pensionable age. And many more parensioners will see their retirement years coincide with one of the most expensive periods of raising a child: university. With the average cost of attending university standing at GBP 53,330 over the course of a typical degree(8), that's a considerable outlay at a time when many parensioners will be hoping to rein in spending to make ends meet.
With the impending reality of struggling financially, almost half (47%) of parensioners believe they need to urgently increase their savings and life cover for retirement, by almost GBP 500 per month on average. This would enable parensioners to feel they could maintain a comfortable retired lifestyle and continue to support their young children - something that is no doubt easier said than done.
Considering all of this, it is understandable that almost three quarters (73%) of parensioners regularly worry about how they will cope with the dual financial pressures of parenting and retiring. Sadly, almost half (47%) admitted that money woes have them wishing they'd started a family at a younger age.
Ray Chinn, LV= Head of Pensions, said: "We often see tales of mature celebrities that have become new parents, and now we can see just how many normal men and women are following in their famous footsteps and becoming what has today been dubbed 'parensioners'.
"Everyone has their own reasons for when they start a family, and we didn't conduct this study to judge what age a person should have a child. However, for anyone that is considering bringing little ones into their lives, whatever their age, we would urge them to think about their future savings and retirement plans, seek specialist advice and consider all of the options that will help them sustain their lifestyle and continue to be able to provide for their children on their paths to adulthood."
Notes to editors
(1) According to the Office for National Statistics (based on data contained within 'Conceptions In England and Wales', 'Characteristics of Mother 2' and 'Further Parental Characteristics') between the years 2012 and 1992 there were 592,661 men that became fathers over the age of 45 and 396,386 women that became mothers over the age of 40. This is a total population size of 989,047.
(2) A 'parensioner' is defined as any man over the age of 45 and any woman over the age of 40 that became a parent to a new child from 1992 to 2012.
(3)The study was conducted by Opinium Research using custom and omnibus research on behalf of LV=. This included a poll of 520 British men and women over the ages of 45 / 40 (respectively) that had become parents to a new child from 1992 to 2012 and a nationally representative online poll of 2,002 adults aged 25 and over. The research was carried out from 7 - 11 March 2013.
(4) According to the Office for National Statistics (based on data contained within 'Conceptions In England and Wales', 'Characteristics of Mother 2' and 'Further Parental Characteristics') in 2012 there were an estimated 35,558 men over 45 and 30,479 women over 40 that became a parent to a new child. In 1992, there were 23,800 men over 45 and 10,197 women over 40 that became a parent to a new child. Comparing the percentage change between the two years by gender equals 149.4% for men and 298.9% for women.
(5) According to the Office for National Statistics (based on data contained within 'Conceptions In England and Wales', 'Characteristics of Mother 2' and 'Further Parental Characteristics').
(6) According to figures taken from the 2012 'Cost of a Child Report' from LV= the average cost of raising a child from birth to 21 years is GBP 222,458. Averaged over the 21 years this equates to GBP 10,593.23 per year per child. The cost of a child calculations have been compiled by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) on behalf of LV= in December 2012 and are based on the cost for the 21 year period to December 2012.
(7) According to the results of the research conducted by Opinium Research on behalf of LV= the average amount a parensioner with a private pension has contributed is GBP 452.22 for an average of 19 years. Based on assumptions made by LV= on investment growth, charges and annuity rates this would give an annual income of GBP 8,410 as at 21/03/13.
(8) According to figures taken from the 2012 LV= Cost of University report. The LV= Cost of University study was constructed by Opinium between 18 - 27 July 2012. Opinium identified the top 40 regional universities and analysed public information on fees, living costs, expenses and accommodation
About LV=
LV= employs over 5500 people and serves around five million customers with a range of financial products. We are the UK's largest friendly society and a leading financial mutual.

The Untapped Power Of Smiling

The Untapped Power Of Smiling By Ron Gutman

Recently I made an interesting discovery while running – a simple act that made a dramatic difference and helped carry me through the most challenging segments of long distance runs: smiling. This inspired me to embark on a journey that took me through neuroscience, anthropology, sociality and psychology to uncover the untapped powers of the smile.

I started my exploratory journey in California, with an intriguing UC Berkeley 30-year longitudinal study that examined the smiles of students in an old yearbook, and measured their well-being and success throughout their lives. By measuring the smiles in the photographs the researchers were able to predict: how fulfilling and long lasting their marriages would be, how highly they would score on standardized tests of well-being and general happiness, and how inspiring they would be to others. The widest smilers consistently ranked highest in all of the above.

Even more surprising was a 2010 Wayne State University research project that examined the baseball cards photos of Major League players in 1952. The study found that the span of a player’s smile could actually predict the span of his life! Players who didn’t smile in their pictures lived an average of only 72.9 years, while players with beaming smiles lived an average of 79.9 years.

Continuing my journey, I learned that we’re part of a naturally smiling species, that we can use our smiling powers to positively impact almost any social situation, and that smiling is really good for us.

Surprisingly, we’re actually born smiling. 3-D ultrasound technology now shows that developing babies appear to smile even in the womb. After they’re born, babies continue to smile (initially mostly in their sleep) and even blind babies smile in response to the sound of the human voice.

A smile is also one of the most basic, biologically uniform expressions of all humans. Paul Ekman (the world’s leading expert on facial expressions) discovered that smiles are cross-cultural and have the same meaning in different societies. In studies he conducted in Papua New Guinea, Ekman found that members of the Fore tribe (who were completely disconnected from Western culture and were also known for their unusual cannibalism rituals) attributed smiles to descriptions of situations in the same way you and I would.

Smiling is not just a universal means of communicating, it’s also a frequent one. More than 30% of us smile more than 20 times a day and less than 14% of us smile less than 5 times a day. In fact, those with the greatest superpowers are actually children, who smile as many as 400 times per day!

Have you ever wondered why being around children who smile frequently makes you smile more often? Two studies from 2002 and 2011 at Uppsala University in Sweden confirmed that other people’s smiles actually suppress the control we usually have over our facial muscles, compelling us to smile. They also showed that it’s very difficult to frown when looking at someone who smiles.

Why? Because smiling is evolutionarily contagious and we have a subconscious innate drive to smile when we see one. This occurs even among strangers when we have no intention to connect or affiliate with the other person. Mimicking a smile and experiencing it physically helps us interpret how genuine a smile is, so that we can understand the real emotional state of the smiler.

In research performed at the University of Clermont-Ferrand in France, subjects were asked to interpret real vs. fake smiles, while holding a pencil in their mouths to repress the muscles that help us smile. Without the pencils in their mouths, subjects were excellent judges, but with the pencils (when they could not mimic the smiles they saw), their judgment was impaired.

These findings would not have surprised Charles Darwin, who in addition to theorizing on evolution in The Origin of the Species, also developed the Facial Feedback Response Theory, which suggests that the act of smiling actually makes us feel better (rather than smiling being merely a result of feeling good).

This theory is supported by various recent studies, including research out of Echnische Universität in Munich Germany. In a 2009 study, scientists there used fMRI (Functional MRI) imaging to measure brain activity in regions of emotional processing in the brain before and after injecting Botox to suppress smiling muscles. The findings showed that facial feedback (such as imitating a smile) actually modifies the neural processing of emotional content in the brain, and concluded that our brain’s circuitry of emotion and happiness is activated when we smile!

Smiling stimulates our brain’s reward mechanisms in a way that even chocolate, a well-regarded pleasure-inducer, cannot match. In a study conducted in the UK (using an electromagnetic brain scan machine and heart-rate monitor to create “mood-boosting values” for various stimuli), British researchers found that one smile can provide the same level of brain stimulation as up to 2,000 chocolate bars; they also found that smiling can be as stimulating as receiving up to 16,000 Pounds Sterling in cash. That’s 25 grand a smile… it’s not bad…at 400 daily smiles quite a few children out there feel like Mark Zuckerberg every day!

And unlike lots of chocolate, lots of smiling can actually make you healthier. Smiling has documented therapeutic effects, and has been associated with: reduced stress hormone levels (like cortisol, adrenaline, and dopamine), increased health and mood enhancing hormone levels (like endorphins), and lowered blood pressure.

If that’s not enough, smiling also makes us look good in the eyes of others. A recent Penn State University study confirmed that when we smile we not only appear more likeable and courteous, but we’re actually perceived to be more competent.

So now we know that:

•When you smile, you look good and feel good.

•When others see you smile, they smile too.

•When others smile, they look good and feel good, too.

Perhaps this is why Mother Teresa said: “I will never understand all the good that a simple smile can accomplish.” What’s the catch? Only that the smile you give has to be big, and genuine!

In my fascinating journey to uncover more about smiling, I discovered something far greater than just a way to get through a challenging run – I found a simple and surprisingly powerful way to significantly improve my own life and the lives of others.

So now, whenever you want to look great and competent, improve your marriage, or reduce your stress…or whenever you want to feel as good as when you’ve enjoyed a stack of high quality chocolate without incurring the caloric cost, or as if you randomly found 25 grand in the pocket of a jacket you hadn’t worn for ages…or when you want to tap into a superpower and help yourself and others live longer, healthier happier lives…SMILE

About the Author: Ron Gutman is founder and CEO of HealthTap. He also serves as the Curator of TEDxSilicon Valley. This column was adopted from a presentation at the most recent TED conference.=

Knee Surgery day

Today with any luck (meaning I will not get bumped) I will have surgery to replace my knee. I am scheduled this morning at 7:30 at the University of Brutish Columbia hospitals and I am nervous but I am looking forward to getting the operation done. So far everything has gone the way it should and I look forward to being able to get back into my old routines and doing things without the chronic knee pain. My hope is that the surgery time is not too early in the morning as UBC hospital is about a 90 minute drive from my place.

I have not had any other major surgery (touch wood) so my hope is that I will be a good patient and do not cause any trouble for the health care professionals that I trust to do the job.

My understanding is that I will have to do what the specialist tell me to do and that the recovery period can be as short as three months and as long as six months. I am hoping for the former so that I can enjoy the beautiful summer we have on the west coast. My brother tells me that one of the benefits of being in recovery is that I will have the ability to rest, read and relax. As a workaholic I hope that I can do this with grace.

Job Creation in Canada the Real numbers

From Idle no more  posted on Facebook April 11

BREAKING : Evan Solomon just 'OUTED' Harper's LIES on job creation record and his temporary foreign workers program on on CBC's Power and Politics .. April 11th 2013 

"Using StatsCan's numbers Evan showed that only 347,000 of the 900,000 jobs created were actually 'new jobs' created by employers, the balance were individuals who became self employed.

Worse 29%, over 100,000 of those 'new jobs' went to people brought in using foreign worker visas. 

When you include the number of Canadians that have CEASED actively looking for work of @ 400,000; Canada has actually lost jobs since 2007.

This exposes the LIE ; by the Crime Minister that is even larger than his lie that Canadian Banks never received a 'bail-out' and were in good financial positions.

This is a SCANDAL and explains why youth unemployment has stalled at 15% since Harper has taken office.

Harper has not created employment in Canada but actually has destroyed it to favour corporations and forced down wage levels in Canada by using Foreigners! 

It’s out of control,” said the former executive.“This is really sad because these jobs will never come back,” said another Canadian IT contractor who has worked at banks for several years. 

“Canadian employers are getting drunk on this."