Elder care not enough workers

[TrudgingAlong]

I read an article recently about how Maine is the state most top heavy with elderly, a situation that will be spreading widely through the US soon. There was also a guy interviewed who complained about how he couldn't find enough workers to offload his lobster catch at the dock, a problem that didn't really exist ten years ago.

In light of this, plus the super low unemployment numbers, and the need at meat packing plants, etc for labor, why are so many people so against immigration? Clearly we need low skilled workers, there are literally not enough Americans of that age to do these jobs. I don't want to devolve into a conversation on how everyone is racist, because I know that's a big factor, but even racists know how to exploit workers (note the illegal immigration situation - the companies doing the exploiting are NEVER the ones vilified or attacked for providing the jobs that attract immigrants in the first place - if no one would hire them, they would stop coming, duh) - although maybe that is really the answer?

I dunno, but it's super frustrating to me that we have a whole lot of vulnerable people who desperately need safety and a new start in life. are hard workers and willing to do the nastiest work here, plus we have a desperate need for workers just like that. We aren't having more babies, and even if we were, they wouldn't be old enough to do these jobs when they are needed.

Here's the articles I referenced: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/this-will-be-catastrophic-maine-families-face-elder-boom-worker-shortage-in-preview-of-nations-future/ar-AAFOuKD?ocid=spartandhp

[MayDay]

I read that in our paper this morning and found it quite interesting. I think it was llamo who said most of the carers for her. Mother were immigrants. It does seem very shortsighted to reduce immigration when clearly the market isn't shaping things. I believe the article said private carers in Maine are coating 50$ an hour. Rather than pay that, families are just making due caring for relatives themselves. So the shortage isn't creating higher paid jobs for Americans, it is just resulting in fewer employed people in the us overall.

I am glad not to have to deal with this yet- luckily I had my kids young enough that they'll be grown by the time I have to care fory parents, and I will be close to if not retired.

[BikeFanatic]

I have also observed that caretakers for the elderly that I have hired and also that work at the nursing home are all immigrants.
It is a tough job taking care of elderly esp with Alzhiemers or incontinence issues.  In my recent experience i had to pay 25 - 40 $ per hour for private  companion + personal care and for housekeeping as part of the service.

[Sibley]

Ignorance, lack of forethought, and fear.

However, it'll have the effect of resolving the demographic crisis much faster than anticipated. Those who need assistance and are unable to receive it will most likely decline faster, and will die earlier than if they had adequate care. Potentially years earlier. Again, it'll happen slowly, one individual at a time, but cumulatively the numbers are likely to be large. End result: the numbers of elderly will drop faster than predicted. Depending on natural disasters or extreme weather, large numbers of the elderly (and disabled, really anyone who's vulnerable) could be killed in a very short period of time.

If you have 10k in that population and there's a big winter storm that knocks out power/heat and it kills 500 people, that's significant. Another storm a month later and you've lost another 500. That's 10% of the population. Then a heat wave in the summer and people don't have A/C? There goes another 500 people. That is the route we're headed towards.

Nature doesn't care about morality. Nature just is. And if you can't handle what is thrown at you, then you die. Humans are not immune to the natural order.

[marty998]

What happens when all the immigrants get old? Do you keep importing ever increasing amounts of immigrants to defuse the population bomb?

What happens when that next lot of immigrants get old?

[RetiredAt63]

What happens when all the immigrants get old? Do you keep importing ever increasing amounts of immigrants to defuse the population bomb?

What happens when that next lot of immigrants get old?

Depends on the age of the immigrants, number of kids, etc.  We have a bulge of getting old people, the Boomers. I'm a Boomer, don't blame us, blame the Depression and WW2 for decreasing the birthrate, and then from 1945 on suddenly had good conditions to start families. 

Plus the kids of the immigrants will be native-born citizens, just mingling with everyone else.

[TheContinentalOp]

What happens when all the immigrants get old? Do you keep importing ever increasing amounts of immigrants to defuse the population bomb?

What happens when that next lot of immigrants get old?

Exactly. You can't just keep importing people, eventually you'll degrade the environment too much. I'd make the case that we're already there.

[KBecks]

why are so many people so against immigration?

I am not against immigration, I am against illegal immigration.  Make the process work better and have documentation, etc. and we're good! Open up more volume for legal immigrants. That is fine.

[jim555]

At the right wage they will have all the workers they need, so not a problem.

[TrudgingAlong]

At the right wage they will have all the workers they need, so not a problem.

That's the point, though - they have been increasing wages significantly and there are still no workers. There's literally no one to do the job.

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

[RetiredAt63]

At the right wage they will have all the workers they need, so not a problem.

That's the point, though - they have been increasing wages significantly and there are still no workers. There's literally no one to do the job.

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

I don't know if you count me as as one of the cold responders, but I look at US immigration policy and shake my head.  I'm in Canada and we have our own issues, which are not always your issues.  And at my age my friends and I are in the middle of it.   We range from mid 50s to early 90s.

Plus, you are looking at one specific situation and some of us took a longer/larger view.  I'm a lot more worried about climate change and global shifts to the right than I am about this.

[mm1970]

At the right wage they will have all the workers they need, so not a problem.

That's the point, though - they have been increasing wages significantly and there are still no workers. There's literally no one to do the job.

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

How much is significantly?   A living wage?

Just finished Nickle and Dimed, and even when there was a "labor shortage" in areas the pay was still too low to afford rent. 

[Sibley]

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

Being clear sighted about the realities of the situation isn't cold. It's smart. Because when you're all wrapped up in emotions you can't actually figure out a workable solution. I would prefer that all the people who need assistance get it, we have options that if implemented on a large scale would help a great deal, but emotion is stopping it. So less emotion is probably a good thing.

Given the large number of Baby Boomers and the dearth of aides, we've got a problem and its only going to get worse. Either we figure out how to stretch the aides we do have (group housing, multi-generational living, etc), get a whole lot more aides, or a whole lot of elderly and disabled people are going to have a very hard time finding the assistance they need and they will die sooner than they otherwise would have as a result.

Realistically, if Maine was able to concentrate a large majority of the population that needs assistance into group homes, nursing homes, etc, a few aides could more realistically assist a much larger number of people than if they were all in individual homes, and the chances that everyone would get the assistance they need would be much higher. But we can't compromise independence, even though being dead is probably the most compromised you can get.

[KBecks]

Bring on the droids!

[fuzzy math]

There was also a guy interviewed who complained about how he couldn't find enough workers to offload his lobster catch at the dock, a problem that didn't really exist ten years ago.

My mustachian retirement gig - unloading fresh lobster and chowing down.

In all seriousness, there's not a great solution because most people who require assistance are on medicare / medicaid. Prevailing wages aren't going to go up significantly due to insurance payment limitations. The wealthier individuals (or people with kids of some means) will find a way to hire an aide. Like Sibley said, there are going to be some dire consequences for the others.

Are young people fleeing Maine? If so some adult children may end up moving their aging parents to other states, which would lift the burden on ME. I don't know well enough to be able to comment on how elderly migration would affect care shortages in other states. The other states most affected are curious to me, they don't include Florida! I suppose that really is a testament to immigration being necessary.

[ctuser1]

I have learned to not debate immigration and religion with people!!

These things are driven by gut instinct on the restrictionist side, not logic. All logic is simply to couch the fact that the responder is simply scared of people who look different and act different!!

Incidentally, the older you get, your negative gut reaction towards people you are not used to increases!! I’m noticing this transition, with concern and sometimes alarm, in a good friend of mine who is a couple of decades older!!

So you are not going to convince any restrictionist to change his mind. Ergo, this thread is pointless!!


My personal opinion?
1. We should follow the law in all circumstances!! Ie don’t tolerate illegal immigration.
2. Increase US immigration levels to at least match the Canada per capital levels, because Australia levels are simply not feasible in today’s US politics (although it would have been better for the economy).

[RetiredAt63]

My personal opinion?
1. We should follow the law in all circumstances!! Ie don’t tolerate illegal immigration.
2. Increase US immigration levels to at least match the Canada per capital levels, because Australia levels are simply not feasible in today’s US politics (although it would have been better for the economy).

Ah, but would most Americans be happy with the origins of our immigrants?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2017028-eng.htm

[StarBright]

At the right wage they will have all the workers they need, so not a problem.

That's the point, though - they have been increasing wages significantly and there are still no workers. There's literally no one to do the job.

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

I have an aunt in law who is practically elderly herself (late 60s and not in great shape) who works in elder care to make ends meet.

It is not a great job. It would take a very high hourly wage to make it worth it to most people in MCOL and HCOL areas.

Most places only pay you for the time that you are working directly in the person's home. So while your hourly wage might be okay your transportation time isn't covered. So my aunt may get paid for 4-6 hours a day or so, but is also on the road commuting between clients for another 4 hours a day. Her hourly wage is effectively halved, she is required to pay extra for some type of insurance on her car, and her gas costs are insane (she is in SoCal).

And while places may charge $50 an hour for elder care, they obviously aren't paying their employees that.

[ctuser1]

My personal opinion?
1. We should follow the law in all circumstances!! Ie don’t tolerate illegal immigration.
2. Increase US immigration levels to at least match the Canada per capital levels, because Australia levels are simply not feasible in today’s US politics (although it would have been better for the economy).

Ah, but would most Americans be happy with the origins of our immigrants?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2017028-eng.htm

There are two America’s.

The coastal, blue America has higher immigration levels than Canada, from people of similar ‘origins’. Most of the million+ immigrants congregate here.

The Midwest is the most unfamiliar with funny looking dark skinned people since nobody immigrates there. So they are the most scared!!

Of course I’m exaggerating!!

I think the most economically efficient would be to do some sort of provincial immigration like Canada does, with strong checks to make sure immigrants actually live in - say - Maine and not pack up and show up in Boston!! Maybe give provisional GC, followed by full term GC only after 10 years and sufficient verification :-d

Of course our beloved nativist voters would object to this brown tsunami, but as powerful as they are today - politically - they are mostly in the process of dying out and I am hopeful they can be made irrelevant in another decade or so. Good riddance!!

[DaMa]

At the right wage they will have all the workers they need, so not a problem.

That's the point, though - they have been increasing wages significantly and there are still no workers. There's literally no one to do the job.

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

I'll say BS to this one.  The elder care companies may be getting $50 an hour, but they are only paying $10-15 in my area.  If they paid $25-30, full time with benefits, I can think of 20 people of the top of my head who would be interested.

Same with meat processing and produce picking.  These are really hard, physically demanding, nasty jobs that should be paid much higher rates.

[StarBright]

At the right wage they will have all the workers they need, so not a problem.

That's the point, though - they have been increasing wages significantly and there are still no workers. There's literally no one to do the job.

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

I'll say BS to this one.  The elder care companies may be getting $50 an hour, but they are only paying $10-15 in my area.  If they paid $25-30, full time with benefits, I can think of 20 people of the top of my head who would be interested.

Same with meat processing and produce picking.  These are really hard, physically demanding, nasty jobs that should be paid much higher rates.

I agree - i just checked the two local elder care places. They both paid under $12 an hour (pay based on experience). The larger of the two paid an average of just under $11 an hour.

And as mentioned above this only covers time in home with clients, does not cover commuting time or costs and there are no benefits unless you are full time, which is almost impossible to hit with this kind of work (since commuting time does not count as hours worked).

[BudgetSlasher]

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

Being clear sighted about the realities of the situation isn't cold. It's smart. Because when you're all wrapped up in emotions you can't actually figure out a workable solution. I would prefer that all the people who need assistance get it, we have options that if implemented on a large scale would help a great deal, but emotion is stopping it. So less emotion is probably a good thing.

Given the large number of Baby Boomers and the dearth of aides, we've got a problem and its only going to get worse. Either we figure out how to stretch the aides we do have (group housing, multi-generational living, etc), get a whole lot more aides, or a whole lot of elderly and disabled people are going to have a very hard time finding the assistance they need and they will die sooner than they otherwise would have as a result.

Realistically, if Maine was able to concentrate a large majority of the population that needs assistance into group homes, nursing homes, etc, a few aides could more realistically assist a much larger number of people than if they were all in individual homes, and the chances that everyone would get the assistance they need would be much higher. But we can't compromise independence, even though being dead is probably the most compromised you can get.

I know this takes us off topic, but I had to laugh at the bolded part. Most of Maine is very sparsely populated (Southern Maine really pulls up the average number for the state.) We've got lots areas we don't even bother to give an individual name, just carved into little squares, like T3 R4 WELS (Township 3 Range 4 West of the Easterly Line of the State). If we were to concentrate a large majority of our population a lot of issues would become more manageable (school bussing costs, annual DOT bond issues, way too many post offices, and on and on).

Now, carry on with the topic at home.

[Villanelle]

These jobs don't pay enough for a worker to live in Maine. Or the workers don't want those jobs for some reason (likely low pay for tough, unpleasant work).  That's true whether the worker is in Maine legally, or illegally, and whether they were born in the US or elsewhere.  So I don't see how more immigrants, legal or not, is going to somehow balance this equation. 

It's not about being cold.  It's about your flawed premise that somehow, more immigrants would fix the problem you used to start the discussion.  I don't see how it would.

My elderly parents live in Las Vegas.  There aren't enough medical providers there.  The shortage is a much-discussed issue and my parents have trouble finding providers because everyone is booked for months, in some cases.

Would more immigrants solve this problem?  Only if they were medical professionals, licensed to practice in the US.  I'm not sure how that's "cold" to say. 

There are arguments to be made for increasing legal immigration.  The elder care shortage in Maine (or the medical professional shortage in Nevada) aren't really among them.

[ctuser1]

These jobs don't pay enough for a worker to live in Maine. Or the workers don't want those jobs for some reason (likely low pay for tough, unpleasant work).  That's true whether the worker is in Maine legally, or illegally, and whether they were born in the US or elsewhere.  So I don't see how more immigrants, legal or not, is going to somehow balance this equation. 

It's not about being cold.  It's about your flawed premise that somehow, more immigrants would fix the problem you used to start the discussion.  I don't see how it would.

My elderly parents live in Las Vegas.  There aren't enough medical providers there.  The shortage is a much-discussed issue and my parents have trouble finding providers because everyone is booked for months, in some cases.

Would more immigrants solve this problem?  Only if they were medical professionals, licensed to practice in the US.  I'm not sure how that's "cold" to say. 

There are arguments to be made for increasing legal immigration.  The elder care shortage in Maine (or the medical professional shortage in Nevada) aren't really among them.

Perhaps a macro picture would help..

GDP = # of workers (A) X Individual Worker Productivity (B)

B increases gradually, as technology improves, processes get better etc. No easy way to ramp this up any faster than it does normally.

You can, however, change A very very easily with more immigration. More immigrants -> higher GDP -> suddenly you have a growing economy locally instead of shrinking economy -> locality thrives instead of gradually dying off.

This is not theoretical. We see this first hand in Connecticut. CT has had a population loss for the past 10 years (only showing signs of reversal in the last year or so) and is having all kinds of economic trouble. Zoom in further, and you can see shrinking and growing economies side by side. Drive through Litchfield county someday - and you have a prime example of economic despire driven by the population hollowing out. Now drive to New Haven-Milford area and walk around. This area is gaining Millennial population. You can see and feel the economy in upward swing from a fairly low base (New haven is NOT one of the rich areas of the state). You can literally *see* and *feel* the difference in economic vibe.

It makes a huge difference if you have a demographic headwind or tailwind!! A favorable demographic change makes *all* kinds of economic activity easier and possible, not just once single thing like home care.

In a growing economy, you are far more likely to find/attract workers in all kinds of high and low paying fields. In a shrinking one - not so much.

**Incidentally, when economists talk about the *normal* growth rate for USA - they are simply taking demographic trends and multiplying that with the normal productivity growth rate that stays fairly constant. It works out to somewhere around 2% for the entire US.
You can get sugar highs with lax tax/monetary/fiscal policies - usually at the cost of expensive hangover later!! The *normal* growth rate quickly dips below 0 if you have a demographic headwind. It is extremely difficult to rescue an economy from there.

[Sibley]

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

Being clear sighted about the realities of the situation isn't cold. It's smart. Because when you're all wrapped up in emotions you can't actually figure out a workable solution. I would prefer that all the people who need assistance get it, we have options that if implemented on a large scale would help a great deal, but emotion is stopping it. So less emotion is probably a good thing.

Given the large number of Baby Boomers and the dearth of aides, we've got a problem and its only going to get worse. Either we figure out how to stretch the aides we do have (group housing, multi-generational living, etc), get a whole lot more aides, or a whole lot of elderly and disabled people are going to have a very hard time finding the assistance they need and they will die sooner than they otherwise would have as a result.

Realistically, if Maine was able to concentrate a large majority of the population that needs assistance into group homes, nursing homes, etc, a few aides could more realistically assist a much larger number of people than if they were all in individual homes, and the chances that everyone would get the assistance they need would be much higher. But we can't compromise independence, even though being dead is probably the most compromised you can get.

I know this takes us off topic, but I had to laugh at the bolded part. Most of Maine is very sparsely populated (Southern Maine really pulls up the average number for the state.) We've got lots areas we don't even bother to give an individual name, just carved into little squares, like T3 R4 WELS (Township 3 Range 4 West of the Easterly Line of the State). If we were to concentrate a large majority of our population a lot of issues would become more manageable (school bussing costs, annual DOT bond issues, way too many post offices, and on and on).

Now, carry on with the topic at home.

I'm not an expert on Maine, but I do know the population is pretty spread out. But seriously, you pick up the 5 people in the T3 R4 WELS who need regular care, put them in one building, and it'll help. Probably a lot. Plus, those 5 people may be a lot happier because there's regular social interaction that isn't difficult to initiate. But no..... we CAN'T possibly take people from their individual, lonely homes where they live in run down conditions that are dirty. Ugh. People are idiots sometimes. (yeah, rant over)

[BudgetSlasher]

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

Being clear sighted about the realities of the situation isn't cold. It's smart. Because when you're all wrapped up in emotions you can't actually figure out a workable solution. I would prefer that all the people who need assistance get it, we have options that if implemented on a large scale would help a great deal, but emotion is stopping it. So less emotion is probably a good thing.

Given the large number of Baby Boomers and the dearth of aides, we've got a problem and its only going to get worse. Either we figure out how to stretch the aides we do have (group housing, multi-generational living, etc), get a whole lot more aides, or a whole lot of elderly and disabled people are going to have a very hard time finding the assistance they need and they will die sooner than they otherwise would have as a result.

Realistically, if Maine was able to concentrate a large majority of the population that needs assistance into group homes, nursing homes, etc, a few aides could more realistically assist a much larger number of people than if they were all in individual homes, and the chances that everyone would get the assistance they need would be much higher. But we can't compromise independence, even though being dead is probably the most compromised you can get.

I know this takes us off topic, but I had to laugh at the bolded part. Most of Maine is very sparsely populated (Southern Maine really pulls up the average number for the state.) We've got lots areas we don't even bother to give an individual name, just carved into little squares, like T3 R4 WELS (Township 3 Range 4 West of the Easterly Line of the State). If we were to concentrate a large majority of our population a lot of issues would become more manageable (school bussing costs, annual DOT bond issues, way too many post offices, and on and on).

Now, carry on with the topic at home.

I'm not an expert on Maine, but I do know the population is pretty spread out. But seriously, you pick up the 5 people in the T3 R4 WELS who need regular care, put them in one building, and it'll help. Probably a lot. Plus, those 5 people may be a lot happier because there's regular social interaction that isn't difficult to initiate. But no..... we CAN'T possibly take people from their individual, lonely homes where they live in run down conditions that are dirty. Ugh. People are idiots sometimes. (yeah, rant over)

I want to be clear I wasn't laughing at you, nor the assumptions. I was laughing because it is often a thought I have that if people here would just live closer together a lot of our costs would be lower.

[Sibley]

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

Being clear sighted about the realities of the situation isn't cold. It's smart. Because when you're all wrapped up in emotions you can't actually figure out a workable solution. I would prefer that all the people who need assistance get it, we have options that if implemented on a large scale would help a great deal, but emotion is stopping it. So less emotion is probably a good thing.

Given the large number of Baby Boomers and the dearth of aides, we've got a problem and its only going to get worse. Either we figure out how to stretch the aides we do have (group housing, multi-generational living, etc), get a whole lot more aides, or a whole lot of elderly and disabled people are going to have a very hard time finding the assistance they need and they will die sooner than they otherwise would have as a result.

Realistically, if Maine was able to concentrate a large majority of the population that needs assistance into group homes, nursing homes, etc, a few aides could more realistically assist a much larger number of people than if they were all in individual homes, and the chances that everyone would get the assistance they need would be much higher. But we can't compromise independence, even though being dead is probably the most compromised you can get.

I know this takes us off topic, but I had to laugh at the bolded part. Most of Maine is very sparsely populated (Southern Maine really pulls up the average number for the state.) We've got lots areas we don't even bother to give an individual name, just carved into little squares, like T3 R4 WELS (Township 3 Range 4 West of the Easterly Line of the State). If we were to concentrate a large majority of our population a lot of issues would become more manageable (school bussing costs, annual DOT bond issues, way too many post offices, and on and on).

Now, carry on with the topic at home.

I'm not an expert on Maine, but I do know the population is pretty spread out. But seriously, you pick up the 5 people in the T3 R4 WELS who need regular care, put them in one building, and it'll help. Probably a lot. Plus, those 5 people may be a lot happier because there's regular social interaction that isn't difficult to initiate. But no..... we CAN'T possibly take people from their individual, lonely homes where they live in run down conditions that are dirty. Ugh. People are idiots sometimes. (yeah, rant over)

I want to be clear I wasn't laughing at you, nor the assumptions. I was laughing because it is often a thought I have that if people here would just live closer together a lot of our costs would be lower.

I didn't think you were laughing, no worries! I mostly get annoyed at all the stupidity that people do. I've seen it on this forum too. Can't make the elderly move!!! It's their home!! ... Well, ok. They can be miserable and alone if you think that's better. Realistically, just means they'll die sooner, which will be good for the environment at least. (fewer people is better for the planet)

[BudgetSlasher]

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

Being clear sighted about the realities of the situation isn't cold. It's smart. Because when you're all wrapped up in emotions you can't actually figure out a workable solution. I would prefer that all the people who need assistance get it, we have options that if implemented on a large scale would help a great deal, but emotion is stopping it. So less emotion is probably a good thing.

Given the large number of Baby Boomers and the dearth of aides, we've got a problem and its only going to get worse. Either we figure out how to stretch the aides we do have (group housing, multi-generational living, etc), get a whole lot more aides, or a whole lot of elderly and disabled people are going to have a very hard time finding the assistance they need and they will die sooner than they otherwise would have as a result.

Realistically, if Maine was able to concentrate a large majority of the population that needs assistance into group homes, nursing homes, etc, a few aides could more realistically assist a much larger number of people than if they were all in individual homes, and the chances that everyone would get the assistance they need would be much higher. But we can't compromise independence, even though being dead is probably the most compromised you can get.

I know this takes us off topic, but I had to laugh at the bolded part. Most of Maine is very sparsely populated (Southern Maine really pulls up the average number for the state.) We've got lots areas we don't even bother to give an individual name, just carved into little squares, like T3 R4 WELS (Township 3 Range 4 West of the Easterly Line of the State). If we were to concentrate a large majority of our population a lot of issues would become more manageable (school bussing costs, annual DOT bond issues, way too many post offices, and on and on).

Now, carry on with the topic at home.

I'm not an expert on Maine, but I do know the population is pretty spread out. But seriously, you pick up the 5 people in the T3 R4 WELS who need regular care, put them in one building, and it'll help. Probably a lot. Plus, those 5 people may be a lot happier because there's regular social interaction that isn't difficult to initiate. But no..... we CAN'T possibly take people from their individual, lonely homes where they live in run down conditions that are dirty. Ugh. People are idiots sometimes. (yeah, rant over)

I want to be clear I wasn't laughing at you, nor the assumptions. I was laughing because it is often a thought I have that if people here would just live closer together a lot of our costs would be lower.

I didn't think you were laughing, no worries! I mostly get annoyed at all the stupidity that people do. I've seen it on this forum too. Can't make the elderly move!!! It's their home!! ... Well, ok. They can be miserable and alone if you think that's better. Realistically, just means they'll die sooner, which will be good for the environment at least. (fewer people is better for the planet)

It is a tough one. In an ideal world it would be their choice and at the same time not societies burden.

On the flip side of the coin, I've known multiple people who being relocated in there advanced years was the end of their quality of life. Admittedly those cases were all early-to-mid stages of cognitive decline/dementia (and would no longer been independent soon). Basically they had lived in the same place for decades and had the same routine and were able to cope, but were unable to adapt to new surroundings, new patterns and new people. In a couple cases I believe it hastened death through failure to thrive/loss of will to live.

[DaMa]

I take it from the coldness of some of these responses you're sure you won't every have to deal with this. I hope you don't. I suppose I didn't really expect much more, but hoped there were more deep thinking people here.

Being clear sighted about the realities of the situation isn't cold. It's smart. Because when you're all wrapped up in emotions you can't actually figure out a workable solution. I would prefer that all the people who need assistance get it, we have options that if implemented on a large scale would help a great deal, but emotion is stopping it. So less emotion is probably a good thing.

Given the large number of Baby Boomers and the dearth of aides, we've got a problem and its only going to get worse. Either we figure out how to stretch the aides we do have (group housing, multi-generational living, etc), get a whole lot more aides, or a whole lot of elderly and disabled people are going to have a very hard time finding the assistance they need and they will die sooner than they otherwise would have as a result.

Realistically, if Maine was able to concentrate a large majority of the population that needs assistance into group homes, nursing homes, etc, a few aides could more realistically assist a much larger number of people than if they were all in individual homes, and the chances that everyone would get the assistance they need would be much higher. But we can't compromise independence, even though being dead is probably the most compromised you can get.

I know this takes us off topic, but I had to laugh at the bolded part. Most of Maine is very sparsely populated (Southern Maine really pulls up the average number for the state.) We've got lots areas we don't even bother to give an individual name, just carved into little squares, like T3 R4 WELS (Township 3 Range 4 West of the Easterly Line of the State). If we were to concentrate a large majority of our population a lot of issues would become more manageable (school bussing costs, annual DOT bond issues, way too many post offices, and on and on).

Now, carry on with the topic at home.

I'm not an expert on Maine, but I do know the population is pretty spread out. But seriously, you pick up the 5 people in the T3 R4 WELS who need regular care, put them in one building, and it'll help. Probably a lot. Plus, those 5 people may be a lot happier because there's regular social interaction that isn't difficult to initiate. But no..... we CAN'T possibly take people from their individual, lonely homes where they live in run down conditions that are dirty. Ugh. People are idiots sometimes. (yeah, rant over)

I want to be clear I wasn't laughing at you, nor the assumptions. I was laughing because it is often a thought I have that if people here would just live closer together a lot of our costs would be lower.

I didn't think you were laughing, no worries! I mostly get annoyed at all the stupidity that people do. I've seen it on this forum too. Can't make the elderly move!!! It's their home!! ... Well, ok. They can be miserable and alone if you think that's better. Realistically, just means they'll die sooner, which will be good for the environment at least. (fewer people is better for the planet)

This is one of the issues in Detroit.  There are many areas where there will be one house left standing in a block (or one in several blocks).  There has been a lot of talking of relocating those people in order to centralize services.  Those houses are usually owned by people who have lived there most of their lives -- frequently elderly people.  And they are not moving.

[big_owl]

Did I read that right where the average salary for one of these workers in Maine is $11.37/hr!?  Well no wonder there's a shortage of workers. Guess what boomers, you want someone to change your bed pans and do all your household chores? Then you're going to have to pay somebody a living wage to do it.  Didn't save up enough money to afford that (aka didn't support raising taxes to afford it)?  Knock me over with a feather.

Maybe the next time you're driving to a Trump MAGA rally or when you're in line to vote for some more of your old cohorts to systematically dismantle the USA's social welfare programs you can take along a copy of Japan's LTC program and read up on it.  (I'm talking to you mom and dad).

[Sibley]

This is one of the issues in Detroit.  There are many areas where there will be one house left standing in a block (or one in several blocks).  There has been a lot of talking of relocating those people in order to centralize services.  Those houses are usually owned by people who have lived there most of their lives -- frequently elderly people.  And they are not moving.

Definitely. That's a huge problem in Detroit (I'm from the area), and will likely be a problem elsewhere at some point. Rust belt for now, but any city that has a population crash can encounter it. New Orleans may be dealing with the issue too, I'm not familiar.

How do you manage muni services when the system was built for 500k but the population is now 100k (just throwing numbers out there)? Realistically, there is no easy answer. Ideal world, either you centralize the remaining people, OR you draw new boundaries and everyone outside them are now "rural" - which means well, septic, etc. The world is not ideal.

[RetiredAt63]

How do you manage muni services when the system was built for 500k but the population is now 100k (just throwing numbers out there)? Realistically, there is no easy answer. Ideal world, either you centralize the remaining people, OR you draw new boundaries and everyone outside them are now "rural" - which means well, septic, etc. The world is not ideal.

But wells and septic systems require land - there has to be a safe distance between the leach field and the well.  So the new rural in areas where housing is close together will not qualify.  Rearrangements will have to be a lot more far-reaching than just redrawing municipal boundaries.  Plus not sure why you want to talk about boundary changes as the solution, lots of municipalities have both areas served by municipal services and areas that are not served.   Actually, to me water and sewage that have infrastructure already in place would not be the biggest issue - it would be services that are constantly affected by distance, like garbage/recycling pickup and snow clearing.  Both of which still happen in all the rural areas I have lived in.

[Sibley]

How do you manage muni services when the system was built for 500k but the population is now 100k (just throwing numbers out there)? Realistically, there is no easy answer. Ideal world, either you centralize the remaining people, OR you draw new boundaries and everyone outside them are now "rural" - which means well, septic, etc. The world is not ideal.

But wells and septic systems require land - there has to be a safe distance between the leach field and the well.  So the new rural in areas where housing is close together will not qualify.  Rearrangements will have to be a lot more far-reaching than just redrawing municipal boundaries.  Plus not sure why you want to talk about boundary changes as the solution, lots of municipalities have both areas served by municipal services and areas that are not served.   Actually, to me water and sewage that have infrastructure already in place would not be the biggest issue - it would be services that are constantly affected by distance, like garbage/recycling pickup and snow clearing.  Both of which still happen in all the rural areas I have lived in.

You're correct, and that's part of the challenge. It's a situation where having wells and septic are starting to make more sense, but you don't have the space to do it.

In Detroit, you have a lot of neighborhoods that used to be fully populated. Traditional suburban houses/lots, streets, streetlights, stop signs, electrical, water and sewer service, etc. Particularly the plumbing and sewer systems are old, I imagine it's not uncommon to have active lines that are 50, 75, perhaps even 100 years old. Now, when you're fully populated, then there's money to maintain and repair systems that large and extensive without unduly burdening individual households. But when your population crashes, all of a sudden there are a lot fewer households. Instead of 50 occupied houses in the neighborhood, there may be 5-10. Or 1. But you still have to maintain the utilities. How expensive is it to replace a broken water main? Is it really worth it in the long run when there are only a few households being serviced? If no, then what do you do about the fact that those people still need water and some sort of waste solution? It's a challenge, and I don't think they've solved it.

Trash pickup, snow removal, etc absolutely are impacted by the distance. You can shut down too-empty schools and bus kids from farther areas. Police and emergency coverage is an issue as well. You end up with a very weird, expensive and complicated mix of urban/rural issues.

[marty998]

How do you manage muni services when the system was built for 500k but the population is now 100k (just throwing numbers out there)? Realistically, there is no easy answer. Ideal world, either you centralize the remaining people, OR you draw new boundaries and everyone outside them are now "rural" - which means well, septic, etc. The world is not ideal.

But wells and septic systems require land - there has to be a safe distance between the leach field and the well.  So the new rural in areas where housing is close together will not qualify.  Rearrangements will have to be a lot more far-reaching than just redrawing municipal boundaries.  Plus not sure why you want to talk about boundary changes as the solution, lots of municipalities have both areas served by municipal services and areas that are not served.   Actually, to me water and sewage that have infrastructure already in place would not be the biggest issue - it would be services that are constantly affected by distance, like garbage/recycling pickup and snow clearing.  Both of which still happen in all the rural areas I have lived in.

You're correct, and that's part of the challenge. It's a situation where having wells and septic are starting to make more sense, but you don't have the space to do it.

In Detroit, you have a lot of neighborhoods that used to be fully populated. Traditional suburban houses/lots, streets, streetlights, stop signs, electrical, water and sewer service, etc. Particularly the plumbing and sewer systems are old, I imagine it's not uncommon to have active lines that are 50, 75, perhaps even 100 years old. Now, when you're fully populated, then there's money to maintain and repair systems that large and extensive without unduly burdening individual households. But when your population crashes, all of a sudden there are a lot fewer households. Instead of 50 occupied houses in the neighborhood, there may be 5-10. Or 1. But you still have to maintain the utilities. How expensive is it to replace a broken water main? Is it really worth it in the long run when there are only a few households being serviced? If no, then what do you do about the fact that those people still need water and some sort of waste solution? It's a challenge, and I don't think they've solved it.

Trash pickup, snow removal, etc absolutely are impacted by the distance. You can shut down too-empty schools and bus kids from farther areas. Police and emergency coverage is an issue as well. You end up with a very weird, expensive and complicated mix of urban/rural issues.

Quite literally hundreds of outback Australian towns have had to face this issue over the last 100 years as the economic balance has shifted towards more urbanised areas. People move out one by one until a tipping point is reached and you're left with a main street with only a pub and a rest stop for tourists and trucks.

Emergency services is a difficult one - In some areas we end up with one policeman/woman covering areas larger than some European countries.

[Sibley]

There is a difference between a town with 20,000 people shrinking to to 200 and a city of 1 million shrinking to 20,000. Scale matters.