Landers StratAGEy Newsletter #3 6/10/2024
Disclaimer / Landers StratAGEy update: The newsletter subscriber count is growing fast, BUT some corporate IT privacy efforts are blocking my website and “spam-foldering” my e-mails because this is a new site/domain. I will also post all content on linkedin to make sure everyone can read. Please ask your IT departments to “safelist” or grant access to this newsletter/site
Which Members of Congress Should Care the Most About Aging and Related Issues?
The right answer is that “they all should care a lot” because aging is one of the most important strategic issues / societal shifts facing our country, and because we should all value an aging-friendly society. In my 1st newsletter I shared the incredible projections for growth in the population age 85+—-There is so much work to be done by families, businesses, institutions, and in Congress and state legislatures! We are going to need empowered families, responsive age-friendly businesses, a strengthened caring workforce, improved healthcare institutions, new senior living options, and robust home and community-based solutions.
Let’s assume that there are many issues and competing demands facing our members of Congress. While they all should care, some congressional districts are already experiencing the demographic changes. The 50 members of Congress representing the districts below should be highly focused on aging-friendly policies. Whether their districts have become popular destinations for retirees to move, or they are aging communities where the birth rate and inflow of younger people hasn’t kept up, below is a top 50 out of 435 list I created using 2022 United States Census / American Community Survey Data. These districts are ranked on their average score on the 3 statistics in the table below.
When interpreting this table, please remember that districts are often funny, pretzel-shaped, geographies due to gerrymandering and apportionment. It’s possible that some of the districts here are adjacent to younger communities. You also may be interested to know what the other 385 districts not in this table look like? When looking at all districts, the median district population age 75+ is 50,000, the median Caregiver Support Ratio-75 is 3.9, and the median Potential Support Ratio-75 is 9.5. The district lowest ranked (435th) for these issues is the Texas 33rd with only 22,725 people age 75+, a Caregiver Support Ratio-75 is 7.5, and Potential Support Ratio-75 is 23.3.
Top 50 U.S. Congressional Districts for Population 75+ and Potential Caregiving/Support Challenges, 118th Congress
Key:
Caregiver Support Ratio-75: Population Age 45-64 / Population Age 75+
Potential Support Ratio-75: Population Age 15-64 / Population Age 75+
District Data Table
| Rank | District | Population 75+ | Caregiver Support Ratio-75 | Potential Support Ratio-75 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Florida-17th | 133,644 | 1.56 | 3.16 |
| 2 | Florida-19th | 123,419 | 1.65 | 3.47 |
| 3 | Florida-21st | 100,044 | 2.18 | 4.62 |
| 4 | Florida-22nd | 97,010 | 1.99 | 4.68 |
| 5 | Florida-13th | 94,070 | 2.39 | 4.95 |
| 6 | Florida-8th | 92,194 | 2.35 | 5.02 |
| 7 | Florida-12th | 90,565 | 2.33 | 5.07 |
| 8 | Florida-6th | 90,412 | 2.34 | 5.02 |
| 9 | Arizona-6th | 87,059 | 2.10 | 5.41 |
| 10 | Florida-11th | 86,087 | 2.23 | 5.39 |
| 11 | Arizona-8th | 81,717 | 2.49 | 6.01 |
| 12 | Florida-18th | 77,609 | 2.45 | 6.10 |
| 13 | Florida-16th | 76,480 | 2.60 | 6.15 |
| 14 | North Carolina-11th | 74,050 | 2.69 | 6.19 |
| 15 | Florida-23rd | 77,103 | 2.81 | 6.40 |
| 16 | New Jersey-4th | 72,539 | 2.71 | 6.25 |
| 17 | Michigan-1st | 75,156 | 2.82 | 6.25 |
| 18 | Arizona-2nd | 71,854 | 2.72 | 6.76 |
| 19 | Massachusetts-9th | 74,293 | 3.05 | 6.61 |
| 20 | New York-12th | 68,012 | 2.57 | 6.97 |
| 21 | Florida-26th | 73,971 | 2.92 | 6.83 |
| 22 | Hawaii-1st | 66,886 | 2.64 | 6.76 |
| 23 | Florida-3rd | 68,215 | 2.70 | 7.25 |
| 24 | New York-3rd | 71,267 | 3.08 | 6.80 |
| 25 | Pennsylvania-13th | 67,803 | 3.04 | 6.95 |
| 26 | Minnesota-7th | 64,224 | 2.79 | 6.61 |
| 27 | Pennsylvania-14th | 68,897 | 3.10 | 6.89 |
| 28 | Florida-27th | 67,958 | 3.01 | 7.26 |
| 29 | Arizona-1st | 71,912 | 3.10 | 7.18 |
| 30 | Oregon-2nd | 63,134 | 2.75 | 6.76 |
| 31 | Virginia-9th | 68,680 | 3.10 | 7.23 |
| 32 | Pennsylvania-9th | 67,288 | 3.09 | 7.10 |
| 33 | West Virginia-1st | 74,422 | 3.15 | 7.26 |
| 34 | Illinois-15th | 65,359 | 3.05 | 7.15 |
| 35 | Arizona-9th | 67,717 | 3.06 | 7.53 |
| 36 | California-2nd | 65,159 | 3.19 | 7.30 |
| 37 | Ohio-6th | 65,994 | 3.19 | 7.31 |
| 38 | Oregon-4th | 60,979 | 2.83 | 7.31 |
| 39 | California-3rd | 64,295 | 3.20 | 7.36 |
| 40 | New York-23rd | 66,405 | 3.27 | 7.32 |
| 41 | Oklahoma-2nd | 63,120 | 3.10 | 7.82 |
| 42 | Ohio-7th | 65,017 | 3.24 | 7.54 |
| 43 | California-5th | 62,211 | 3.18 | 7.65 |
| 44 | Pennsylvania-15th | 63,214 | 3.20 | 7.74 |
| 45 | Tennessee-1st | 65,153 | 3.32 | 7.47 |
| 46 | Iowa-2nd | 62,661 | 3.11 | 7.92 |
| 47 | Florida-7th | 64,141 | 3.24 | 7.73 |
| 48 | Pennsylvania-17th | 61,807 | 3.24 | 7.64 |
| 49 | New York-19th | 64,355 | 3.24 | 7.90 |
| 50 | South Carolina-7th | 61,533 | 3.24 | 7.34 |
