Updated December 2016
A rather fascinating article by Dr. Paul Robbins on The Breakthrough website looks at the next great global change that will have a very significant impact on the global economy, the "baby bust".
A rather fascinating article by Dr. Paul Robbins on The Breakthrough website looks at the next great global change that will have a very significant impact on the global economy, the "baby bust".
Most of my readers are well
aware of the baby boom, the rapid growth in the birthrate that took place in
most of the world's developed economies after the end of World War II as shown
on this diagram:
Let's look at one example
of the looming problem. As you can see on this diagram, the U.S. birthrate has declined
substantially since the late 1960s from just over 18 births per 1000 people to
its current level of just over 12 births per thousand people:
According to the World
Bank, the annual population growth rate in the United States has dropped from
1.1 percent in 1990 to 0.7 percent in 2014, a 36 percent decline.
Let's go back to Paul
Robbins' article. Dr. Robbins notes that total global fertility has
dropped to 2.3 from a level of 4.95 in 1950. It is key to keep in mind
that the replacement fertility rate is approximately 2 births per woman for
industrialized nations and ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 percent in developing
nations, largely because of higher infant mortality rates. Dr. Robbins
also notes the following:
"More dramatically, in 2014, a majority of nations in the
world reported fertility lower than the replacement rate, the
tipping point between a growing and shrinking population (a fertility figure
slightly more than 2.3). More countries are now shrinking than growing. In
fact, national fertility rates are now at or below replacement in a huge range
of countries that, until recently, were growing by leaps and bounds, including
Tunisia, Iran, and Vietnam.lower than the replacement rate, the
tipping point between a growing and shrinking population (a fertility figure
slightly more than 2.3). More countries are now shrinking than growing. In
fact, national fertility rates are now at or below replacement in a huge range
of countries that, until recently, were growing by leaps and bounds, including
Tunisia, Iran, and Vietnam."
Let's look
at the changes in fertility rates for four nations, China, India, the United States and Canada, that represent both the
developed and developing economies of the world noting that the
global fertility rate is represented by the green line:
This
decline in fertility rates will, from this point in time forward, result
in an aging population. Right now, the majority of the world's population
is young, however, the balance is tipping with the percentage of the population
over the age of 60 years rising to 25 percent globally by 2050, up from its
historical average of 10 percent. This will have a massive impact on the
potential support ratio or PSR, the number of people between the ages of
15 and 64 years and those over the age of 65 as shown on this graphic:
By 2050,
the PSR will fall from 12 to 4 meaning that there will be a near tripling
of the economic and care burden placed on the younger generation when compared
to 1950.
The baby
bust will have a significant impact on the world's developing economies that didn't experience the post-World War II baby boom as
well. India, China and other nations in the region are also facing an
aging crisis as shown on these graphs from the United
Nations World Population Prospects 2015 revision:
1.) China:
2.) India:
Let's look
at the same data for the United States and Canada:
1.) United
States:
2.) Canada:
Obviously,
providing health care, economic support and other key services will prove
to be increasingly difficult as fewer and fewer prime-age people are
supporting more and more elderly. The baby bust will also have much
deeper implications for the world's economy.
Given that
this is the prognosis for global population growth rates:
...one has
to wonder what the impact of population stasis will be on the global
economy which has become completely reliant on the "growth at any cost"
model of quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year profit growth. What will be
the impact on the housing markets and stock markets when it becomes apparent
that demand is falling (or remaining static) and supply is rising.
In the case of the United States, some housing markets in the
northeastern region are already seeing the negative impact of aging populations
on housing valuations as you can see in this article. Even more frightening is the impact on pension plans, both government and private. With fewer people contributing and more people collecting, the pension Ponzi scheme will become readily apparent to just about everyone.
In closing,
let's quote again from Dr. Robbins' article:
"And,
of course, lurking behind all these smaller questions is the most interesting
one of all: what will the global economy do without human demographic growth?
On a planet arguably already plagued with overproduction, where will sufficient
demand emerge to maintain the levels of surplus accumulation demanded by many political
leaders, most investors, and every corporate CEO? Will demographic decline lead
empowered laboring classes to leverage improved wages and rights or instead
lead to harsher bargains for workers to squeeze still more productivity from
fewer bodies? Can prosperity be decoupled from demographic growth in a way that
is just, equitable, and good for the planet? Given the population luxury that
capitalism has enjoyed for two centuries, this has been a question long
deferred. But no longer." (my bold)
This proving me correct. For a lot of people overpopulation of the world is a major issue. But my counter argument is that as a society becomes educated and children become more of a burden and hindrance to "success" within these educated society it is inevitable that the population with either drop below the replacement rate or will hold just about steady.
ReplyDeleteIncluding Japan would be relevant. They are aging rapidly there without young workers replacing them.
ReplyDeleteThe support ratio dropping from 12 to 4 (on a global basis) appears to be a huge problem. However, reading this I was stuck with the notion that the 12 to 1 ratio does not take into account the actual number of people that are not in a position to support anyone. A significant percentage of world's population is living in extreme poverty, and therefore not providing a great deal of support as it is, so part of the solution to this problem might be to find a solution to world poverty. From what I'm seeing on-line regarding world poverty, 80% or more of the population is offering no help whatsoever in the support of the aging population (say 72%, if we assume 10% of the poor are themselves over age 65). This means that the assumed current support ratio of 12 to 1 is really only 3.36 to 1. If we eliminated world poverty by 2050, we'd actually increase the ratio from 3.36 to 4. But since that is extremely unlikely, to say the least, if we could say reduce world poverty by a third, it would seem that this would go a long way toward helping solve the aging support ratio issue as well. PLUS, that would free up at least some resources now devoted to supporting the world's impoverished masses. Something to consider.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it seems the world is headed in the opposite direction ... where we are ever-increasing the proportion of the world's population that are too poor to help.
The main point here is that the 12 to 1 ratio merely represents the raw headcount numbers alone and ignores the fact that a significant portion of the 12 provide no support.
Ending world poverty is a dream. If the top 1% of the global economic wealthy people gave just 1% of their wealth to the poor in the world you would not see the poverty that those same wealthy have created. Consider that the top 1% have so much "Expendable Income" compared to the poor people of the world - now who keeps the poor drained of resources ?? Ah ha, the wealthy are creating government programs thru the United Nations and the US to "Bleed" the ignorant of everything. The next step for the wealthy is to crush the middle-class citizen to eliminate the competition. The important thing for everyone who is not in the top 1% wealthy group to try to get a better understanding of how this global economy got this extreme.
ReplyDelete