An Ageing Population and the Economy
A couple of related pieces today that both underline a theme that has been commonplace at Demography is Destiny over the past few months. If you have to ask what that theme is then you obviously have not been reading with the necessary assiduity and I am not going to help you.
…
Oh ok, fine, but just this once. That theme is this: that many countries in the world (and beyond just Western Europe) are in trouble because of their ageing populations. Far from worrying about an increasing population, many countries in the world are faced with a declining number of workers and a growing number of retirees. This means that there is less money coming in through taxes and more money being spent on retirement funds and superannuation.
As I said, two further illustrations of this theme are at hand. The first illustration comes from Canada, which, although it can be proud of its rugby team’s commitment in the World Cup, has been warned about its “shaky financial ground”. The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in Canada has just released a report that has announced that current financial systems at both the federal and provincial level are not sustainable “due to an ageing population and current economic trends”. For the 2011-2012 budget year, the consolidated fiscal gap for all levels of Government sits at 2.7% of GDP (or CAD46 billion). This gap is likely to increase as:
“A greying population will put downward pressure on revenues as growth in the tax base slows, while spending demands will mount as more retirees tap seniors’ benefits. Even if the economy fully recovers over the next few years, the additional spending on health care and elderly benefits is expected to erode public finances, taking governments from surpluses over the medium term to “sizable deficits” over the long term…”
The Office recommends either increasing taxes or chopping spending – two fairly unpalatable alternatives. For the long term, they could suggest a more popular pastime to help bridge the gap: have more babies!
The second illustration is literally an illustration – one of those great little graphs that the Economist regularly produces. This graph is taken from the Asian Development Bank’s Asian Development Outlook and it calculates the economic impact of demographics upon certain Asian economies as the annual percentage change on GDP per capita:
“Demographics…are a noteworthy determinant of economic potential. Youngsters and retirees do not work, which harms growth directly. And because these dependants make a claim on a country’s income without adding to it, they also depress savings, thereby slowing the accumulation of capital and the growth of productivity.”
The graph shows this demographic impact over the last ten years which was very positive for Vietnam at 1.5%, around 1% for Malaysia, and between 0.5% and 1% for Indonesia, the Philippines, India, Thailand and China. It then sets out the forecast for the next two decades. The interesting figure are those for 2021-2030, when demographics are expected to have a negative impact on the GDP per capita per annum of Singapore (-2.5%), Hong Kong (-2.2%), Taiwan (-1.5%), South Korea (-1.5%), Thailand (-0.8%), China (-0.75%) and Vietnam (-0.2%). For that decade, only Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and India are expected to be benefiting still from a demographic dividend.
Loading ...
The world’s global issues still beg why there is double the population in a generation, but LESS of the kinds of jobs and work that requires so many people.
Figure in longer life spans, IVF and other fertility support that’s allowed women well past their childbearing to have babies and sometimes multiple births: there has been an increase of population, but will less need for most of it.
Certain types of jobs, have been rendered obsolete by mechanization, the Internet and other technological changes. Perhaps the world’s population should have remained constant at about 3 billion.
Less pollution, less competition for the lesser amounts of jobs, and mores the point, a balance of workers and the retired that would compliment each other, rather than prompt such articles in the first place.
I attribute it in part to the essential stigma against those who have smaller families or no children at all. There is a consistent fight against mortality and infertility and wars on females that have skewed much that endangers mankind in other ways.
@Regan DuCasse
“Figure in longer life spans, IVF and other fertility support that’s allowed women well past their childbearing to have babies and sometimes multiple births: there has been an increase of population, but will less need for most of it.”
You answered your own question: the world population is still increasing because people are living longer. Look at a graph of births per woman. You see, you need new people (i.e. babies) to replace those that die.
“Less pollution, less competition for the lesser amounts of jobs, and mores the point, a balance of workers and the retired that would compliment each other, rather than prompt such articles in the first place.”
And how do you propose we “balance the workers and the retired” Again, that’s the point of this article. People are living longer and retiring, but women of child bearing age are not having enough children (future workers) to “balance” the retired.
People of child bearing age are not replacing themselves and we have entitlement programs. These entitlement programs are going under because there are not enough workers to fund those who are retired and withdrawing from these entitlement programs. Why are there not enough workers? Because for the past 35 years, people of child bearing age have not had enough children to simply replace the population.
Until we convince people aged 40 and under that life isn’t all about selfish pleasure, the trend in decline in population will continue. And, for the record, I am in this age group.
“Until we convince people aged 40 and under that life isn’t all about selfish pleasure, the trend in decline in population will continue. And, for the record, I am in this age group.”
Ah yes, life is all about selfish pleasure. That’s why I am partying 24/7 and wasting all my father’s college money on booze and women. Nope, no working towards a useful degree for me!
Before you insult me and everyone I know at my school, you might want to actually meet some of us.
@Roivas
Wow. You really took that personally. “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”
I was just reflecting on the behavior of people that I know. Many of whom are really nice people, (and they worked hard for their degrees, too) that just don’t want the lifestyle change that accompanies children.
“Until we convince people aged 40 and under that life isn’t all about selfish pleasure, ”
So this isn’t an insult? Woah, news to me.
You talk to your friends this way when they mention they don’t want children?
“Oh yeah, I can see how children would cramp your style of selfish pleasure.”
“Wow. You really took that personally. “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”
By the way, if you’re trying to convince me that you didn’t mean to be insulting, its generally a good idea not to do it again in the next post.
@Roivas
I’m suggesting that you took it personally because you saw yourself reflected in my comment.
“I’m suggesting that you took it personally because you saw yourself reflected in my comment.”
What next, “I’m rubber, you’re glue?” How childish.
No, even better.
If the shoe fits…
My first comment was directed at no one in particular, just an observation from having observed my peers. You then took it personally. I then suggested that what I said applied to you to because you took it personally. To which you replied that I was being childish.
So who is really childish here? Prove me wrong. Marry and have lots of children and make the sacrifices necessary to support and raise children.
“Prove me wrong. Marry and have lots of children and make the sacrifices necessary to support and raise children.”
Because anyone who doesn’t have children is selfish?
That is a narrow minded insult.
@Roivas
I’ve got news for you: it’s not all about you.
Answer my question: Is any adult without children and no plans of having them selfish?
These exchanges are so sad. As the father of four children, I can affirm without reservation that children are a blessing. Does that mean that having children is easy? No. Does it mean that the blessing doesn’t come with burdens? No. It is sad when people decide to reject blessings for whatever reason. It is really sad when they reject blessings because they wrongly believe that the hard work of parenting is too great a burden to bear. The only truly fulfilling life is a life lived for others. It is my hope and prayer that anyone who decides to remain childless will dedicate himself or herself in some other way to the needs of others. One need not have children to be fulfilled; one does need to live for others to be fulfilled.
Rovias, I noted that you commented a few times on the Down Syndrome thread as well. I had a hard time figuring out what your views on the abortion of children with Down Syndrome are. Would you mind explaining your views? I am the father of a special needs child. She is a great blessing, but I won’t even pretend that having a disabled child is easy; it is not. The reason not to abort disabled children is not because they are happy people and make the people around them happy; the reason not to abort them is that they are humans, made in the image of God, endowed by Him with a right to life. I don’t care if 99% of respondents said they regret having a child or sibling with Down Syndrome. How others may feel about people with disability hasn’t the slightest impact on their inherent, God-given right to life. I understand the purpose in promoting the findings of the study, but we need to be clear that all humans have a right to life no matter how anyone or everyone else feels about them.
“As the father of four children, I can affirm without reservation that children are a blessing.”
Yes they are. For you. I am not so arrogant as to claim that my life’s choices are the best for everyone. There are way too many people who should never be within 100 feet of a child who are parents anyways, whether by accident or by choice. I would never want to inflict such people on a child who has no choice in the matter.
My view on abortions of fetuses with Down Syndrome are informed by this. Namely that if a person feels they cannot take care of a down syndrome child or do not want too, that it would be the height of cruelty to inflict such a child on the parent, or such a parent on the child.
Additionally, I believe that people express their values through their actions. And a 90% abortion rate of children with Down Syndrome says something about American values. And making abortion illegal won’t change those values. It will simply make them go underground, or be expressed in other ways.
Diogenes,
Thanks for your comment and for being open to God’s blessings. I too have four children, and I too can affirm that while parenting is hard work, each one of them is a huge blessing to my wife and me.
“Yes they are. For you. I am not so arrogant as to claim that my life’s choices are the best for everyone. There are way too many people who should never be within 100 feet of a child who are parents anyways, whether by accident or by choice. I would never want to inflict such people on a child who has no choice in the matter.”
I agree. Many great and godly men and women chose to remain childless, including our Lord Jesus Christ. How they implemented that choice makes all the difference in the world. And such childless people as Mother Teresa did not merely choose childlessness as a means to avoid living for others, quite the opposite. As I observed above, a fulfilled life is one lived for others. There is no lasting joy in living only for one’s self. And many people who in their early adulthood don’t believe they would make good parents find out otherwise. Love is a choice, not merely an emotion; it is what we do, not merely what we feel.
“My view on abortions of fetuses with Down Syndrome are informed by this. Namely that if a person feels they cannot take care of a down syndrome child or do not want too, that it would be the height of cruelty to inflict such a child on the parent, or such a parent on the child.”
Indeed it would. It is also cruel to kill such children. There is another alternative: adoption. I know for a fact that there are people prepared to do just that. I live within 50 yards of a couple who already had three children of their own who have adopted two children with Down Syndrome. Preventing one cruelty does not justify committing another.
“Additionally, I believe that people express their values through their actions. And a 90% abortion rate of children with Down Syndrome says something about American values. And making abortion illegal won’t change those values. It will simply make them go underground, or be expressed in other ways.”
Indeed. I certainly don’t believe all immoral acts should be criminalized. If they were, we would all be in jail. Nor do I believe criminalizing acts make a people subject to those laws have better hearts. But restricting abortion is not about improving the values of the American people; it is about saving innocent lives. Murder still occurs even though criminalized. Rape still occurs even though criminalized. Bank fraud still occurs even though criminalized. If criminalizing immoral acts by itself prevented those acts, the criminal courts and prisons would all be empty. We restrict certain acts (by criminal laws or otherwise — not all restrictions on acts are or need be made through the criminal code) to protect the innocent. The argument that people will procure abortions anyway is not excuse not to restrict access and not to put in place policies designed to limit elective abortion as much as possible. By that argument, we shouldn’t criminalize anything.
“I live within 50 yards of a couple who already had three children of their own who have adopted two children with Down Syndrome. Preventing one cruelty does not justify committing another.”
If abortions stopped tomorrow, do you really think that adoption would be able to fill the gap. Just with Down Syndrome, that would mean 10x amount of children. Most of whom would need to be adopted under your system. I can guarantee you that most would not find “good Christian” families. Most would end up being warehoused in increasingly overcrowded government institutions that no matter how well meaning, would not be able to keep up. This would lead to high needs Down Syndrome kids being condemned to a life of misery, poverty and dependence.
Is that what you want? If not, what would you do about it?
I expect you would see a lot more adoptions than you think. I am confident that a lot of families would undertake the burden.
My question to you is whether you, Roivas, would undertake to adopt one of these children? Would you choose to rescue one of these children from being “being warehoused in increasingly overcrowded government institutions” or would you choose to have them killed by their mothers or would you choose to love one of these children? I’m rearing a disabled child already, but we have actually discussed whether we should adopt another. Were we younger, we probably would.
What are you doing other than calling for disabled children to be killed in their mothers’ wombs? Killing the disabled is not an act of love. Stop pretending it is. Loving a disabled child is what our family is doing. Loving disabled children is what our neighbors are doing. Killing the disabled is an act of hatred. Will you love or will you hate? Stop looking around at society, Roivas, and start looking at Roivas. Stop assessing society’s values and start assessing Roivas’ values. You have little control over what society does; you have considerable control over what Roivas does and what kind of person Roivas is and becomes. You can choose a life of giving or a life of living for yourself. Choose wisely. You will have to live with that choice for a long time.
Oh, and by the way, Roivas, you can turn around the spelling of you nom de blog, abandoning Eternal Darkness and becoming the savior of one or a few, or you can embrace Eternal Darkness, but, if you do the latter, the day will come when you will find that you can no long break free, but will be enslaved by that Ancient serpent. Life isn’t a game.
So in response, you deny that there would be a problem, and then turn around and accuse me of being part of the problem you deny would exist. Nice.
Here’s the thing about abortions. Studies have shown that abortion generally doesn’t change the number of children an average woman has. It mostly changes when she has them. So the abortion of any child, even a down syndrome child, doesn’t likely change the number of living people. Now, you may claim that since the aborted came first they should have the rights to that life. But if you do so, you are no longer arguing for a right to life, but who is more worthy of having it.
As for the part where you write about my screen name, I would love some of what you are smoking. Cause that stuff must be potent.
Diogenes said it better than me:
“I agree. Many great and godly men and women chose to remain childless, including our Lord Jesus Christ. How they implemented that choice makes all the difference in the world. And such childless people as Mother Teresa did not merely choose childlessness as a means to avoid living for others, quite the opposite. As I observed above, a fulfilled life is one lived for others. There is no lasting joy in living only for one’s self. And many people who in their early adulthood don’t believe they would make good parents find out otherwise. Love is a choice, not merely an emotion; it is what we do, not merely what we feel.”
This is what I would mean to say, but not as eloquently as Diogenes. How you implement the choice of childlessness makes all the difference. If you argue for unlimited casual sex (as you have done here) I sincerely doubt your desire to remain childless is unselfish. But, by all means, feel free to prove me wrong.
@Diogenes
Thank you for jumping in here!
Pardon me, but where did I ever say I planned to remain childless? I know its hard to believe, but its possible for people to be fine with casual sex can still be quite definite about wanting to have children.
I wrote, “I expect you would see a lot more adoptions than you think. I am confident that a lot of families would undertake the burden.”
Roivas responds, “So in response, you deny that there would be a problem . . . .”
Obviously, anyone with no more than a third graders reading comprehension can tell that Rovias misrepresented what I wrote. Since Roivas is obviously very smart, I have no choice but to attribute this misrepresentation to intellectual dishonesty. There is no point in engaging such a person.
But why would such be the case? “Pardon me, but where did I ever say I planned to remain childless? I know its hard to believe, but its possible for people to be fine with casual sex can still be quite definite about wanting to have children.”
To be “fine with casual sex” tells us why?
Anyone who is “fine with casual” sex really misses the whole beauty and power of sex. To treat sex as “casual” is akin, though worse, to treating the music of Mozart and Bach casually, as if they were of no greater value than some popular song of one’s youth, which ones own children will dismiss as what it is, pedestrian. Such a person understands only the fleeting pleasure of the physical without embracing the emotional bounding with a lifelong lover and the life-giving energy of the most primal and potent of human activities. They are like children scribbling on paper believing that they are engaged in the same act as Rembrandt. Such a person has never had true sexual intercourse with a beloved, only a cheap, counterfeit copy. One can only hope that some day they will come to reject the knockoff and embrace the real thing.
Roivas writes, “Here’s the thing about abortions. Studies have shown that abortion generally doesn’t change the number of children an average woman has. It mostly changes when she has them. So the abortion of any child, even a down syndrome child, doesn’t likely change the number of living people. Now, you may claim that since the aborted came first they should have the rights to that life. But if you do so, you are no longer arguing for a right to life, but who is more worthy of having it. ”
Not I. That murderers treat their disabled children as throwaways and then try again for a more perfect child does nothing to defeat my argument. Such people are as wrong in limiting the number of their offspring as they are in murdering them. My wife and I do not use contraception. We believe all sexual acts should be open to life. We believe and embrace life. We love life and love our lovemaking having the potential of giving life. Our sexual life is not dead nor do we desire it to be dead. Our lovemaking is fertile and potentially life-giving and we do not desire it to be sterile. You really have no understanding whatsoever of the beauty and potency of life lived with a lover, a beloved. How sad.
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.”
“What then? Do you contemn the gift of God [fertility], and fight with his laws? What is a curse [barrenness], do you seek as though it were a blessing?”
Roivas bristles at the accusation that he is self-centered and then proves the charge by his own later posts. He embraces the curse of sterile, counterfeit sex, rejecting and contemning the emotional bounding and fertility of real sex, intercourse souls as well as bodies.
I’m done wasting my time on this person. I shake the dust from my sandals.
“Roivas bristles at the accusation that he is self-centered and then proves the charge by his own later posts. He embraces the curse of sterile, counterfeit sex, rejecting and contemning the emotional bounding and fertility of real sex, intercourse souls as well as bodies.”
Its so nice to see people who are willing to engage in open, thoughtful debate free from puerile self righteous name calling. Its a credit to our nation.
Perhaps of interest to some of you: http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/2011/upload/life-matters-persons-with-disabilities-respect-life-2011.pdf
And this: http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/2011/upload/life-matters-abortion.pdf