By George Washington of Washington’s Blog.
You know all about the subprime, alt-a, option arm, and commercial real estate crises.
You’re well-aware of the house of cards built with credit default swaps, securitized assets and other exotic investments.
You’ve heard about the massive debt overhang threatening individuals, companies and the country as a whole, and the massive de-leveraging which is still to occur.
You’re aware of the soaring unemployment rate, the tapped out consumer, and many other economic problems.
But do you know about the demographic crisis?
What Demographic Crisis?
Franco Modigliani won the Nobel Prize in Economics 1985, partly for his “life cycle hypothesis“, which states that spending and savings patterns are predictable and largely a function of age demographics. In other words, Modigliani’s hypothesis is basically that age demographics largely determine the health and robustness of an economy.
Harry Dent and other financial advisors who have examined American demographics say that we’re in big trouble.
Specifically, they say that the basic health of any country’s economy is largely driven by the number of its citizens who are in their peak spending years.
For example, the peak Japanese spending range has been estimated to be comprised of 39-43 year olds. The more 39-43 year olds Japan has at any given time, the more consumer spending there will be, as these are the folks who are the big spenders in Japan. Dent argues that the Japanese economy will tend to grow when the number of 39-43 year olds grows, and to shrink when it shrinks.
Dent says that this principle applies to all countries, although the peak spending years might vary slightly from country to country.
In the U.S., Dent says, 46-50 year olds are the biggest spenders, because that is when – on average – they are paying for their kids’ college, paying mortgage on the biggest house they will own during their life, and making other big-ticket purchases.
Claus Vogt agrees, saying that – all other things being equal – the country with the youngest population will experience the biggest growth in the future, as it will have the highest percentage of productive people in the days ahead (Modigliani’s age categories are somewhat different from Dent’s and Vogt’s, but – in general – people are having children later than they were in 1985).
Whether or not you believe Modigliani , Dent and Vogt, it should be obvious that countries with a large percentage of elderly people and a small proportion of productive workers will have less productive output and a larger demand for social services than those with a higher percentage of workers. It should also be obvious that this will tend to drag down the economy.
Which Countries Have the Most Favorable Demographics?
Which countries have the best demographics?
Let’s start by looking at the “age pyramid” for the United States. The following 2 charts from the National Institutes of Health shows that the population is aging:
This graphic (courtesy of Ed Stephan) shows the U.S. age pyramid from from 1950 through 2050:
male female Population of the United States, by Age and Sex,
information source: International Data Base, U.S. Census Bureau;
supplied pyramids were modified using Canvas, GraphicConverter and GIFBuilder.
[If you can't see the dates at the bottom of the pyramid, click here].
As NIH notes:
The first of the postwar baby boom cohort, born 1946–1964, will turn 55 years in 2001. In just three decades, an extraordinary change in the age structure of the United States is anticipated. By 2030, one in five persons (20% of the U.S. population) will be aged 65 or older, increasing from the present ratio of one in nine persons (12.8%). The number of persons in the 65 and older age group will more than double, increasing from the current 34 million persons to 70 million persons. Moreover, within the older segment of the population, because of longer life expectancy and additional persons reaching older ages, there will be age shifts resulting in the 85 and older population more than doubling in size from 4.3 million persons to approximately 8.9 million persons.
An aging U.S. population means less productive workers, less big-spending consumers, and more dependent elders.
China’s working-age population will peak in 2015 and plunge by 23 percent by 2050.
Brazil has a much younger age demographic.
And India’s is even younger than Brazil’s.
The following chart shows that Japan has the worst demographics of all, with a staggering percentage of elderly who need to be taken care of by the young:
Chart 2: Old Age Dependency Ratios for Selected Countries
And this chart shows that – as a whole – emerging markets have a higher percentage of working age population:
Chart 3: Working-Age Population as % of Total Population
What Does It Mean?
What does all this mean?
Well, initially, it means that – in addition to everything else they have going for them – 2 of the BRIC countries (Brazil and India) have much more favorable demographics than the United States. So they are at a competitive advantage to America for demographic reasons in addition to the other reasons that people write about.
Indeed, as Richard Jackson told the White House Conference on Aging in 2005:
If demography is destiny, global leadership may pass to the “Third” world…
Countries with slowly growing workforces may have slowly growing economies…
We live in an era defined by many challenges, from global warming to global terrorism.
None is as certain as global aging.
And none is likely to have such a large and enduring effect on the shape of national economies and the world order.
Moreover, Dent and another of the main writers focusing on the economic effect of age demographers – Daniel Arnold – say that America’s aging demographics point to a major depression.
As Arnold writes:
2008 was the victim of a self inflicted sub-prime financial crisis. This has nothing to do with the demographics based massive depression that is yet to come, as described in the book. The sub-prime consequences are however very similar though mild so far compared to what is coming our way. The book clearly spelled out that along the way unpredictable short-term (1 to 3 years) disruptive events could happen. The sub-prime crisis is just that. It should be regarded as the “warmer upper” or “hors d’oeuvre” for the big one that is now rapidly closing in on us all.
I hope that he’s wrong.
Note: Of course, different levels of development and technology also substantially affect the economy.