thanks colinsett for the dependency figures. But you can easily take things further. Once you turn 65 you do not automatically become a dependent. In fact many people in their 60's and 70's are involved in the care of their grandchildren. They are also overrepresented in many aspects of volunteering in groups that support others. They are also overrepresented in many community based political action groups.
In reality it is only once they get into the 80's and 90's are they more likely to be "true" dependents. And nowadays there are many people in their 80's still leading independent lives and making contributions to their family and community.

At the other end of the scale very few young people leave home at 16. Most continue to be full time students until their early 20's. Even though might have part-time work they are still DEPENDENT on their parents for housing and other key requirements.

So you could argue to redefine the dependency age ranges from 0-21 and 80+. In which case colinsett would have shown dramatic improvements and will continue to improve as the population ages.

I would also envisage an increasing number of 60+ people working part-time. We don't have to go from full-time to retirement. If there are truly labor shortages employers will be more flexible and we will see more older people part-time in the workforce.

So it would appear that all my concerns about the impact of an aging population are nonsense, Olduvai.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Apparently, the more people in the over-65 (or over-80, you be the judge) cohort, the better off we all will be.

At the same time, of course, as we are living longer and need to keep the population "stable", we would have to insist on fewer carbon-based life-forms in the 0-21 category, would we not.

But hey, they are also a drain on our resources, aren't they, so we will all be that much better off again, yes?

Sounds almost too good to be true. Lots of oldies, no kiddies, all living in harmony with their Hills hoist in the yard and and FX Holden in the driveway.

Can't help thinking their may be something wrong with this picture.

Can anybody explain how that works, in simple terms?

As in "clearly, with lots of oldies, no kiddies, and no net immigration, the economy would thrive, because x, y, and z"?

From the tone of the posts here it must be me who is out of step. But I'd appreciate a little help to square this (ghastly) image with some credible version of reality.

Anyone?

Hi Pericles,

China has gone down the path that Sandra Kanck has suggested as an ideal. Over the past thirty years, the Chinese economy has boomed. But wait: that's just the first generation.

In the second generation of its one-child policy, starting about now, lo and behold there are as many over-fifties or -sixties as there would have been regardless of its policies. They are the parents of the one-child generation, and are now supporting their own aged parents. In ten years or so, after 2020-2030, they will be the non-working, aged parents themselves, often keeping their own parents company.

So this rising new generation, far smaller in numbers, will be supporting a retired population of 'normal size', their own parents, and very likely their grandparents as well. With afffluence and highereducation levels, they may marry later, dragging dow nthe birth-rate even further. The thought of emigrating may cross their minds: they might as well put that pampering and education to good use in a high-paying country.

How many children will this 'new' generation have, one per couple ? i.e. one grandchild per four grandparents ? Certainly, raising children will not be much of a social or economic burden, if a society has very few of them. [By extension, to have none at all would be extremely efficaceous for an economy, saving enormously on education and other infrastructure costs. Sandra Kanck would be over the moon.] But improved health services will mean that their aged parents and grand-parents (and even great-grandparents) age even more greatly.

[TBC]

Pericles,
look up "demographic transition"
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
At some point in time (if you believe that we can't go on growing forever *). We will get a population pyramid like that of stage 4 in the reference I have provided.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/DTM_Pyramids.svg
With death rate and birth rate in rough equilibrium. Life will continue, humanity has far greater problems than worrying about an aging population in Western nations. I thought you growthists always believe in human ingenuity and technology will solve all our problems?
Can't be that hard to come up with a viable way to continue life on Earth with countries like Australia at stage 4?

Also why the focus on Japan? Russia's population has sunk since the end of the USSR by 6 million.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Population_of_Russia.PNG
It would not be my choice of place to live, but they are still a viable entity. They are not starving or have gone back to the stone age.

(*) Kenneth Boulding:
"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."
exponential growth = Constant percentage growth

This is a paste from Deep Blue from another post yesterday.

"Sustainable Population Australia (SPA), believe that as the driest inhabited continent, Australia cannot continue to sustain its current rate of population growth without becoming overpopulated... The UK-based Optimum Population Trust supports the view that Australia is overpopulated, and believes that to maintain the current standard of living in Australia, the optimum population is 10 million.

I like the name Deep Blue. It has Giai or Gaia like connotations. I like Deep Blue because unlike Kanck, we're can have an extra 3 million people. This is good news.

*So Yabby, let me see if I've got this right ..... The people of Africa, South America and Asia are supposed to sacrifice themselves for our lifestyle ?*

Sheesh, I had to wait 16 hours to respond to this. No Loudmouth,
you have it wrong. The suggestion is that Africa has more chance
of one day becoming sustaintable, if the population stops growing.

The population would most likely stop growing, if women in the third
world were given a choice about family size, as they are in the first
world. We take things like family planning, abortion etc, for granted.
Not so in Africa, where some Western Christians are
preaching that they should cross their legs for Jesus. Its been
shown to be a miserable failure, even in America.

So we've sent them boatloads of food and vaccines and no family
planning, then wondered why they have huge families.

Having a choice about birth control is hardly self sacrifice.

More people is clearly not the answer to the wellbeing of those
already present. Try feeding and educating 8 kids and see how you go.

In fact in places like Rwanda, family farming plots becoming smaller
and smaller with each generation, was one of the reasons for the
genocide that followed.

In India and China we have similar problems, ie more and more people
over generations means smaller and smaller farming plots. Any
possibility of increased agricultural productivity goes out the window.
It also means that food which is produced, is more and more
expensive for those who buy it, usually other poor people.