The Forum > Article Comments > Bernard Salt abandons his Baby Boomer theory > Comments
Bernard Salt abandons his Baby Boomer theory : Comments
By Mark O'Connor, published 16/6/2011Australia's biggest big Australia advocate has been forced to retreat.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 16 June 2011 9:18:15 AM
| |
Well done Mark for exposing the false and misleading arguments of the growth lobby. Bernard Salt speaks on behalf of those making a quick buck out of population growth - property developers, banks and employers who'd rather import cheap labour than invest in Australians. We are fast running out of natural resources, and polluting the environment on a global scale. Australia has the worst record of species extinction in the world. The most responsible thing we can do for future generations and other species is to stabilise the human population - everywhere.
Posted by Ruth1, Thursday, 16 June 2011 9:42:13 AM
| |
Australia: “A Sunny Place for Shady People”.
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 16 June 2011 9:51:09 AM
| |
Mark is right to highlight the Salt retraction on this one. But Salt's main problem is that he is assuming a business-as-usual world where we can continue to expand as we have done in the past. Unfortunately, the next 20 years will be radically different from the last 20 years with climate change starting to bite and with oil depleting by maybe 3% a year, sending the price up to unaffordable levels for many economies, including ours. He is irrationally bouyant about our future world where he sees, for instance, that the expiry of the Antarctic Treaty will be a wonderful opportunity to exploit its minerals - never mind that most of us want the Antarctic preserved in its pristine form and used only for peaceful and scientific purposes.
It's all a pity because Salt is basically likeable and I'm sure he has something to contribute to public discussion. I'm not quite sure what it is exactly, because much of what he says is fatuous, albeit often amusing. He just needs some scientific training - maybe about ten years - then he can come back out and spout his wisdom. Posted by popnperish, Thursday, 16 June 2011 10:01:29 AM
| |
A kiddie pool has more depth than any of Salt's theories.
It's a sad day when F-grade 'celebrities' like Mr BS are able to manipulate public debate with their self-serving distortions. When the growth lobby and LibLabs get together, it's time to replace our elected reps: Vote 1 Stable Population Party. Posted by Sustainable choice, Thursday, 16 June 2011 10:08:14 AM
| |
...Salt: Stage one of the property spruiker’s re-group, as the “chooks” come home to roost on the oversupplied and crumbling property market!
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 16 June 2011 10:31:56 AM
| |
Are you telling us that a business-lobbyist who writes for the Australian- was just making up rubbish?
Who would have guessed that? Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 16 June 2011 12:44:34 PM
| |
So the gist of the article seems to be a loudmouth spokesperson can't reason, and can't add up. In fact better than 70% of ordinary Australian's can do a better job than this elite conservative.
As spindoc remarked on another thread, there is a definitely a similarity between the AGW alarmists, the people who worry about population, peak oil and what not. This highlights it. There are two courses of action you can take if an expert points out trouble ahead. You can either investigate if making a few mildly unpleasant changes now can avoid some hugely unpleasant changes being forced onto you in the future. Or you can do some swift calculations "mistakenly" adding up to 1+1 to be 3, thus proving the expert wrong and allowing you to continue your comfortable life style for the time being. I guess there is the third option, as taken by Houellebecq. You can loudly proclaim you don't care what happens to anyone else either now either now or in the future, so screw it. Houellebecq has always possessed a certain charming honesty. Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 16 June 2011 1:29:19 PM
| |
At some point I will check the ABS stats for myself, but if the workforce is set to expand rather than decline then so be it. Australia will stagger on as it always has.
But those who are worried about limits to resources and so on - without justification in my view - also have to take into account workforce productivity. The big gains in workforce productivity (and capital productivity for that matter) may be behind us, but those indexes are still growing, and gradually increasing the effect all those eager salary-earning, home-buying, SUV driving new workers are having on the economy and our resources. So not only do the anti-pops have to "do" something about restricting immigration (good luck with that), they have to rein in population growth(forget about it!) and then "fix" productivity growth (seriously impossible). Oh yes, and while you're at it, try telling people they can't use air conditioners on very hot days. The responses should at least be entertaining. Beating up on Bernard in an OLO article may be a tiny, first step on this journey to green nirvana but its a long road ahead. Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 16 June 2011 2:07:02 PM
| |
Curmy "But those who are worried about limits to resources and so on - without justification in my view ...... and gradually increasing the effect all those eager salary-earning, home-buying, SUV driving new workers are having on the economy and our resources."
Which side of the fence are you on? David Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 16 June 2011 2:30:19 PM
| |
Playing “gotcha” with Bernard Salt doesn’t disprove the idea that Australia’s aging population is a problem
According to the Treasury’s 2010 intergenerational report: http://www.treasury.gov.au/igr/igr2010/report/html/02_Chapter_1_Economic_and_demographic.asp “In 1970, there were 7.5 people of working age to support every person aged 65 and over. By 2010 this has fallen to an estimated 5 people of working age .... By 2050 the number is projected to decline to 2.7 people” “In June 2010, the proportion of those aged 65 and over in the Australian population is projected to reach 13.5 per cent, up from 8.3 per cent in 1970. By June 2050, around 22.6 per cent of the Australian population is projected to be aged 65 and over. The proportion of the population aged 85 and over is projected to increase most rapidly, rising from 1.8 per cent in 2010 to 5.1 per cent in 2050.” Australia’s combined dependency rate for both children and the aged has been in decline in recent years despite the aging population, because the percentage of young people in the population has fallen steadily. This decline in the child dependency rate has now halted, and over the next forty years child dependency “is projected to fluctuate around the current level.” In combination with the rise in aged dependency, the total dependency rate is projected to rise from current levels of 48% to about 66% by mid-century. http://www.treasury.gov.au/igr/igr2010/report/html/10_Appendix_A_Projections.asp What’s more, when looking at growth in the workforce, more needs to be taken into account than the number of 15-65 year olds. Within this “working age” population different age cohorts have different levels of participation, with participation falling steadily beyond age 50. As a result, Australia’s aging population will result in its labour force participation rate falling slowly but steadily in the next 40 years, reversing the trend growth of the past 30 years. And, as Curmudgeon has said, there’s the added challenge of productivity. Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 16 June 2011 3:12:57 PM
| |
Rhian:
Are you aware that countries that do not have an ageing demographic profile are the poorest countries in the world (e.g. Congo, Burundi and Ethiopia)? In contrast, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Norway have populations that are ageing sooner and more dramatically than Australia's. They don't see it as a problem, and they enjoy a higher level of wealth per capita than Australia. Demographic ageing is an indicator of a country's success. Trying to suppress it through massive immigration programs is as logical as a Ponzi scheme, and creates an economic time-bomb for future generations to address. Even Peter McDonald could figure that out. Posted by Ruth1, Thursday, 16 June 2011 3:49:03 PM
| |
@Rhian: According to the Treasury’s 2010 intergenerational report ... “In 1970, there were 7.5 people of working age to support every person aged 65 and over. By 2010 this has fallen to an estimated 5 people of working age .... By 2050 the number is projected to decline to 2.7 people"
That would be a lot more meaningful if the statistic was about how many non-working people each worker had to support. Yes, the number of older people are going up. But the proportion of 0..20 year olds is going down. The younger generation are much more expensive to support. They require a full time carer for the first couple years, and feeding, clothing, schooling, and transport for the next 2 decades. The older generation only requires that level of support in their last few months. And seriously, how can anyone consider the immigration to be a permanent solution to the ageing problem? At some stage, at some time in the future, the country will be full. All you are doing is delaying the problem, and making it bigger at the same time. Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 16 June 2011 3:58:20 PM
| |
@Rhian: Population growth is much more costly than demographic ageing.
We need massive tax hikes to manage population growth (or the current reduction in quality of life, environment, services and infrastructure). That is why we already have a massive $770b infrastructure deficit and crippled budgets at every level of government trying to keep up. We need appropriate reform around tax, super, retirement age, health insurance, etc to manage our modest ageing challenge. A ponzi scheme will simply pass on a bigger challenge. Posted by Sustainable choice, Thursday, 16 June 2011 4:19:31 PM
| |
Ruth1
The reason these countries do not have an aging population is because they have high mortality and fertility rates – lots of kids are born, very few make it to old age. Not a comparable demographic. And some developing countries do have an aging population problem. China’s one-child policy has wreaked havoc with its demographic profile and created a 4-2-1 dependence structure – one working child supporting two aging parents and four grandparents. Not much fun when there’s no significant social security, and a cautionary tale for the social engineers who would try to coerce lower birth rates. Rstuart If you look at my post or the treasury paper I quote, you’ll see that the decline in child dependency of the past few decades has run its course. From here on the under 15 population is projected to be a fairly stable % of the total while the aged steadily rise, so total dependents will rise as a % of working age people. I’m not sure children are cheaper than old people, especially the very old (85+) who will be the fastest growing age cohort. Their health and aged care costs are very high. Many retirees are entitled to aged pension, which costs far more than child support. The Treasury report suggests that more rapid growth in health and pension costs will far outweigh comparatively modest growth in education costs. I don’t consider migration a permanent or complete solution to the aging problem, but I do challenge the author’s implication that we have no problem. Sustainable choice Where do your infrastructure numbers come from? Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 16 June 2011 4:26:34 PM
| |
VK3AUU
I was poking fun at the anti-pops. It all harmless, there's no way their ideas will ever get up. AND OH YES.. Another point has occured to me. Most of the debate about the ratio of retirees to workforce has long been recognised as something of a furphy. Its long been known that people are retiring later, generally, and that messes up all the previously calculated dependency ratios. But even with people generally retiring later, if we really needed more workers then we could have policies for encouraging those in their 50s or so who have fallen out of the workforce, for one reason or another, to get back into it. There are quite a number in unwilling retirement who would like to get back in, who can't get a job as companies simply do not hire people in that age bracket - unless its from an existing job. Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 16 June 2011 4:50:11 PM
| |
Rhian
Wrong again. Please check your stats before your next post. China does not have a 4:2:1 demographic profile - their demographic pyramid is actually starting to resemble a developed country (US Census Bureau International Data Base). I'm glad you understand that countries who don't age have high mortality and fertility rates, so what's your problem? Do you want to stop our population ageing by social engineering a massive migration program? Or do you want to deny women the right to control their bodies? Surely you don't want a high death rate? The dirty secret behind global population growth is that millions of poor women are being denied access to the education and resources to control their fertility. Posted by Ruth1, Thursday, 16 June 2011 5:35:36 PM
| |
@Rhian: If you look at my post or the treasury paper I quote, you’ll see that the decline in child dependency of the past few decades has run its course.
No doubt. But prior to that we had large drop without the large increase in non-working retires, and now we are returning to the status quo. @Rhian: I’m not sure children are cheaper than old people, especially the very old (85+) True. But an 85+ year old typically doesn't live for 20 years. If they need that sort of care they typically don't last 12 months. @Rhian: Many retirees are entitled to aged pension, which costs far more than child support But not far more than supporting a child, which if you are looking at it from the economies point of view is the more valid viewpoint. As the article pointed out: "In simple terms, grandparents mind children; children don't mind grandparents." The reality is people are happy to pay to support their children, but now they don't have so many children are resisting putting the same money towards their parents. This has to change at some stage. Or not - maybe some would be happier we just adopted letting them die in poverty as the answer. Regardless, propping up the ponzi scheme with immigration does not facilitate the change. @Rhian: I don’t consider migration a permanent or complete solution to the ageing problem, but I do challenge the author’s implication that we have no problem. He acknowledges we are going through a change, and that change will require reallocation of resources with all the usual arguments that engenders. I don't regard that as serious enough to be "a problem". Loosing world petroleum production capacity roughly equal to the words 2nd largest producer (Iran) in the next 12 months is "a problem", and the world's food experts predicting we can't possibly feed the world population in 20 years time as "another problem". This is trivial in comparison. Even the page you link to predicts rising GDP per person in the next 40 years. How does that constitute "a problem"? Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 16 June 2011 5:43:12 PM
| |
Ruth1
I didn’t say China has a 4:2:1 demographic profile, but that because of the one-child policy this is a common dependency structure. If you disagree, please explain how a one-child policy could be enacted WITHOUT producing lots of 4:2:1 families? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/906114.stm Of course I don’t want high mortality in developing countries – that’s a much more common position among anti-population growth advocates who prefer high death rates to high population growth rates. Nor do I want to deny women control of their own fertility. For example, I’d be happy for Australian aid money to be used to improve access to birth control in poor countries, if people do not have access to services they want. But I would strongly oppose coercive measures such as the one child policy or forced abortions. My point was that it is meaningless to compare demographic outcomes of high-fertility high-mortality third world countries with low-fertility low-mortality developed ones, when their causal factors are utterly different. And, as I have already indicated, I do not believe “massive migration” will solve the aging population problem, only that reasonable migration will help temper it. Rstuart The rise in aged dependency is projected to more than offset the decline in child dependency. I’d guess supporting a child is less expensive that supporting a retiree. Children don’t own and operate their own homes or cars and have little discretionary income. And while sick elderly often don’t live long, they’re expensive, and as they die off there are plenty of baby boomers behind to take their place, so numbers in this age group will grow rapidly even if there’s a high attrition rate. Rising GDP is fine, but its growth per capita will slow if productivity growth slows, while the proportion of that GDP used by people who don’t produce it will also grow, and that could be an allocative and equity problem. Curmudgeon You’re right about labour force participation rates for older workers increasing, but I wonder if that will continue enough to unwind the lower participation rates typical beyond age 55 Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 16 June 2011 7:43:28 PM
| |
The pensionable age will be increased to 67 by the 2020's perhaps the labouring age range should be shifting to the 16-67 age group instead.
Posted by Vioetbou, Thursday, 16 June 2011 8:32:32 PM
| |
"In 2002 there were more than five people of working age to support every person aged over 65. By 2042, there will only be 2.5 people of working age supporting each person aged over 65.
"http://demographics.treasury.gov.au/content/_download/australias_demographic_challenges/html/adc-04.asp Maybe someone should tell the treasury that the aging of our population isn't a problem. Posted by PaulL, Thursday, 16 June 2011 8:56:18 PM
| |
I don't have a problem with the sustainability argument that more migrants ultimately makes it tougher to be sustainable in the long run.
What I do have an issue with, is the claim that more migrants leads to things like congestion and makes our cities worse. That is a parochial attitude that misses a few key fundamental points. I often spend time in Beijing, a city with a population comparable to Australia (lets say for argument's sake, a very conservative estimate of 17 million). Their subway system is cheap (even by local standards), clean and easy to use. Same goes for the bus system. Congestion can get frustrating at times, but not as bad as the media reports tend to make out, and frankly I've had more issues with congestion in Brisbane. Sure, the government subsidizes it a great deal, but such a project becomes practical due to economies of scale. With this many users, projects like advanced subway systems become feasible. Blaming migrants is an easy out, when the blame lies with city planners, or politicians focused on the short term who don't implement those plans. Do I support high immigration? No. I don't particularly want Australia to become a high-density nation, and I enjoy the luxuries and open spaces afforded by a low population. (Though I still think there's room for expansion. I don't fear an Australia with 36 million people, but I wouldn't consider that densely populated - and it would be on the proviso that we get our act together in terms of city planning. What I would like in this debate is a little more honesty from both sides, rather than the partisan rancor and refusal to admit that the other side makes some good points too. Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 16 June 2011 10:01:13 PM
| |
@Rhian: "I didn’t say China has a 4:2:1 demographic profile, but that because of the one-child policy this is a common dependency structure. If you disagree, please explain how a one-child policy could be enacted WITHOUT producing lots of 4:2:1 families?"
Simple: the one-child policy reduced China's fertility rate from over 3 to 1.8 births per woman. It hasn't "wreaked havoc" with China's demographic profile, but produced on average 2:2:2 families. Thanks for the BBC link - I've read it and I understand how you were misled. You may also have been misled about the policies of sustainable population advocates. We do not advocate high death rates or coercive birth control, but the reverse. The reality is that once women are allowed to control their own fertility they choose overwhelmingly to have, on average, two children. Some may have more or less, but collectively we get it right: not just for ourselves and our families, but for the planet. Of course, this is all very threatening for those whose profits depend on generating more factory fodder and consumers. Posted by Ruth1, Thursday, 16 June 2011 10:17:48 PM
| |
<By 2042, there will only be 2.5 people of working age supporting each person aged over 65.>
2042? That is 31 years into the future. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the massive infrastructure debt currently being incurred as a result of high immigration than an economic speculation of what will be a challenge in 31 years? It seems an absurdity to be concerned with something so far into the future, and basic mathematics would suggest that immigration makes little change in the ageing profile anyway. <I often spend time in Beijing, a city with a population comparable to Australia (lets say for argument's sake, a very conservative estimate of 17 million). Their subway system is cheap (even by local standards), clean and easy to use. Same goes for the bus system. Congestion can get frustrating at times, but not as bad as the media reports tend to make out, and frankly I've had more issues with congestion in Brisbane.> 700 million Chinese dont even have access to basic health care, let alone public transport. I guess that you dont get a queue of people waiting for a bus when there is no bus, do you? I think if Brisbane were to provide services to 1% of the population and deny them to the other 99%, it too could have a fantastic public transport system to showcase to the tourists. Posted by Fester, Friday, 17 June 2011 12:22:08 AM
| |
Fester, I think you'll find you're on a hiding to nowhere with that line of criticism. I myself am among the harshest critics of the ruling communist party there and on most counts you'll find me vehemently agreeing with criticisms you have of them.
One problem China does not have is denial of infrastructure. Even within poorer provinces you have idiotically expensive infrastructure. You've hit on one of my pet topics of interest. In fact, Nouriel Roubini, the economist who predicted the US housing financial crisis made this one of his chief observations when predicting a hard Chinese landing in recent press. (He made a number of fundamental errors actually, the airport he mentioned is actually pretty busy and the 'maglev' train he talked about isn't maglev) but his point was sound - the party uses large infrastructure projects as a means of stimulating the economy, many of them located in idiotic locations. In fact on this site, another noted economist, Jim Rogers, goes into detail on China's water crisis, and mentions that the government can do large infrastructure projects, but can't organize things like small water-saving initiatives, because of endemic corruption. http://www.businessinsider.com/jim-rogers-water-crisis-china-2011-5 And if your notion is that China can only do large-scale government projects, here is the world's largest mall. It's got a goddamn theme park in it, but it's 95% empty because it was built in an area that is mainly for poor migrant workers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_China_Mall So whilst they can be criticized for one-party rule, silencing dissent, corruption and inequality, big ticket infrastructure items are something they are only too happy to do. They don't 'deny' anybody infrastructure. They build far too much of it. But my central thesis, that economies of scale make these things possible, stands. It's when they're built without those economies of scale that we see grand failures, like the Dongguan mall, or indeed, some Australian projects like the public-private-partnership-built cross city tunnel where traffc was rerouted because it couldn't turn a buck on its own. Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 17 June 2011 2:29:24 AM
| |
@TurnRightThenLeft: One problem China does not have is denial of infrastructure. Even within poorer provinces you have idiotically expensive infrastructure.
A new local perspective on China. Thanks. You say they have made some dumb investments which looks to be true. But they have also made far sighted investments. Well one at least - their fast rail networks. I imagine they will come in real handy soon. And although spending too much on public infrastructure is a problem, not spending money on infrastructure can waste even more money. Those images of the 5 day traffic jam into Beijing spring to mind. And then there is what would happen if they didn't spend money on water ... @TurnRightThenLeft: http://www.businessinsider.com/jim-rogers-water-crisis-china-2011-5 He says they are spending billions on addressing the water problem. I thought those billions were being spent on re-routing the Tibetan snow melt to China. It's probably good thing he doesn't see wars as being disaster. @Rhian: Rising GDP is fine, but its growth per capita will slow if productivity growth slows Indeed, which is why I pointed out your like showed GDP per capita continued to rise despite the ageing population, and that it wasn't varying by much. The point isn't that it is a non-issue. The point is this change looks to be something we will happily muddle through, at the cost of little more than few politicians careers. As such using as a justification for setting Australia's population at any level looks suspect to me, yet that is exactly how it is being used. It looked pretty clear to me that was the main point the article was making as well. Posted by rstuart, Friday, 17 June 2011 9:33:15 AM
| |
Ruth1
Major demographic changes take decades to wash through. Australia has positive natural increase in population although its birth rate of 1.9 births per woman is below replacement rate, because we have a large proportion of people of child-bearing age. But sooner or later our natural population change must turn negative unless the birth rate rises. It’s the same in China. The forced transition from high to low fertility has not yet resulted in population decline, because the policy has only been in place since the 1970s. But for families that complied with the policy for two generations, 4:2:1 is the dependency structure. If a pure one-child policy were strictly enforced indefinitely it would result in a massive distortion of the demographic profile. (the current Chinese birth rate you quote of 1.8 is a somewhat higher than the 1.4-1.6 I have seen, but both show that many women have more than one child). I agree it’s desirable that women have control of their own fertility, and when they do, birth rates tend to be lower. However, in many countries where birth control is freely available birth rates are still above replacement. People’s choices about fertility are complex and affected by many factors. Rstuart Yes, Treasury predicts that real per capita GDP will continue to grow. However, small differences in growth rates make a big difference to levels of GDP over time. If GDP per capita grows at about 1.4% a year in the next 40 years, as Treasury projects, then real per capita GDP in 2050 will be about 75% higher than it is now. If instead we sustained the per capita GDP growth we recorded in the 1990s (2.2%), then real per capita GDP in 2050 will be about 140% higher than it is today. That’s a big difference. You’re right that economic and demographic changes will be slow, and however things pan out, we’ll adapt. But Treasury is right to focus on sustaining productivity growth because small changes in growth rates make big differences to living standards over the long term. Posted by Rhian, Friday, 17 June 2011 12:09:06 PM
| |
@Rhian - Sustainable choice
Where do your infrastructure numbers come from? The figure of a $770 billion infrastructure deficit comes from Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (they wouldn't lie to advance a business case would they?). Chris Berg also tried to pull the 'population growth = growth in gdp per capita' swifty. It's a lie. This was my response to him: "But there is a clear relationship between population growth and the growth in living standards." Chris Berg What is that relationship Chris? Norway, Denmark and Finland have all had low population growth rates and relatively stable populations. On the other hand, Australia and Canada have had high growth rates and burgeoning populations. GDP per capita is not only higher in the European countries, it has grown faster than that of the 'resource rich' economies of Australia and Canada. That is the "clear relationship" of population growth driven economics. It makes us relatively poorer. You can see for yourself by comparing GDP per capita, population growth and population growth rates of various countries at these links: pop growth http://tiny.cc/uv3ic pop growth rate http://tiny.cc/10wdi gdp per capita http://tiny.cc/5228r -end- Population growth helps the sharks at the top of the pyramid but the majority of fish, i.e. little fish, get picked off and are worse off financially let alone when the intangible economic 'externalities' like 'quality of life' are taken into account. Play with those google charts. It shoots holes in the population boosters economic arguments. Posted by Sardine, Friday, 17 June 2011 4:37:12 PM
| |
A few observations -
1) I would like to see where the author gets his figures from? Acoording to ABS figures from 2005 - "The proportion of Australia's population aged 45 to 64 years in 2005 was 24.5%. The total number of people in this age group rose from 4,864,000 in 2004 to 4,984,400 in 2005, an increase of 2.5%." http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3235.0.55.001 Given that the above were from 2005 and the 45-64 age group, at that time, referred to those born from 1940-1960, the current figures would already be higher for the 45-64 age set and they will spike futher as the Boomer set start coming thru ove the next 10-20 years. So, I don't know where the author gets his 4.1 million Boomers. I would venture that OZ is much the same as the US, who have some 80 Million Boomers, which is about 26% of the US Population, which would give OZ just under 6 million Boomers. In any event, although Salt is not a Demograhper, the idea of the Baby Boomer Bust didn't originate with him and if he has now retracted from a Boomer Bust position, he is wrong to be doing so, as it is certainly going to affect the OZ & Global Economy and, in fact, it already has. But it's not alone, there are other issues keeping it company, such as - 1) Peak Oil 2) Massive Global Debt problems 3) Climate Change Posted by perceptions_now, Friday, 17 June 2011 5:27:52 PM
| |
Sardine
It depends what data you use. Globally, levels of per capita GDP are low in developing countries where population growth is high. But growth in GDP per capita is faster in countries where population growth is high. In neither case can we infer causality and in neither case are the results especially relevant to Australia, as they are mainly due to the fact that developing countries have lower income levels but faster income and population growth than rich ones. If you compare growth in per capita GDP with growth in population, there is a small positive relationship in the data (calcs from the IMF WEO database plotting 10-year growth in per capital GDP at purchasing power parity with population growth over the same period). http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/weodata/index.aspx In Australia, medium-term per capita Gross State Product growth has been highest in the States with the highest population growth (WA and Qld) and lowest in the states with low population growth (Tasmania, New South Wales). Posted by Rhian, Friday, 17 June 2011 6:42:23 PM
| |
@Rhian "sooner or later our natural population change must turn negative unless the birth rate rises"
If our population change ever turned negative it would give us capacity to take future environmental refugees while maintaining a stable population. But it won't while we keep running record immigration programs. Our TFR has been sub-replacement for the last 35 years, yet our population hasn't stabilised because we keep adding more women of child bearing age. Over one third of the "ageing population" 65+ was born overseas. How do you defend the Ponzi logic? @Rhian "If a pure one-child policy were strictly enforced indefinitely it would result in a massive distortion of the demographic profile." Who's advocating a one-child policy? Not even China strictly enforces it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy Their fertility rate of 1.8 is sourced from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN We live in a world where one child is allowed to starve to death every six seconds. If you think a 4:2:1 structure massively distorts the demographic profile, what do you think a 4:8:16 structure does to their chances? What impact do you think high growth rates have in countries where unemployment is over 30%? @Rhian "... in many countries where birth control is freely available birth rates are still above replacement." Wrong. Wherever women have access to education and resources their average fertility is replacement rate or less - almost without exception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg If a woman can't afford to put food on the table, how can she afford contraceptives? I've worked in a country where there were no pharmacies much less money to buy their products. The only contraception on offer was Depo-Provera (which most Western women would not touch with a barge pole). They had to travel long distances to the only hospital in the entire country to get their 3 monthly shot. Some choice. Posted by Ruth1, Friday, 17 June 2011 6:57:42 PM
| |
Ruth1
Thanks for the data source. The US Census Bureau gives China’s fertility rate as 1.5. It doesn’t significantly affect our areas of disagreement though. Your graph shows a strong correlation between poverty and fertility. I fully accept that, as my previous posts indicate. It says nothing about access to contraception. You presume that the women in poor countries with high fertility do not have access to contraception, but this is circular logic. A significant number of countries in your chart are poor with low fertility, while a number of middle income countries have fertility above replacement. I was intrigued by you question about unemployment, so I went to the IMF database to look at the evidence. According to IMF data, five countries had unemployment rates over 20% in 2010. Of these, two had falling populations, two had population growth of well below the global average, and the fifth had population growth in line with the global average of 1.2%pa. Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of : Unemployment rate: Percent of total labor force- 32.2%, population growth - 0.2% Bosnia and Herzegovina: Unemployment rate: Percent of total labor force- 27.2%, population growth - -0.2% Swaziland: Unemployment rate: Percent of total labor force- 25%, population growth - -0.4% South Africa: Unemployment rate: Percent of total labor force- 24.8%, population growth - 1.2% Spain: Unemployment rate: Percent of total labor force- 20.1%, population growth - 0.4% Posted by Rhian, Friday, 17 June 2011 8:22:56 PM
| |
Positively Brimstone - The salt of Hell
You got a lotta nerve Spruiking Rich-country When your wives are breeding Into Power from Obscurity You got a lotta nerve To say you got a new-Idea to lend You just want to be on The side that’s winning You say Oldgen let you down You know it’s not like that If you’re so hurt Why then don’t you stop breedin' You say you lost your faith But that’s not where it’s at Thermodynamic's all it is And despite your Testosterone you know it I know the reason You're selected by the crowd your in They all agree its coal, oil & Cheap foreign Labour You need for competin' You see us on the street You always act surprised You say, “How are you?” “Good luck” But you don’t mean it When you know as well as me You’d rather see us $paralyzed In gridlock traffic, waitin' lists fightin' foreigners for crumbs off your table Posted by KAEP, Friday, 17 June 2011 8:50:06 PM
| |
@Rhian "But growth in GDP per capita is faster in countries where population growth is high."
Your assertion is demonstrably false. 2000 POP(mil) - 2008 POP(mil) - % increase - 2000 GDP per capita U$ - 2008 GDP percapita U$ - % increase AU - 19.15, 21.4, 11.7, 21.7, 48.4, 123 CAN - 30.7, 33.3, 8.4, 23.5, 45, 91 DEN - 5.3, 5.5, 3.7, 30, 62, 87 FIN - 5.17, 5.31, 2.7, 23.5, 50.9, 117 NOR - 4.5, 4.76, 5.7, 37.4, 94.5, 152 You can't argue that population growth leads to greater gdp per capita and that is a key argument of the proponents of Big Australia. That myth is busted. China's dramatic increase in gdp per capita correlates strongly with a dramatic decrease in its population growth rate. Coincidence? I don't think so. I'd argue that Australia and Canada have had economic policies that revolve around construction and domestic consumption driven by immigration while the Europeans have created more mature economies that utilise intellectual capital. A classic case of the "quarry mentality" meets "clever countries". Not only have we got a massive and crippling infrastructure deficit, the clever countries also manage to spend more per capita on health, education and transport. In the end I think we'll find that the only people pushing Big Australia are those with a vested interest. If this noisy, bossy minority want to live in a crowded country so much, why don't they just emigrate to one of the many? Then the majority who want to keep living in one of the few uncrowded countries can do so. Posted by Sardine, Friday, 17 June 2011 9:01:47 PM
| |
Rhian
If women are too poor to buy food how can they afford contraception? Perhaps you assume that all countries have a Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme like Australia's? Perhaps you haven't worked in countries that don't provide life-saving drugs to their citizens, much less contraceptives? If you check the chart: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg you will see that only two countries with GDP per capita over $16k per year have fertility rates over replacement level - and only one of those allows female access to education and employment. Its true that some developing countries also have low fertility rates. Countries such as Thailand and Vietnam have successfully invested in birth control programs to reduce poverty. But there are also countries where famine and conflict reduce the fertility rate far more brutally than a one child policy. Which IMF database says only five countries have unemployment rates of over 20%? It's a joke, right? But you haven't answered my question: what impact do you think high growth rates would have in countries where unemployment is over 30%? Posted by Ruth1, Friday, 17 June 2011 10:47:01 PM
| |
"One problem China does not have is denial of infrastructure."
The supply of infrastructure is China's greatest challenge, perhaps an impossible one. The reality is that only a small percentage of the population enjoy high living standards, and a large amount of environmental damage has been incurred as a result of providing them. Similarly in India, there are huge infrastructure shortfalls and an even greater challenge. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_12/b4026001.htm In light of this I find it very weird that growth zealots are would have you believe that Japan is about to disintegrate as a result of an ageing crisis. The excellent living standard and infrastructure, and the positive trade balance would suggest that this calamity is yet to be realised. Posted by Fester, Saturday, 18 June 2011 10:16:10 AM
| |
<You presume that the women in poor countries with high fertility do not have access to contraception, but this is circular logic.>
No presumption needed. According to UN research there are about 200 million women world wide who would use contraception but do not have access to it. The estimate is that its provision would prevent about 70-80 million pregnancies each year. So the provision of contraception on a voluntary basis would greatly reduce the World's population growth. http://www.unfoundation.org/global-issues/women-and-population/sexual-repro-health.html Posted by Fester, Saturday, 18 June 2011 1:18:15 PM
| |
Fester, I'd say again that infrastructure isn't China's problem. It's less difficult to build it there given the lax approvals process and one-party rule.
I recall being driven along a highway in Henan province, which until recently was China's poorest and most populated. The highway was new, long and as smooth as any in Australia. Regarding India, you're right, their infrastructure is terrible. By other measures India's future is brighter: Young demographics, free press, democratic institutions, add up to more stability and a booming economy, but they're constrained by their lack of infrastructure. Despite this, China's growth has been more impressive. It's because their infrastructure is impressive. Here's a paper from a director from the Asian Development Bank and a researcher from the Rand corporation. I can provide other links, but this says it well: http://www.pbrc.soka.edu/Resources/Documents/KimNangia.pdf "China has followed the path of these fast growing economies, building impressive infrastructure at lightning speed. China’s unparalleled growth and poverty reduction in the last two decades has gone hand in hand with development of infrastructure stemming from its export-led strategy. India, the other “giant” in Asia, did not follow the suit of the successful Asian infrastructure model in building ahead of demand. Its development strategy from time to time focused on redistribution of wealth rather than growth." China and India are different economies. Its unwise to assume because they're developing countries with large populations they can be lumped together. China's problem definitely isn't infrastructure, even in poorer provinces. As the ultimate example, observe the Tibet railway. Often poorer provinces get even better infrastructure as the government attempts to gloss over human rights violations by building shiny facilities to distract observers. http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/china-tibet/ "Around half of the Golmud to Lhasa section was laid on barely permanent permafrost with winter temperatures that plummet to -35ºC, while the summer's 30+º sees the upper layers thawing to mud. The engineers approached this problem by constructing elevated tracks and causeways over some of the most difficult terrain, while in other areas, pipes have been installed to circulate liquid nitrogen below the rail bed to keep the ground frozen." Cont'd Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 18 June 2011 5:37:02 PM
| |
Cont'd.
In addition, local governments often get ridiculous sums of money that they have to spend on 'growth' projects, but the money is administered by officials who have no idea what they're doing and no oversight. The result is idiocy like this, in poverty stricken provinces. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010expo/2010-05/05/content_9809469.htm It feels strange to be in poor areas driving past huge sculptures, ostentatious bridges or abandoned amusement parks shaped like castles, but head out into the countryside and you'll spot all kinds of wackiness. @ rstuart: "...they have also made far sighted investments. Well one at least - their fast rail networks. I imagine they will come in real handy soon. And although spending too much on public infrastructure is a problem, not spending money on infrastructure can waste even more money. Those images of the 5 day traffic jam into Beijing spring to mind. And then there is what would happen if they didn't spend money on water ..." On water, I agree, but I'm not sure about fast-rail. China has a tendency to build infrastructure 'Ferraris' when a stationwagon would be more practical. This is my favourite blogger when it comes to Chinese economics. He's the head of economics and management at Tsinghua university and he gets plenty of leeway to be critical because he's got an impressive resume stretching to noted figures in the white house. In this article he dissects the fast rail. This point is the most salient: http://chovanec.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/chinas-high-speed-rail-dilemma/ "The problem is that high-speed rail is expensive both to build and to operate, requiring high ticket prices to break even. The bulk of the long-distance passenger traffic, especially during the peak holiday periods, is migrant workers for whom the opportunity cost of time is relatively low. Even if they could afford a high-speed train ticket — which is doubtful given their limited incomes — they would probably prefer to conserve their cash and take a slower, cheaper train. If that proves true, the new high-speed lines will only incur losses while providing little or no relief to the existing transportation network." Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 18 June 2011 5:44:22 PM
| |
TRTL
I dont doubt that China is good at building infrastructure, but I again point out that it has a lot to build to give its population a high living standard. And I wonder how the environment will cope with the development, given the damage that has occurred in providing a high standard of living to only a few thus far. In contrast, Japan has already built its infrastructure. So I find it odd to think of the prospects for countries like India as bright, and the prospects for countries like Japan as poor. It is bit like looking at a suburb of well built housing, educated residents, and superb services, compare it with a slum of destitute and uneducated people living in shanties with the most basic amenities, and conclude that the prospects for the slum dwellers was much brighter. It doesnt make much sense to me. Posted by Fester, Saturday, 18 June 2011 7:49:27 PM
| |
@TRTL "By other measures India's future is brighter: Young demographics..."
A young demographic profile is the hallmark of poor countries, not rich ones. Although India's population is smaller than China's, China is much further advanced in reigning in its population growth. India's fertility rate is around 2.8 compared to China's of around 1.8, and assuming famine doesn't kick in first, India's population will exceed China's within 20 years. http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/indiapopulation.htm As global resources diminish and extinction rates rise, the need for all nations to stabilise and reduce their populations is a no-brainer. We are already in ecological overshoot: the question is how hard the inevitable landing is going to be - not just for us but for the species we are wiping out. Posted by Ruth1, Sunday, 19 June 2011 12:00:54 PM
| |
1. 4.1 million babies between 1946 and 1964 and now 5.27 million boomers due to immigration.
2. The state looks after the old and parents pay for kids. Aged cost way more than kids. Typical boomer bs to push this argument. 3. Demographic swelling or momentum is 1/3 of our real population growth. More people living longer...der..... 4. As the pig enters the bowel of the snake, food and water must be brought to it as it can no longer move. Our death rates double in the next 25 years and our natural growth will reduce to zero if we remain below replacement fertility. 5. We have less 0-15 year olds as a percentage of our population than we did 10 years ago. 6. Emigration is peaking and trending up as approx 100,000 australian residents leave permanently. And do not believe the bs from the abs about most returning within one year,. They do not. 1000 skilled people leaving permanently per week...shite! Posted by dempografix, Sunday, 19 June 2011 10:35:46 PM
| |
"The state looks after the old and parents pay for kids" dempografix
Can I take a punt? You don't have kids and you don't have parents who are contemplating (or in) the retirement village/nursing home phase of their lives? Your sentence gave me a wry grin because the government can't throw enough money at breeders while older people are forced to sell their homes to pay for care even though they have been screwed at every opportunity by business and government over their lifetimes. I think we can cut them some slack. If you want I'll put a chip in your other shoulder so you don't appear so bent out of shape. Posted by Sardine, Sunday, 19 June 2011 11:18:26 PM
| |
Sardine
I have kids and a parent on a pension. The aged cost more than kids to our govt. Do some research. 1.2 million people will celebrate their 65th birthday by 2015. The aging of our nation is unprecedented in our history. Sounds like you are a boomer in denial. Do you also believe in 'Skin'. Spending the kids inheritance? Seems 30% do. I hope the the youth start a 'robbing the old of this wealth' club. Posted by dempografix, Monday, 20 June 2011 8:02:25 AM
| |
@dempografix: And do not believe the bs from the abs about most returning within one year.
That possibly didn't have the effect you wanted. I think most people here will view claims the Australian Bureau of Statistics produces badly distorted figures with deep suspicion. In fact most will decide the person spouting the claim is prone to bs. Posted by rstuart, Monday, 20 June 2011 9:03:37 AM
| |
Rstuart
The dept of immigration report that last year 30,000 of the 40,000 permanent departures for non Australian born residents, indicated they would be gone longer than 5 years. The abs are now adding the bs statement to the arrivals/departures as I lobby hard to expose the bs. I have a few intel contacts in the AG dept, who have raised the issue. Peaking emigration is something they are trying hard to downplay. Bernards numbers are just wrong and I am concerned that the denial of our looming fiscal challenges due to aging, will be ignored or denied for too long. The youth must be moved from exclusion to inclusion in the process of problem solving now. Posted by dempografix, Monday, 20 June 2011 9:57:14 AM
| |
@dempografix: The dept of immigration report that last year 30,000 of the 40,000 permanent departures for non Australian born residents, indicated they would be gone longer than 5 years. The abs are now adding the bs statement to the arrivals/departures as I lobby hard to expose the bs.
I've read the bit you quoted several times, and can't make head nor tail of what you are on about. I wouldn't be too worried about it though. We may be loosing 40,000 people per year, but we are currently importing about 4 times that. @dempografix: the denial of our looming fiscal challenges due to aging, will be ignored or denied for too long. What damage does denying it do? I can understand concern about rising population in the face of looming resource shortages. If the shortages happen we could overshoot the sustainable population with very unpleasant consequences, and the overshoot will literally take a century to undo. I can understand the concern about AGW, because developing the low carbon technology looks like will take decades, so to have a hope of addressing the theoretical concerns we have to start now. I can understand the concern about peak oil because even replacing the vehicle fleet with LPG will take at least a 1/2 decade, and developing non-fossil transportation will much longer than that, so it is helpful move public investment away from car infrastructure to things that don't have to depend on fossil fuels in the future. All these things have one thing in common: a stitch in time saves nine. But how does that apply to ageing? Seriously, what would you have us do now that can't be done later when the requirements aren't based on speculation? Posted by rstuart, Monday, 20 June 2011 10:48:34 AM
| |
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/statistical-info/oad/perm-dep/permdep.htm
We are losing approx 95,000 this financial year! Not 40,000. That is only the non Australian born residents.... http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/05emigration.htm Emigration by overseas-born Of the 86 277 people who departed permanently in 2009–10, 50.7 per cent were born overseas, a slight increase on the 2008–09 proportion of 49.1 per cent. What damage does denying it do? It is just kicking the can down the road to future taxpayers to cover the increasing health and pension costs of the boomers. 80% of boomers will require full or part pension! What to do now? 1. Asset test the PPOR above $750k for pensions now. 2. Setup a better Centrelink Reverse mortgage scheme and move the wealth to the sate, not the banks. 3. Death Tax of 25% for assets above $750k 4. Create a financial incentive for pensioners to share with each other by making the first $750k of assets exempt, when sharing with another pensioner. 23% of our homes are lone occupants, rising to 33% as we age as a nation. A big problem indeed! Posted by dempografix, Monday, 20 June 2011 11:41:18 AM
| |
Ruth1, you point out that young demographics are the hallmark of poorer countries. This is undeniably true.
What's also true is that the vast majority of sustained economic booms occur when a country has a large bump in the working population heading into the workforce. Of course, that's not the only element, hence the other factors mentioned in that Asia Development Bank report I cited earlier. You need infrastructure as well as a degree of stability in order to become conducive to investment, which in turn leads to employment opportunities. Food stability is another issue entirely. Malthusian economists have been predicting a crash for more then a century, and we are indeed in for a rough ride. I'd point out that until very recently, despite having about a fifth of the world's population, China was a net exporter of food, despite having a great deal of mountainous land which isn't arable. This alone punches a pretty significant hole in your argument that because these countries have large populations, they're the ones who are going to suffer most when the food crunch comes. As always, it will be poorer countries which bear the brunt, and the BRICS nations can no longer be described as such. China has the power to implement massive subsidies and vacuum resources from smaller states. Recent purchases of agricultural land in Africa and Latin America underscore this. Fester, I take your point about developing nations versus developed ones and erroneous comparisons. I'm more pessimistic than most when it comes to projections of China's future development, particularly under current cultural and political constraints. There's a great interview here between Fareed Zakaria and one of China's most successful businesswomen. She speaks quite candidly about the challenges China faces and I recommend watching it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyLuwnBQ31A But, one can't deny the power of the Chinese economy, given the staggeringly large numbers involved. It's stability however, is indeed open to question. Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 20 June 2011 12:35:24 PM
| |
@dempografix: We are losing approx 95,000 this financial year!
We lost 95,000, and had a skilled immigration intake of 185,000. So what's the problem? @dempografix: It is just kicking the can down the road to future taxpayers to cover the increasing health and pension costs of the boomers. 80% of boomers will require full or part pension! Kicking the can down the road is just a euphemism for the game we are playing on who has to pay. It sort of like pass the parcel - with everyone trying to not hold the parcel when the bomb explodes. Granted such games don't achieve much, but it's mostly harmless. I can only see two meaningful things we can do. One is to keep people in work longer (which we are doing!), and the other is reduce the living expenses of the elderly. They are the only ways I can see of reducing the strain the elderly puts on the working population. Only your last suggestion is along those lines. The rest are just participating in the pass the parcel game. @dempografix: move the wealth to the sate, not the banks. Have a go at floating that idea in Greece right now and see how far you get. That aside, does who owns computer that stores the money make that much difference in the end? Posted by rstuart, Monday, 20 June 2011 1:01:09 PM
| |
@TurnRightThenLeft: China [is a net importer of food] .... This alone punches a pretty significant hole in your argument
The discussion between Rhian and Ruth1 seems to over simplify the situation, and so does this comment. There is little doubt in my mind while the resources are around to feed the people and machines, having more bodies around means faster technical innovation, leading to increased productivity, which means better lifestyles for everyone. Right now the world does have the resources, so the only brake on the process seems to be paying for the infrastructure to support the additional people. This gives rise to arguments over how fast we should be adding people. That translates into me getting pissed off with formerly free flowing roads are clogged, but still having to acknowledge Rhian's argument. The point is, while the world has ample resources what China is doing isn't a remarkable feat. Everyone in the OECD has managed to hitch a ride on this population/innovation/productivity gravy train, and hell even Egypt is managing to tread water right now even though it imports 2/3's of its food and isn't exactly an economic powerhouse. This period of bounty is about to end. If the our dollar hadn't taken off we would be paying $2/litre for petrol now, and it will continue to rise. In two decades world's current food surplus will become a deficit. We will see how well China's fares on the world food market then, when feeding one of their mouths means a mouth somewhere else dies. @TurnRightThenLeft: It's stability however, is indeed open to question. You say their current leaders won't be able to manage the cultural and political constraints, but they seem to be as smart as any others on the planet. If they become unstable, I think it ultimately be because Ruth1 is right: no politician can bring stability to an over populated country with starting citizens. You implicitly acknowledged this. In a world without food you need water to grow your own, and as you say the picture on that front isn't good: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/world/asia/28water.html?pagewanted=all Posted by rstuart, Monday, 20 June 2011 3:41:16 PM
| |
I don't disagree with any particular point you make there rstuart, but I'd make a couple of points.
When you say: "We will see how well China's fares on the world food market then, when feeding one of their mouths means a mouth somewhere else dies." I'd argue that if the 'other mouth' is in a different country, then as far as the ruling party is concerned, it's a non-issue. On that score, it's a bit hard for us to judge them harshly, given that the West has been importing food and supplies from poorer countries for years. It seems like in recent history, Africa's always been mired in violence and starvation, as have large tracts of Asia. The Chinese government has placed a particular emphasis on securing resources. In terms of minerals, Australia is at the forefront of this, but it's not just minerals. They're buying up agricultural land as well. Google 'china buy agricultural land'. The examples in the links that pop up range from Canada to Kazakhstan to Argentina, Africa and beyond. We're agreed that a food crunch is coming. I'd say that China is one of the few countries that is taking significant steps to ensure their food security. They may have a large population, but again, the fact that until recently they were a net food exporter means that they do have a strong ability to grow food. Their environment is degrading rapidly, but on the other hand, they do have the raw cash reserves to take measures to deal with this. I think the ruling party is coming to the conclusion that they need to emphasize sustainable growth more as opposed to outright growth, which have been the defining features of their recent five year plans. The question is not whether China is taking steps to ensure it's food security however, the question is, are we? I'd say that we've been confident due to our large landmass and low population for far too long. I'm starting to think that the 'agrarian socialist' rhetoric of the National Party wasn't as backward as I'd once believed... Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 20 June 2011 4:02:53 PM
| |
Once we work out how to stop people ageing we'll have solved the ageing population issue. In other words, unless we find a practical work-around for the problem, we're doomed to breed ourselves into oblivion.
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/05/aging.html Posted by Sardine, Monday, 20 June 2011 7:14:46 PM
| |
What about superannuation?
If this ageing crisis is set to peak in 20 to 30years won't those workers retiring at that stage have huge superannuations. After all superannuation has been being paid for, for quite a while by workers already. The public service has been paying at least 12% for a long time haven't they? in 20 to 30years that should amount to quite a lot. The only people who may not have really big superannuantion are the current crop of baby boomers set to retire, because superannuation wasn't such a big issue in their young working lives. Even they have some superannuation accumulated over the last 10 to 12 years of their working lives. Then there is the issue of inheritance, despite the advertisements about spending your children's inheritance run by some business interest on TV, the reality is that most baby boomers don't take out reverse mortages on their homes. So the workers who are to be so burdened by this aging crises in the next 20-30years stand to gain even more wealth from the huge amount of property changing hands as their parents die. Add that to their superannuation. Children do cost governments just as much if not more than old people because they have to build and fund schools and daycare and pay teachers and daycarers and subsidies parents. Then there is maternity leave. Also a lot of older boomers will themselves be caring for their older parents thus taking a percentage of the burden off the state. This fear mongering about the ageing baby boomers reeks of top end of town conspiracy, because they know if there is a short-fall in funding they are the ones that will have to fund that short-fall, as the working classes have to eat and have shelter if they are not to die in the streets. It also reeks of wanting to bring in more and more people to make big profits by selling more and more and being able to hire cheaper skilled labour. Posted by CHERFUL, Friday, 24 June 2011 1:39:27 AM
|
David