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.

@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?

@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

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...

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

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.