Ever since the global financial crisis, economists have groped for reasons to explain why growth in the U.S. and abroad has repeatedly disappointed, citing everything from fiscal austerity to the euro meltdown. They are now coming to realize that one of the stiffest headwinds is also one of the hardest to overcome: demographics.
Next year, the world's advanced economies will reach a critical milestone. For the first time since 1950, their combined working-age population will decline, according to United Nations projections, and by 2050 it will shrink 5%. The ranks of workers will also fall in key emerging markets, such as China and Russia. At the same time the share of these countries' population over 65 will skyrocket.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-demographics-rule-the-global-economy-1448203724?mod=e2fb
Fascinating stuff. I've been following this for a while. Not long ago the idea that we would reach a demographic peak was something only talked about in academic circles.
In that respect it's sort of like our other great (I would say much greater) challenge - climate change. People began talking about that in the late 1970s in academic circles. 1992 was the first time I saw a conference on climate change when I was at the University of Geneva (saw because though I saw attendees coming and going, I did not attend and had previously heard nothing about the topic). It got a little coverage in the local papers and mostly focused on the assertion that a large number of the glaciers of the Alps would be gone by 2025. The problem was that this news rarely made its way into the mainstream media and, personally, 2025 still felt pretty far away at the time.
It was around that time I first heard academics talk about population decline, but like climate change, in the early 1990s, almost everyone you would meet at a party was a "demographic change" denier. Now it seems like every few months an article on this crops up. So it's where climate change was maybe 10 years ago.
It also reminds me of climate change because the earlier you start, the cheaper the fix. We've already waited too long and are moving way too slowly on climate change. We're probably just fucked at this point and if we don't solve that, the falling demographic problem will be evn harder to solve, but it's a bit different in that it's easier to take individual action - if you save more and work longer, the demographic problem gets buffered.
Good discussion.
Of course some may differ. I'm just not sure about Mother Nature who has her own way of taking care of business. She needs no intervention by man. Think: floods, tsunami's, plagues and other diseases, earthquakes, volcanoes, drought, famine.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071016053200AA6ekLr
Quote from: Mackin USA on November 29, 2015, 04:16:08 PM
Mother Nature who has her own way of taking care of business. She needs no intervention by man.
You can't divorce man from nature. We are part of nature and nature is part of us.
The question is not "Can Nature get along without man?" Answer: of course.
The question is "How long can you shit in your bed before it's not longer fit for sleeping in?"