Categorized | Headlines

Megan McArdle | Our Demographic Decline

Our whole economy and social system are designed for a growing economy, and a growing population.  Without future growth, savings and investment become more necessary, but less attractive.  Without growth, people become less generous towards strangers and more unhappy about their own circumstances. And without the growth around which all of our modern welfare states have been structured, the modern safety nets that governments have spent the last century establishing may not be politically or economically sustainable.  

If you think that population decline is going to be a net boon to society, take a long hard look at Greece.  That’s what a country looks like when it becomes inevitable that the future will be poorer than the past: social breakdown, political breakdown, economic catastrophe.  

Start with a simple equation: economic growth equals the growth in the workforce plus the growth in the productivity of that workforce.  If the workforce shrinks, then productivity growth needs to be higher, in order to compensate; otherwise your economy shrinks.  In theory, we can compensate for the coming demographic shift with higher productivity.  A shrinking population, after all, means a higher capital to worker ratio.

But this doesn’t quite work, because our population will not simply get smaller; it will also get older.  If everyone was going to suddenly die at 45, we might be able to get the requisite productivity boost.  But as the population ages, it will change dramatically, becoming less innovative, more risk averse, less physically capable.  Just as we desperately need productivity to speed up, it is probably going to slow down.


Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • Leroy Whitby

    If we did not live in a welfare state then demographics would have less of an effect on our standard of living. If we were not forced to subsidize the income of the elderly through Social Security, Medicare and other programs, then the elderly would have saved for retirement and arranged their lives in such a way that they could support themselves. Further, we wouldn’t pay as much in taxes when young, so WE would be able to afford our ranches or homes and retirement funds and the education of our young, etc. If we were more able to afford nice things, one of those nice things would be bigger cars and homes for more children! So . . . less of a demographic problem.

    Also, there is a natural order to demographics as with most things. If the average family only had 1 child, then that child would inherit many more assets than if the average family had 3 children (and inheritances were divided 3 ways). This extra wealth would make it easier . . . to support more children while still leading a good life materially!

    Extraction of money to pay welfare in its various guises messes up feedback in the system.

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets