The scariest numbers in the world?
The scariest numbers I’ve read recently aren’t projections for U.S. debt.
Or how much of the globe’s farmland won’t be usable for farming by 2050.
Or even how many losses the New Jersey Nets will rack up this basketball season. (4-42 and counting right now.)
Nope, the scariest numbers I’ve seen are these about the aging global population.
In 1950 the world’s developed countries had a total population of 64.2 million over the age of 65. Developing countries had a population of 60.6 million over 65.
By 2050 the over-65 population of the developed world is projected at 300 million. That’s a roughly a five-fold increase in a century.
By 2050 developing countries are projected to have a total over-65 population of 1.2 billion.
A group roughly the size of today’s population of China will be over 65 in the developing world.
When you hear someone talking about the worry that China will get old before it gets rich, this is what they’re talking about.
Only it isn’t just China. It’s the developing world. All of it.
Japan is projected to be the world’s oldest country in 2050 with more than 40% of its population over 60. In China only around 30% of the population will be over 60, according to projections.
Taking care of the 40% of Japan’s projected population of 108 million in 2050 that are over 60 years old will be a huge challenge. That’s 43 million people over 60.
But the word “challenge” seems inadequate to describe the task facing China where only 30% of the population will be 60 or older but where the projected population in 2050 is 1,437 million. 30% of that is 431 million people over 60.
Granted 2050 is a way off. But these numbers still leave me speechless.
Related Posts
No related posts.
42 comments
Post a comment
Comments that include profanity, or personal attacks, or antisocial behavior such as "spamming" or "trolling," or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our terms of use. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Here in the USA we need to come to terms with the fact that we cannot afford the level of Medicare entitlement to which we are now accustomed. And we are the verge of the baby boom retirement, vastly adding to the ranks of the elderly (and their lobbying group-the AARP). We are going to bankrupt the country trying to pay for all the elderly care. This is the single biggest (by far) budget problem we face. But, it would be political suicide for any politician to be straightforward with the voting public about this issue. Thus we get crazy health care bills that beat around the bush of the issue. Not optimist, MD.
I think that one of the reasons healthcare costs continue to go up is that through very expensive research new medical achievements are constantly made available to us. Naturally costs will accelerate accordingly.
If we would revert to medical care as it was in 1950 – 60- or 70 (get the idea) then health care would be much more affordable. Which do choose – then or now?
Jim, not to depress you further but here is something to pay attention to:
In the US (only) the last of the boomers will turn 65 in 2020. That’s a mere 71 million over the age of 65! Approximately 32 million of them will be 71 years of age or over. Right now, in 2010, there are 5.3 million people with Alzheimer’s and about 1.3 million will other age related neurological diseases, including Parkinson’s. Caring for these 6.6 million requires 13 million unpaid, non-professional caregivers. The cost to medicare (alone) for treating just Alzheimer’s victims in 2050 is projected to be as high as 1 TRILLION dollars or 4 out of every $10 spent. By 2050, there will be about 16 million with Alzheimer’s and 3 million with Parkinson’s requiring about 38 million unpaid caregivers – meaning 44 million people will be sidelined by these diseases. The is no cure for either one, nor is it possible to envision one by 2020 under the best circumstances since clinical trials take an average of 76 months to complete. The world hasn’t invented a health care system to cope with such a staggering onslaught in such a short time frame.
Given the fact that there are 90 million people in the US who have a reading comprehension level below the fourth grade, doesn’t provide me with a source of credible optimism.
While I’m no economist and politically independent, these two important and highly complicated issues, pose a staggering dilemma when trying to find a path forward in a very weak economic environment when mired in debt — in fact, there are only two countries that have an ANNUAL BUDGET which is more than the current level of US DEBT (not deficit) – Germany and the UK.
These numbers are scary, but when you couple them with another then you should get really scared for the human race. And that is the number people will be on the face of this Earth by the year 2050.
Two thoughts:
1) We must start encouraging naturopathic health care and healthier eating/practices. Our family has benefited greatly from it and it’s cheaper except that our health insurance doesn’t cover it.
2) We have laws that need to be changed because they let financially abled seniors skirt the system. For instance, my friend’s mother is in a care home and it’s being paid totally by Medicare. Yet her husband (my friend’s dad) gets over $8000/ month in retirement. What!?! They hired an attorney who was somehow able to juggle their assets or I’m not sure what he did, but bottom line, the taxpayers are footing the bill. How can this happen?!
well, the investment opportunity is in home care industry, and in medicines for these conditions that allow people to remain in their homes vs institutional care for them…us..
Eliminate the health care bureaucracy, let health care corporations profit less, tax the rich, take responsibility for the sick and elderly. That’s the solution.
This is not only good patriotism, good religious faith and good morality, it is also good capitalism. With all those old and sick people lying around, doctors and hospitals should not wait for patients, drug and medical supply companies should produce goods that nobody can buy.
You have got to create demand for all this supply. Enough with supply-side economics of the last 3 decades!
Maybe it’s time to get off this old idea that 65 is the end. Most 65 year olds that I know either are or should be working. We’re living longer.
If all of the 65 year old folks would work another 5 or 10 years before retiring – what would that do to all of the young people intering the job market over that 5 to 10 years? Wow – talking about unemployeement rates.
US needs to raise retirement age. But politicians will not dare.
Jim,
I don’t see brf in your portfolio, you issued a buy for it on the 1st. Am I missing something, or are you ?
-DJB
Christopher’s comment above is unfortunately all too true. Unless sometime very drastic occurs world population growth will eventually make the issue of a large aging population the least of our problems. The Chinese government is the only one that has dared take this issue on. I suspect that peak oil will be replaced with peak water and peak food production. It is hard to imagine the majority of the 3rd world simply staving to death without equally catastrophic events taking place in the countries that still have sufficient resources for themselves. Haiti, the current “IN” fad for certain feel good groups in the US, has always been a basket case and a good indicator of where things will be heading in another generation or so.
China’s January Imports May Jump by Most Since 1991, CICC Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aR09xdYxfxzA
If we continue to project forward, an older population is also a dying popluation. So, what does that look like? Does it then start to revert back to favoring the younger again? That would be interesting reserach.
I don’t remember who said it, but someone once said “If something can’t go on, it will end.”
If we can’t afford to pay for Medicare, it will end.
If we can’t afford to pay for Social Security, it will end.
As Obama fiddles, the United States burns…
Given the aging population, their need for care, and our government repeatedly breaking the bank, I believe we’ll see our society revert from the “nuclear” family back to the interdependent caregiving norm of the “extended” family.
As this occurs, stay long on drugs & medical devices. Go short on old folks homes, a variety of insurances, day care centers, the divorce industry, and anything else regarding problems family members can deal with in the less affluent world unfolding here and now.
seven… this is more than a budget problem. I have been paying ss and medicare all my working life. What about the kids just starting? Our politicians just keep spending the money. (ss was originally a self contained system but $ now goes into the gen fund). If the govt and yourselve know that the funds won’t be available, aren’t you stealing?? It’s worse than a blind tax…it’s a lie!! Judd Greg fought with Teddy K for years about such lies but the beat goes on. “W” thought we should be able to invest our own SS money but got shut down immediately. Maybe an extension of that plan so that the taxpayer has to use an approved estate planner or follow guide lines like our IRA system. A politician that does not address this problem is happy with the status quo..ROBBERY!
Please vote responsibly.
Costa Rica, a country noted for its longevity, provides adequate medical care for all the people without it costing them an arm and a leg. We can do the same in the USA. The elderly are valued in Costa Rica.
Their young people get free education through college if they qualify. They have more doctors graduate from med schools than they have spots for them. The young doctors are required to work for the health service while they learn the practical skills they need to thrive in the chosen field.
It’s not difficult unless you are reinventing the wheel or protecting someone’s profit center.
The people of Costa Rica also have the option of going outside the national health service to a doctor working after-hours or in private practice if they are willing to pay for the services. Private hospital care is excellent, and international travel to Costa Rica for medical treatment is increasing every year.
The US could set this up by using not-for-profit hospitals and its own insurance company (AIG), which could become not-for-profit if uncle wanted.
Lawyers are not involved.
Spin…
You made several valid points about Costa Rica. The problem with CAJA service is the wait in long lines for health service. Senior citizens are allowed to move to the front of the line though, if you’re willing to cope with a few stares/glares from others.
The twin sisters that I rent from down here are amazed at the quality of service and cost. One was quoted $12,000 back in the States to have dental work done but was only charged about $2000 here in Costa Rica.
Every dime spent on medicare is money borrowed. Get used to paying more and more and more, just for the interest on that debt.
Unless we find some way to default.
EdMcGon:
If you tax the rich as they deserve (something like 90% for the top tax bracket), all problems will be solved! (Yes, 90%, like during WW2 years.)
Income inequality in this country is the root of all evil. The real-income (and wealth) for the rich increased whereas the real-income (and wealth) for the non-rich decreased for the last 3 decades. I assure you this will change sooner or later…
We need Medicare and Medicaid. If you need to cut something, go cut something else. Don’t touch people’s bread.
This is not only good patriotism, good religious faith and good morality, this is also good capitalism. With all those old and sick people needing service, doctors and hospitals should not wait for insured patients, drug and medical supply companies should not produce goods that nobody can buy.
American Medical Association (AMA) finally understood the need for universal health care. Insurance, drug and medical supply corporations will understand too.
Aging population…..is 30 still considered young?
doydum- Thank you so much for your assurances that ‘all problems will be solved’ just by applying your magic formula on the people who make the most money in our society. So all we have to do under your approach is raise taxes to the point that people refuse to make money? At that point, the whole system and the lower tax brackets get royally screwed because your ideas broke the golden goose. I do hope you are not successful in your efforts to thwart human nature and the system on which our government and society is based (though clearly my vote lost out to yours in the latest Presidential cycle).
doydum,
The only problem with your 90% tax idea is that the wealthy will just have the politicians give them enough tax breaks so that rate will be even less than what the middle class pays.
Until we get REAL campaign finance reform, any tax idea will be meaningless.
“we cannot afford the level of Medicare entitlement”
The attitude in this country is really scary. Taking care of our seniors is “entitlement”, after they worked all their lives. Boy, we have no chance against the Chinese.
Cheap South,
You do realize that the wealthiest segment of our population by age group IS the elderly? Explain to me why we need to support the wealthiest segment of our population?
amtrend- For what it’s worth (not much, perhaps) Social Security tax collections aren’t just scooped into the general fund along with income tax collections, customs duties, etc. There is a trust fund, but there’s little cash in it because it’s invested… in Treasury bonds. And hey, they’re AAA rated, right? Highly marketable, they are sold as the SSA needs cash. Trouble is, there is constant pressure to increase benefits which drain the fund.
The important thing for any social welfare plan, be it health care, retirement funding, disability, whatever, keep the money out of the hands of the polliticians! They will spend it! Also, don’t let the funding flow anywhere it can be grabbed by the individual beneficiaries- they will spend it too. Then, we can set up plans for individuals whereby they fund the plans out of earnings.
But it is important to start each individual’s program right from the gitgo, on their first job, and make it clear that this is their money in their account. When I was young, looking for my first job, group insurance wasn’t a priority. That changed when our first child was born. Retirement savings wasn’t big on the list either, I regret to say. I think the best way to provide a future for our young people is to set up a hermetically sealed contributory requirements untouched by human hands, in which the contribution increases as benefits increase.
Jim I believe in todays world 70-75 is the old 60. People are far more productive now at 60 and 65 then they were 50 years ago.
This really comes down to that old debate about whether health care is a right or a privilege. Your feelings on the subject depend only on where you stand on that question. I personally land on the “privilege” side. And I feel it is each person’s responsibility to take care of them self, to the best of their ability. That means the obvious, but seemingly (for many) difficult process….stop abusing your body with alcohol, tobacco, drugs, crappy processed food, and no exercise. Take charge of your own health and stop relying on someone else (the medical community, scientific researchers, pharmaceutical companies) to save you. Stop relying on your employer to provide your insurance. Just because somewhere in the world someone might have the ability to cure you, prolong your life, and help you out, doesn’t mean that you are “entitled” to this. People are people, and your life and health are worth no more than that starving, HIV infected toddler in Ethiopia, who has nothing. Disease and death are the natural followers of life. And though most people have a tough time with these things, either with themselves or those close to them, does it make sense to spend in an unlimited fashion to prolong and preserve our health and lives? Like someone above said…eventually it won’t be possible any more. Pretty close to that right now….
Well said greenflash!
I would add one thing to your privilege argument: Does a doctor have a right to make money on his work? Does a doctor have the right to determine what he charges for his labor? Before you say no, change the words “a doctor” in those questions to “you”, and see if you answer them the same way.
All I am asking is this:
Is there a rich person in this country I should not be too zealous to tax his “hard earned” dollars 90%?
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/02/dodd-interviews-for-future-banking-job/
They steal from the people. People should steal back from them.
doydum,
How do you define “rich”? Billionaire? Millionaire? Anyone who makes more than you?
Then who is to say that YOU aren’t rich? Is it ok to steal from you? Even if you agree to that, is it ok to steal from someone who makes less than you? At what point do we draw the line?
This reminds me of the old saying about democracy being two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
Taxes in USA are going up !
Social spending is going down.
We are getting closer and closer to economic collaps..
And the only part of the Federal government budget which has increased, was the military budget for more … WAR !
EdMcGon,
Well, I can answer those two questions very easily, because I happen to be a doctor. And before anyone gets too “oh, well, no wonder he thinks that way” on me, know that I put myself through school and training (all twelve years of it after high school), cleaning toilets and bussing tables. I worked VERY hard to get where I am today. And I am VERY good at what I do. So yes, I do feel I have a right to earn well from what I do, and I do feel that I have a right to charge what I feel is appropriate for my service. Mind you, much of what I am actually paid is determined by good old Medicare and Medicaid, which I can assure you “ain’t much”. And I see a fair number of people knowing full well I won’t ever see a penny from them. What I have a problem with is patients that feel everything should be done for them, damn the expense. The other day, for instance, I was called to a patient’s room, as they were leaving the hospital and they wanted to pay me. (Yes, some people do still pay cash). I mistakenly walked into the room next door, where another woman I had treated was sitting in bed visiting with friends, and I said that I had been told she wanted to pay for her services. Well, she looked at me like I was delirious, and said, “I’m not paying you anything, I don’t have to”. (This was a Medicaid patient). I apologized for my mistake and walked out. But the truth is as she stated, though. She wasn’t going to pay anything, and she DIDN’T have to. And believe me, her care was every bit the same as the patient next door–I don’t treat the two any differently. She honestly felt that that little white card entitled her to the best of everything, never mind who actually did pay for it…and we all know who that is. There is an alarming philosophy in our country that basically shuns any sense of personal responsibility, and it bodes very poorly for our future. I have a little scrap of paper taped to my bathroom mirror that I look at every day. It reads as follows: “You are entitled to NOTHING. You earn what you get by working for it…no excuses”. This is my philosophy of life.
And to Doydum, while I think that I earn a good living, I certainly do not feel wealthy. If you taxed me 90% on what I earn, I would probably quit immediately, take every dollar I have in savings, and move to a sunny Latin American country, where I would spend the rest of my life enjoying cold Coronas on the beach. To do anything else would not be worth it. I suggest you take a look at the breakdown of tax revenue received by the federal government. I can’t quote the exact stats, but if you divided the population into two halves, based on family income, the lower earning half pays practically nothing in taxes. And the vast bulk of tax revenue comes from those in the top 10% of wage earners. And we all receive the same “benefits”. Actually, that’s not true…I pay for my health care myself.
Apologies to Jim and all other readers for the length….obviously I have some pent up feelings on this issue. Let’s get back to business!
Why do we not have a FAIR tax?!!
greenflash98:
You are a doctor so you must be smarter than the average Jubakster but I did not see that intelligence in your post:
> the vast bulk [i.e. %70] of tax revenue comes from those in the top 10% of wage earners.
Don’t you think these figures only show the extent of inequality in income distribution in this country? The top 10% of the country pays 71% of the taxes. Wow!…
A more meaningful comparison would be the tax rates of each group:
Top 1% 24.31
Top 5% 20.74
Top 10% 18.49
Top 25% 15.38
Top 50% 13.35
Bottom 50% 2.95
No too bad, isn’t it?… Now, don’t tell me the bottom 50% is taxed only 2.95%. These are the minimum wage people, for example your Medicaid patient.] Tax them more if you want; they are already below poverty.
Now, income tax is not the only kind of tax in this country. Sales taxes for example, are paid by everybody, which means mostly by the non-rich. If you add up all the tax burden, do you know what the combined effective tax rates are?
Also, %90 is a tax bracket that would hit the top portion of the income of only a handful of people in this country. So, nobody in this list needs to worry.
[By the way, I strongly urge you to read your Hippocrates again.]
EdMcGon:
> How do you define “rich”?
Good question. You can go by wealth or by income. You can get the wealth figures and classifications from “Richistan:”
http://www.amazon.com/Richistan-Journey-Through-American-Wealth/dp/0307341453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265243495&sr=8-1
I’d say a net-worth of $10M would qualify you as “Rich.”
Paul Krugman [Conscience of a Liberal, p.259] goes by income and I agree with him:
“Today, the top 0.1% of Americans, a class with a minimum income of about $1.3M and an average income of about $3.5M, receives more than 7% of all income-up from just 2.2% in 1979.
I’d say an annual income of $1M would qualify you as “Rich.”
greenflash98,
Thanks for the comments. They are very accurate and I agree with every word. I have had the same experiences myself. Too many people in our country have an unwarranted sense of entitlement. This was not true of the original settlers of the country or of the many emigrants that came after them and are still coming. There are many instances of these new emigrants being harassed and beaten by the entitlement people because they were actually trying to work and better themselves. Sad but true.
On the whole I find the people that follow Jim and post here very well informed, and reasonable people and when I look at the comments on MSN after posts I see a lot of the opposite. I really wonder about the connection.
I totally agree about the statements of “entitlement” and people not taking responsibility for themselves. If people would be truthful with themselves they would see that the path to lower heath costs are not in the government getting involved, but in people taking better care of themselves, which would be 100 times more effective, but it is so much easier not to, and then blame everyone else for how much their behavior costs, or why they don’t get this or that.
Also the people that think that you will tax those rich older people and save yourselves, I think you misunderstand where their “riches” come from. When you are young you get your money from your job, you might rent or at the most pay on a mortgage and you need to make more money then you spend, so that you can save for your retirement. When people talk about the goal of retirement what they mean that they will have enough money so that maybe with the fact that their house is paid off and some money from Social Security (never enough), and their savings they will have enough to live on until they die. That some will look like a great amount of money, because inflation, plus other things like being uncertain of how long you live or your heath you should put in extra, but that doesn’t mean they intend to live like kings. Far from it. As a matter of fact we as nation would be much more concerned that they didn’t put enough away and the nation has to pick up the slack.
Doydum,
This will be my last post on this subject to address your concerns, as I don’t think further blogging on this topic is furthering the investment theme of Jubak Picks.
I don’t consider myself smarter or dumber than anyone here, just someone who works hard for what he has, and will continue to do so. I will agree with you that there is tremendous income inequality in the U.S. But there is also tremendous inequality in work ethic, personal accountability, and common sense. Many citizens are lazy, irresponsible, and make poor choices with their lives and their money. I don’t think the “solution” to that disparity is to just redistribute the wealth. This country was built on the premise of a better life through hard work, and I believe that premise is still valid. It gives me an incentive to work hard, knowing I will create a higher standard of living for myself and my family. If you honestly feel that taxing high achievers at 90% will not destroy their incentive, then we will just have to disagree.
As far as sales tax, I think it is a fair tax as it applies the same to everyone, and is based on consumption. If I want to drive a car that costs $50K (which I don’t) then I can pay the higher tax that goes along with it. Or I can choose something else–my choice.
And although I am puzzled by your mention of the Hippocratic Oath, I suspect that you are somehow disparaging my ethics with it. I’m not sure why. For your reference, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
Most simply put, the problem is this: We have more knowledge about how to treat illness than we have economic capacity to do so.
The amount of medical treatment required to treat every illness that is treatable over the course of a person’s lifetime exceeds the average person’s economic output over the course of a lifetime. Because of this, all national healthcare systems either ration care or bankrupt the country that provides them. (or both.)
How do we deal with this? Your guess is as good as mine.
Isn’t the real issue is not the number of over-65 year olds in a specified country but rather the number of employed 25 to 55 year olds in that country? I don’t have historical world population data or projections but how many 25-55 year olds were there in 1950 and how many might estimates project in 2050?