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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
Why do we not have a FAIR tax?!!
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!
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 !
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.
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.
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.