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.
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….
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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).
Aging population…..is 30 still considered young?
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
China’s January Imports May Jump by Most Since 1991, CICC Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aR09xdYxfxzA
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.
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
US needs to raise retirement age. But politicians will not dare.
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.
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.
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!
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..
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?!
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.
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.
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?
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.