Better Estimates Soon
The world of political punditry often calls for back-of-the-envelop estimations of the size of the American population, and I always use 300 million for that purpose even though it's too high. So it's good to know that we should actually hit 300 million in October, meaning my remarks are growing more accurate by the day.
In other news, the AP seems to have pulled off the neat trick of writing an article that's simultaneously alarmist about population growth and population aging. This is a pretty neat trick. Perhaps they think we should be offing people at 70 and turning them into Soylent Green (note for the record that GDP would, in fact, be significantly enhanced by mandatory death-at-70, which is perhaps a good reason not to focus unduly on that particular metric).
Does that figure include the 10 (Democrats) to 20 (Republicans) million undocumented workers?
July 6, 2006 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you could explain this statement for the non-pundits among us.
July 6, 2006 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The assumption is that 70-year-olds are not working, so they are not producing anything that is counted in the GDP. Because GDP is productivity per capita, they bring it down by being non-producing capitas.
Fortunately, going forward, most of us won't be able to retire ever - pulling our GDP weight should keep the statisticans from doing us in....
July 6, 2006 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if we got rid of all those rich old buggers, the Gini coefficient would drop, as well.
July 6, 2006 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't they consuming a tremendous amount of health care services? Doesn't that count toward GDP?
July 6, 2006 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I got the impression from some comments you've made that you are a Silent. Wouldn't that make you one of those old buggers?
July 6, 2006 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think that wouldn't count - it keeps money moving around, but since it's consuming rather than producing, it doesn't affect the GDP positively.
July 6, 2006 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to Wikipedia:
July 6, 2006 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I knew my ignorance would be revealed if I kept at it like this!
July 6, 2006 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
GDP ain't per capita.
Medical services would most definitely be counted in the GDP.
Matt must have some super-secret (or just plain analytical) reason why the country would produce more goods and services without our eldest citizens.
Or maybe he meant GDP per capita.
July 6, 2006 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not sure this argument is all that important, but killing off retirees will have the short term effect of reducing GDP b/c of the reduction in health care provided. In the medium term this loss will be compensated for by consuming those resources in some other way- additional health care for younger people or re-employing those health care workers elsewhere. In the long term, it would probably boost GDP b/c some of that excess production will be going into investment.
July 6, 2006 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Logan's Run the relevant comparison rather than Soylent Green?
July 6, 2006 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Life's full of sacrifices.
July 6, 2006 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's a Silent?
July 6, 2006 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And 400 Million in 2041. Why stop there, there is certainly enough empty space in the US, especially if you count Alaska. And just think of the 6 BILLION poor people out there who'd love to move to the US if only we'ld let them.
July 6, 2006 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time for one of my standard hobby horses: the need for growth.
The standard economic model requires continual growth because business investment is predicated on a return on capital. There are only three ways to do this: productivity gains, population growth (expanding markets) and inflation. Mature industries have very little productivity growth (1-2%), population growth is about 1-2% (or less in places like Japan) and inflation is just changing the numbers on money.
Without "growth" why would one invest? So without growth all our present economic models fail. Is there an alternative? We understand that with 6.5 billion people (soon to be nine) the world is no longer "empty". World resources are already being strained from ocean fish to fresh water and fossil fuels.
In a "full" world things need to be rethought. During much of the history of the world societies were static, they consumed as much as their environment could provide. If there was excess population growth there would need to be migration. Since the industrial revolution this relationship has been broken and we are consuming at an unsustainable rate.
The ecological economist Herman Daly deals with how economic models need to be revised in a full world, here is a sample: Sustainable Development
I've also written on the topic. My 2 cents:
Planning for a No Growth Economy
Without the promise of something for nothing (that is investing your capital) a great deal of current economic organization needs to be changed. To modify an old chestnut: "Growth is the opiate of the masses".
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
July 6, 2006 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd assume that the GDP would plummet, as all the people who expect to reach the age of 70 fled the country. Civil wars aren't terribly good for productivity either. Unintended consequences, you know.
Investment is indeed predicated on a return on capital, but a return on capital doesn't require a growing economy. Capital, after all, wears out, and must be replaced, and it's replacement requires investment, and will return an income stream even in a static economy.
July 6, 2006 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Mature industries have very little productivity growth (1-2%)
Mature industries may well not have much productivity but "mature industry" is not a synonym for "mature population", or vis versa. I see no reason why an older population could not have plenty of new and young industries using newly developed technologies, all of which would provide plenty of productivity grwoth.
July 6, 2006 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Productivity growth is taken to mean creating the same amount of output with fewer people. New industries or products are one of the things that would still exist with "sustainable development". That is, new discoveries could lead to new products which are more "efficient" than the prior ones. The total amount of "stuff" consumed would stay within the limits of what the environment can maintain.
The age of the population isn't a factor. What worries the standard economists is that old people would be a drag on society since they would consume services and need income based upon current productivity. They neglect to take into account the better health and vitality of older people these days.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
July 6, 2006 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about gov't spending - medicare/social security? How does that fit into the equation?
July 6, 2006 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back of the envelope -- Rule of 72 -- a 2.0% per year productivity growth rate doubles real GDP by 2042 -- a reason, among others, not to worry excessively about the soundness of Social Security.
July 6, 2006 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Yglesias,
You fail to consider the possibility that workers, obsessed with their inescapable fates (mandatory suicides) and the horrible memories of their grandmothers' mandatory suicides, would become so distraught that labor productivity would fall enough to totally offset the GDP gains brought about by execution of the elderly.
There is also the possibility that the wealthier among us would elect to move to less Draconian countries, which would sharply reduce capital expenditure in the United States, further diminishing GDP.
On the other hand, executions are awesome.
Most sincerely,
Maximilian Chiswick III
July 7, 2006 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are genetically programed to live to 120 then the cells won't divide anymore.
3000 years ago the Bible writer wrote in Psalms,"70 years or with strength 80".
Science is enabling us to extend to the 120 year limit,but we want our vital youth to be extended not the elderly time.
- Tell the truth don't be afraid-Danny Haszard Bangor Maine
July 7, 2006 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but just not the ultimate one.
July 7, 2006 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink