Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Quiggin's avatar

Definitions of working age as 15-64, and dependency ratios derived from that are obsolete, but still used because of the conservatism of statistical agencies. This range made sense when most young people didn't complete high school, and when the demands of physical work meant few could work past the pension age of 64. A more appropriate range would be something like 20-70. That wipes out the effects of about 30 years of population aging.

Expand full comment
Michael Haines's avatar

Automation has hardly begun in China, or the rest of the world. Most firms still employ relatively little automation.. There are only around 3.4 million industrial robots globally, while the rate at which automation is 'improving' (able to do more physical and mental tasks) is still exponential. The scope for robots/AI/AR/VR in industrial, commercial and construction applications, and even the home, is hardly tapped. The problem is not lack of workers... it is how to shift the economy from 'growth' based on 'growing population' to 'growth' based on continuous improvement in the natural and built environment, as well as growth in 'living standards'. Towns and infrastructure, as well as 'the natural world', can always be improved and better maintained/rehabilitated. In time, China can have fewer firms building new houses/apartments and more renewing what is there to cater for a falling population with a shifting age profile. With a Universal Basic Income set to keep the labour market in 'dynamic balance', China can have it all, so that at some point people will feel secure enough, and with enough 'free time', to again want to have the 'obligatory' 2.1 kids to stabilize the population. Hopefully, this takes place only after the population has shrunk to say half its size now.... the same with the rest of the world.

Expand full comment
77 more comments...

No posts