In my speeches, I routinely argue that an aging population is one of the reasons why we need genuine entitlement reform.
A modest-sized welfare state may be feasible if a country has a “population pyramid,” I explain, but it’s a recipe for fiscal chaos when changing demographics result in fewer and fewer people pulling the wagon and more and more people riding in the wagon.
And if you somehow doubt that’s what is happening in America, check out this very sobering image showing that America’s population pyramid is turning into a population cylinder.
The bottom line is that demographics and entitlements will mean a Greek fiscal future for America and other nations.
To bolster my case (particularly for folks who might be skeptical of a libertarian message), I frequently cite pessimistic long-run fiscal data from international bureaucracies such as the IMF, BIS, and OECD.
I’m not a big fan of these organizations because they routinely endorse statist policies, but I figure skeptics will be more likely to listen to me if I point out that even left-leaning international bureaucracies agree the public sector is getting too large.
And now I have more evidence to cite. A new report from the International Monetary Fund explores “The Fiscal Consequences of Shrinking Populations.” Here’s what you need to know.
Declining fertility and increasing longevity will lead to a slower-growing, older world population. …For the world, the share of the population older than age 65 could increase from 12 percent today to 38 percent by 2100. …These developments would place public finances of countries under pressure, through two channels. First, spending on age-related programs (pensions and health) would rise. Without further reforms, these outlays would increase by 9 percentage points of GDP and 11 percentage points of GDP in more and less developed countries, respectively, between now and 2100. The fiscal consequences are potentially dire…large tax increases that could stymie economic growth.
Let’s now look at a couple of charts from the study.
The one of the left shows that one-third of developed nations already have negative population growth, and that number will jump to about 60 percent by 2050. And because that means fewer workers to support more old people, the chart on the right shows how the dependency ratio will worsen over time.
So what do these demographic changes mean for fiscal policy?
Well, if you live in a sensible jurisdiction such as Hong Kong or Singapore, there’s not much impact, even though birthrates are very low, because government is small and people basically are responsible for setting aside income for their retirement years.
And if live in a semi-sensible jurisdiction such as Australia or Chile, the impact is modest because personal retirement accounts preclude Social Security-type fiscal challenges.
But if you live just about anywhere else, in places where government somehow is supposed to provide pensions and health care, the situation is very grim.
Here’s another chart from the new IMF report. If you look at developed nations, you can see a big increase in the projected burden of government spending, mostly because of rising expenditures for health care.
At this stage, I can’t resist pointing out that this is one reason why the enactment of Obamacare was a spectacularly irresponsible decision.
But let’s not get sidetracked.
Returning to the IMF report, the authors contemplate possible policy responses.
They look at increased migration, but at best that’s a beggar-thy-neighbor approach. They look at increased labor force participation, which would be a very good development, but it’s hard to see that happening when nations have redistribution policies that discourage people from being in the workforce.
And the report is very skeptical about the prospects of government-induced increases in birthrates.
Boosting birth rates could slow down population aging and gradually reduce fiscal pressures. …However, a “birth rate” solution to aging is unlikely to work for most countries. The pronatalist policies seem to have only modest effects on the number of births, although they might affect the timing of births.
So that means the problem will need to be addressed through fiscal policy.
The IMF’s proposed solutions include some misguided policies, but I was surprisingly pleased by the recognition that steps were needed to limit the growth of government.
Regarding pensions, the IMF suggested higher retirement ages, which is a second-best option, while also suggesting private retirement savings, which is the ideal solution.
Reforming public pension systems can help offset the effects of aging. Raising retirement ages is an especially attractive option… For example, raising retirement ages over 2015–2100 by an additional five years (about 7 months per decade) beyond what is already legislated would reduce pension spending by about 2 percentage points of GDP by 2100 (relative to the baseline) in both the more and less developed countries. …increasing the role of private retirement saving schemes could be helpful in offsetting the potential decline in lifetime retirement income.
But if you recall from above, the biggest problem is rising health care costs.
And kudos to the IMF for supporting market-driven competition. Even more important, though, the international bureaucracy recognizes that the key is to limit the government’s health care spending to the growth of the private economy (sort of a a healthcare version of Mitchell’s Golden Rule).
…health care reform can be effective in containing the growth of public health spending. …There is past success in improving health outcomes without raising costs through promoting some degree of competition among insurers and service providers. …Containing the growing costs of health care would help reduce long-term fiscal risks. On average, health care costs are projected to increase faster than economic growth. …Assuming policies are able to keep the growth of health care costs per capita in line with GDP per capita, health care spending will increase at a slower rate, reflecting only demographics. Under this scenario, public health care spending pressures would be greatly subdued: by 2100, health spending would be reduced by 4½ percentage points of GDP in the more developed countries.
Interestingly, of all the options examined by the IMF, capping the growth of health care spending had the biggest positive impact on long-run government spending.
So what lessons can we learn?
Most important, the IMF study underscores the importance of the Medicaid reform and Medicare reform proposals that have been included in recent budgets on Capitol Hill.
In addition to making necessary structural changes, both of these reforms cap the annual growth of health care spending, which is precisely what the IMF report says will generate the largest savings.
So we’re actually in a very unusual situation. Some lawmakers want to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time.
But not all of them. Some politicians, either because of malice or ignorance, think we should do nothing, even though that will mean a very unpleasant future.
[…] They are funded with debt. […]
[…] They are funded with debt. […]
[…] which includes 16 visuals to drive home the point that the world is facing a demographic/entitlement […]
[…] written many times about demographic change and the implications for public policy – both in the United States and around the […]
[…] The long-run fiscal outlook for most developed nations is very grim thanks to demographic change and poorly designed entitlement programs. […]
[…] small change in birthrates, in the long run, has a huge impact on a country’s population and […]
[…] good research on topics such as spending caps, debt, decentralization, the size of government, demographics, government spending, and taxation. Too bad the bureaucrats working on policy never read those […]
[…] The long-run fiscal outlook for most developed nations is very grim thanks to demographic change and poorly designed entitlement programs. […]
[…] bien c’est une assez bonne description de ce que je ressens face à la crise budgétaire facile à prévoir, visible à l’œil nu, couru d’avance et inéluctable qui se produira en raison de […]
[…] how I feel about the easy-to-predict, visible-to-the-naked-eye, baked-in-the-cake, bound-to-happen fiscal crisis that will occur because of the combination of demographic change and poorly designed entitlement […]
[…] it’s going to spread everywhere: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, the developing world, Japan and the United […]
[…] will occasionally pontificate about a demographic crisis in the developed world, but I usually feel guilty afterwards. After all, how can it be a bad thing […]
[…] – Almost all developed nations have major long-run fiscal problems because welfare states will implode because of aging populations and falling birthrates (Ponzi […]
[…] – Almost all developed nations have major long-run fiscal problems because welfare states will implode because of aging populations and falling birthrates (Ponzi […]
[…] By the way, the problem of aging populations and misguided entitlements exists in almost every developed nation. […]
[…] By the way, the problem of aging populations and misguided entitlements exists in almost every developed nation. […]
[…] By the way, the problem of aging populations and misguided entitlements exists in almost every developed nation. […]
[…] By the way, the problem of aging populations and misguided entitlements exists in almost every developed nation. […]
[…] pace. But there’s something else happening in the world that we have to add to the mix. The global change in demographics, combined with the tax-and-transfer welfare states that exist in most nations, are a very dangerous […]
[…] like a broken record when it comes to entitlement spending. I’ve explained, ad nauseam, that programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and Social Security must be […]
[…] like a broken record when it comes to entitlement spending. I’ve explained, ad nauseam, that programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and Social Security must be […]
[…] like a broken record when it comes to entitlement spending. I’ve explained, ad nauseam, that programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and Social Security must be […]
[…] like a broken record when it comes to entitlement spending. I’ve explained, ad nauseam, that programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and Social Security must be […]
[…] have changed. Because of longer life expectancy and falling birth rates, population pyramids are turning into population […]
[…] an issue of wanting better tax policy in order to achieve more prosperity. In part because of demographic changes, tax havens and tax competition are necessary if we want to discourage politicians from creating […]
[…] That’s a recipe for a crisis. […]
[…] To be fair, perhaps this is what the author actually meant since he writes at one point about the level of taxes needed to finance ever-expanding welfare states. […]
[…] To be fair, perhaps this is what the author actually meant since he writes at one point about the level of taxes needed to finance ever-expanding welfare states. […]
[…] To be fair, perhaps this is what the author actually meant since he writes at one point about the level of taxes needed to finance ever-expanding welfare states. […]
[…] makes it harder to save money in the short run, but I’m more concerned about dealing with the long-run fiscal challenge (as seen in these IMF, BIS, and OECD numbers). So Rubio’s position doesn’t strike me […]
[…] for today’s column is a bit grandiose. It implies weighty and ponderous analysis of America’s ever-growing entitlement state and potentially dour predictions about when we reach a tipping point of too much […]
[…] Okay, the title for today’s column is a bit grandiose: the State of Liberty in America. It implies weighty and ponderous analysis of America’s ever-growing entitlement state […]
[…] for today’s column is a bit grandiose. It implies weighty and ponderous analysis of America’s ever-growing entitlement state and potentially dour predictions about when we reach a tipping point oftoo much […]
[…] column is a bit grandiose. It implies weighty and ponderous analysis of America’s ever-growing entitlement state and potentially dour predictions about when we reach a tipping point of too much […]
[…] should be to prevent government from consuming ever-larger shares of economic output. This is the giant challenge in the developed […]
[…] To be sure, these items are just a drop in the bucket compared to entitlement spending. […]
[…] To be sure, these items are just a drop in the bucket compared to entitlement spending. […]
[…] Moreover, there’s scant evidence of desirable effects on birthrates (an important issue because of the collapsing welfare state, as discussed yesterday). […]
[…] « The Fiscal Nightmare of Changing Demographics Combined with Poorly Designed Entitlement Program… […]
There will be scores of silver haired old people awaiting at the hospital for the next baby to be born, and tax it.
Many retirees will leave their younger countrymen with the bill at home while they retire in younger and cheaper jurisdictions. Retirement emigration will become much more commonplace. But the young will also leave these overtaxed jurisdictions (the Denmark to Dubai railroad) causing those systems to implode even faster.
Greece without anyone bigger to bail you out does not last long. And that’s a good thing.
May you live in interesting times.
Long before Al Gore logs another degree increase in global temperatures, most of today’s merry welfare states will have imploded. Al Gore warship will actually make that happen even faster.
Finally I’d be very weary of making predictions one century into the future. By that time humans may have, for example, cracked the genetic code of aging and life expectancies may rise into the centuries (talking about a demographic problem — though perhaps not if you remain young and work at say 112). Yes I know “man will never be able to fly”, until he did!
Predictions about the next century will prove just as foolish as predictions made about our world one hundred years ago. Actually even more foolish, because growth and progress of the human race is not only continuing but accelerating.
Four percent growth is the new bar of averagedom, the total world average. If you cannot match that then you’re definitively in decline.
Retirement age has not kept up with life expectancy, and that must be corrected.
When Bismarck began German “Social Insurance” in 1889, retirement age was 70 [it was lowered to 65 in 1916]. At that time, the average life expectancy was 40. We have lifted retirement age up to 66, kicking and screaming, and life expectancy is fast approaching 80.
In addition, most jobs are no longer physically taxing, the way they were in the 1890’s. We can expect people to work longer.
Clearly we must raise the age where the federal government gets involved, but by how much and for whom? For political and moral reasons, those who are currently retired will keep current benefits.
Those who are not yet paid FICA have no claim on future benefits and should be “nudged” to establish private retirement accounts, when they begin work.
That leaves the working population from 20 to 66. Obviously, the young have paid little into FICA whereas those approaching retirement have paid for a long time.
Since people are expected to work for ~45 years for ~15 years of benefits, it would make sense to accelerate the increase in retirement age by 1/3 of a month, for every month each individual has remaining until current expected retirement. During that time taxes should decrease, based on the reduced entitlement burden. Again, there should be a “nudge” from government to save the additional take-home pay to replace lost benefits.
This is not a zero sum game, since the increase in saving for the future should stimulate additional economic growth.
You’re right and most Republican candidates with the exception of “The Donald” realize this reality – we can’t grow out of this – without entitlement reform and if we stop the debt hemmoraging or we’ll end up with a defense budget that shrinks on average about 5 to 6% annually – if you’d like to see the analysis that sports this assertion let me know – Keep up the good work
John Knubel