Source: United Nations
World, high income, middle income and low income country fertility rates since 1950
28 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in development economics, population economics Tags: demographic transition, economics of fertility, The Great Escape
Median age for selected ethnic groups in New Zealand, 1986, 2013
09 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in economic history, population economics
Improvements in remaining life expectancy of Australians aged 25 to 29 since 1990
30 May 2016 Leave a comment
in economic history, health economics, population economics Tags: Australia, life expectancies, The Great Escape
The graph shows how many years you have left if aged 25 to 29 in 1990.
Source: Life Expectancy: progress from 1990 to 2013 | Health Intelligence.
New Zealand population trends, 1950-2100
30 May 2016 Leave a comment
in labour economics, labour supply, population economics Tags: ageing society, demographic crisis, labour demographics, population bomb, Population demographics
Population density across #Europe
28 May 2016 Leave a comment
in population economics Tags: Europe, maps
Countries with the most people living overseas
23 May 2016 Leave a comment
in labour economics, labour supply, population economics Tags: economics of immigration
Without one-child policy, China still might not see baby boom, gender balance
20 May 2016 Leave a comment
Migrants as % of populations of USA, Canada, Western European countries, Australia & New Zealand, 1990 and 2015
15 May 2016 1 Comment
in population economics Tags: economics of migration
Source: United Nations Population Division | Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2015 Revision,
Earth Day flashback
21 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in environmental economics, environmentalism, labour economics, labour supply, population economics Tags: doomsday prophecies, Earth Day, Paul Ehrlich
Will the population bomb prevent the great stagnation?
16 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, development economics, economic growth, industrial organisation, P.T. Bauer, population economics Tags: doomsday prophecies, endogenous growth theory, pessimism bias, population bomb
If only Paul Ehrlich had been right! Population explosion would have meant an explosion in people who could invent new technologies and populate in much larger markets to provide an incentive to invent new products.
Among Paul Ehrlich’s many analytical errors, he did not take into account that more people meant more inventors and more untapped markets.
Jones argued that in the very long run the only way to have further innovation is to have more people. If there are more people undertaking R&D and more people to populate the markets for those inventions, there will be further growth because the decreasing returns to knowledge creation will be overcome by having more R&D workers.
Jones attributes much of the growth in the 20th century to one-off effects that cannot be repeated such as putting more people into higher education:
… growth in educational attainment, developed-economy R&D intensity, and population are all likely to be slower in the future than in the past. These factors point to slower growth in US living standards.
Second, a counterbalancing factor is the rise of China, India, and other emerging economies, which likely implies rapid growth in world researchers for at least the next several decades.
Third, and more speculatively, the shape of the idea production function introduces a fundamental uncertainty into the future of growth. For example, the possibility that artificial intelligence will allow machines to replace workers to some extent could lead to higher growth in the future.
A larger population increases the rate of technological progress by increasing the number of geniuses and other creative people.The doomsday prophecies about the population bomb never took that into account. That is why they are wrong.
The changing face of America, 1965 to 2065
10 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in politics - USA, population economics Tags: Population demographics
@garethmorgannz’s #UBI finishes the job on #GenerationRent @JordNZ
29 Mar 2016 Leave a comment
in fiscal policy, labour economics, labour supply, macroeconomics, politics - New Zealand, population economics, poverty and inequality Tags: Edward Prescott, New Zealand superannuation, old age pensions, social insurance, timing inconsistency, universal basic income, welfare state
Gareth Morgan revealed today a hitherto unnoticed design feature in his Universal Basic Income of $11,000 per annum. It will be phased in over a long time. That will mean that Generation Rent will continue to pay taxes to fund a universal old age pension for their parents and grandparents, but will not be fortunate enough to receive that themselves.
Source: Morgan Foundation (2016) Taxpayers Union Critique of the UBI just bonkers – again
They are not left of their own devices. Generation Rent is expected to save the Universal Basic Income they receive over their working lives to avoid living in poverty in their retirement. Does not strike me as a political winner.
The Morgan Foundation does not understand the implications of time inconsistency for retirement savings policy:
- Which is better? Save for your retirement through the share market or save to own your own home and then present yourself at the local social security office to collect your taxpayer funded old-age pension?
- Under this fine game of bluff, you bleed the taxpayer in your old age and pass on your debt-free home to your children.
This strategy of not saving much for retirement is rational for the less well-paid. The family home is exempt from income and asset testing for social security. If you lose you bet, sell your house and live off the capital. For ordinary workers, this is a good bet. The middle class might prefer to live in a more luxurious retirement.
For ordinary workers, whose wages are not a lot more than their old age pension from the government, a government funded pension is a good political gamble. The old-age pension for a couple in New Zealand is set at no less that 60% of average earnings.
Edward Prescott argues for compulsory retirement savings account albeit with important twists because it is otherwise irrational for many to save for their retirement against the background of a welfare state:
The reason we need to have mandatory retirement accounts is not because people are irrational, but precisely because they are perfectly rational — they know exactly what they are doing.
If, for example, somebody knows that they will be cared for in old age — even if they don’t save a nickel — then what is their incentive to save that nickel? Wouldn’t it be rational to spend that nickel instead?
…Without mandatory savings accounts we will not solve the time-inconsistency problem of people under-saving and becoming a welfare burden on their families and on the taxpayers. That’s exactly where we are now.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments