Can The U.S. Avoid A Population Collapse?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2022
- Demographics have a huge role to play in the U.S. economy. This video will explain how U.S. Demographics impact growth, inflation, interest rates, and asset prices in the US & global economies.
EPB Secular & Cyclical Framework: epbresearch.com/framework/
EPB Premium Services: epbresearch.com/services/
Join The EPB Mailing List: epbresearch.com/free-weekly-u...
Twitter: / epbresearch
Effects of elderly inflation... I went on a vacation last fall in New England, in the town I was staying I noticed something. The entire population of the town was over 50 years of age. I am 41 and I could not find a soul my age or younger. The next day I went out on the town and had dinner at restaurant that was packed. Everyone there was angry about the wait time which was 3 hours. Later that evening I sat at the bar and a group of 50+ folk were complaining how young people don't want to work and that's why they had to wait. I spoke up at this moment as during my waiting I did some researching on a hunch after my observations over the past couple of days. I told them that the problem is them, I got a angry response at first but I then explained. I said, look around you... every store, eatery, and restaurant has has someone your age or older working in it. Look around town, you don't see a single young person and do you know why? They paused and looked at me. All of you have had a lifetime to generate wealth and with that wealth built a town too expensive for young people to afford. I took out my phone and showed them the lowest priced one bedroom apartment in this vacation town. Over $2000 a month, how does a young person afford an apartment of $2000 when they earn $15 an hour in hospitality. The only economy your town has is hospitality, general stores, and maintenance professions which do not pay enough. The problem is not that young people do not want to work, its because they cannot afford to live here because of the inflation baby boomers have caused here.
The problem with those over 50 and over 60 and over 65 is that they like to boast that "when we were their age we used to work very hard" but I want to tell them WHEN YOU WERE THEIR AGE YOU ARE REFERRING YOURSELVES AS A YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE EARLY 1980s, 1970s, and 1960s when jobs are relatively easy to come by and PRICES ARE LOW and there are a lot of POSITIVE social services who really wants to help you TO BECOME INDEPENDENT ON THEM and that you have low cost housings and other things that you took for granted AND HAS FORGOTTEN ALREADY TODAY after you have taken advantage of what the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s has to offer. It is very easy for you to say that "when I was their age I was able to get any job, my job pays well that I can afford rent comfortably, eat decently, I was able to pay for my college education and paid it off completely, buy my own house fully paid off already, etc"
BUT I KEEP ON SAYING THAT THE REASON YOU ARE ABLE TO SAY THAT TODAY is because you were lucky enough to be born and started growing in the late 1950s and grew in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s when COSTS OF LIVING IS CHEAPER and when prices of everything is cheaper, "WHEN EVERYTHING IS AFFORDABLE". Fast forward today in 2022, compare the socio-economic environmental situation surrounding today's young people in 2022 to your socio-economic environmental situation in the late 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and you will realize that YOU HAD IT EASY IN THOSE PAST DECADES to be able to acquire and accumulate wealth for yourselves, while todays young generation is having a hard time today in this decade TODAY!
You made a mistake of trying to compare yourselves to todays young generation by comparing the CHEAP and AFFORDABLE late 1950s, 1960s, 1980s THAT YOU WERE BORN INTO AND GREW UP IN to todays young generation who are now living in the VERY EXPENSIVE 2010s and 2020s and 2022! And even perhaps up to increasingly "made artificially expensive" 2950 because of your wrong investment choices that made everything unnecessarily expensive! You want the quick buck by financializing everything and over-financializing everything in order to create an artificial wealth based on intangible and unrealistic and non-existing wealth paper money WHILE IGNORING THE REAL PRODUCING PHYSICAL ECONOMY of the extractive industries-processing industries-manufacturing industries-servicing manpower creating industries (education, hospitals, clinics, what-have-you).
Age dependency ratio ranges from the time of birth at ages 1 to ages 18. Then it starts again at ages 65 to ages 150 (depending on on-time-availability and fast medical accessibility and fast medical application and fast "what-have-you") is completely stupid statement because it lacks certain key elements that are coming from and based from the Judeo-Christian Faith! Human beings are like trees. It takes time to plant the seeds and nurture it, it takes time to protect and nurture the seedlings, it takes time to protect and nurture the saplings, and then once it has full maturity it starts producing all kinds of useful nuts and fruits and berries and medicinals and what-have-you. By the time it has given it's all you must maintain it indefinitely and carefully trim and prune it without hurting it so that the other various seeds and seedlings and saplings and and fully matured trees around it will have an opportunity to grown up and do their contribution while being under the protection of the 1st older tree's shade and windbreaking and snow breaking actions that protects them old. (1) The seeds and seedlings and saplings represents the STILL MATURING human generation ages 1 to ages 18. (2) The matured and fully productive young tree represents the ALREADY PRODUCTIVE human beings ages 19 to 65 with a productive economic period of 45 years. (3) The older trees that has given their all and are still productive in their way by providing a protective shade, a protective wind breaker, and a protective snow breaker and a protective flood and drought mitigators represents the SHARING OF PAST KNOW HISTORICAL ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE AND ACCUMULATED WISDOM AND STILL FRESH INCOMING IDEAS THAT NEEDS TO BE PASSED ON TO THE STILL MATURING human generation ages 1 to ages 18. And that includes also the already productive and dynamically thinking and creative and inventive and innovative human beings ages 19 to 65. Why this knowledge and experiences and wisdom was not concluded BY JUST LOOKING AT THE WHOLE PICTURE OF ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND SITUATIONS CROSSING ACROSS THE AGES OF HUMANITY ON ALL AGES AND IN ALL AGES IS DISMAYING TO ME and makes me mad at the ignorance of this present generation of young self-centered and selfish Americans!
@user-ob6zx6ry6p Tell those over age 50 and above this question. (1) How many were born when they are at the age of 18 years old to 25 years old which is 25 to 32 years ago year after year over a period of 7 years from ages 18 to ages 25 when you were that age?
(2) How many of you wisely invested in productive and non-inflationary and self-regenerating and self-expanding investments in the real economy of the producing economy that produces tangible physical wealth (manufactured goods, services producing-caring manpower such as schools, libraries, laboratories, hospitals, clinics, specialized medical research centers and hospitals, farms, factories, medicinal herbal pharmaceutical gardens and farms, public utilities, infrastructures and industrial infrastructures with an accompanying "INDUSTRIAL POLICY(IES)" AND "INDUSTRIAL RE-INVESTMENT POLICY(IES)" and so forth and so on when you are at the age of 20 to 25 up to the time you are semi-retired at 50 to fully retired at 65?
Great comment.
Your chart of consumption by age group says more than you noted. There’s a causal mechanism behind why the 25-50 year old groups consume more: kids. It’s why you see that consumption in vehicles and cars.
As this population of working people is having fewer children, you’ll likely see smaller consumption from them relative to previous cohorts.
hmmm people with no kids tend to spend more on cars than people with kids. 25-50 consume more because they earn more not because of kids
@@chosen1520 I’m guessing you don’t have kids. Kids cause waaaay more spending than “no kids”. It’s not just cars. Kids require food, clothes (this is constant…they are always growing), nursery furniture, then bedroom furniture, toys, activities, education, it’s never ending. And it multiplies for EACH KID.
@@swisschalet1658 people with no kids just spend it on more vacations, nicer cars, luxury items, nice dinners, more eating out, etc. USA has a consumption culture. as long as 25-50 earn more, they'll spend it on whatever regardless if they have kids or not.
@@chosen1520 eliminating cars and expanding public transit would be more economically viable.
@@swisschalet1658 last I heard each kid (not counting vehicles) cost the average American between 50k and 100k from birth to graduation of college.
It would be nice to cover the reasons why this is happening. As a male in my 20s I have 0 incentive to get married or have children in the US. Marriage system is abusive towards men if the marriage ends. The cost of raising a child has increased dramatically over the last several decades. And god forbid you want to send your children to college.
Marriage is abusive towards anyone making more if you don't get a solid prenup
You problem isn't money...just saying. Stare into the mirror sometime, or read up on some Jordan Peterson or something.
Nick, you are a species of ape born with two primary incentives, stay alive and pass on your genetics. There are no other incentives available, there are only cultural obfuscations that operate on the existing rewards structure in your body.
Life isn't about marriage or the cost of raising children. Go pass on your genetics like a good ape, or don't and live in the awareness that there isn't anything else for you to do here.
He's giving us economic trends not whining...
Your views will change. It's a symptom of the infantalisation of children even into their late teens. Once you 'grow up', for lack of a better term, your priorities will change on a purely biological basis and children seem more appealing.
The idea of getting married, having children etc etc has been phased out.
Nope not true! They are trying but many people are starting to return to tradition.
@@gundam12p "return to tradition" hahaha very funny it's not happening nice try reactionary
So economically speaking, we should all be betting on long term declines. One thing you didn't mention is the extreme growth of income inequality. Working people have had stagnant wage growth for a long time despite ever rising productivity, the rich continue to ingest larger and larger portions of the pie. That money inflates paper assets and real estate, but put's little back into the real economy. It is unproductive to keep trillions out of the real economy and in the hands of a few. Boom and bust is a ridiculous way to run an economy, once there were rules to prevent such extremes, those have been removed in favor of corruption and reckless speculation by the wealthy, who socialize their losses onto tax payers (the middle class) while pocketing all the gains with no penalties or strings attached. Government and business are two sides of the same coin, everyone else gets stagnant wages and high taxes (the rich avoid paying taxes altogether with loopholes politicians made specifically for their biggest donors). It's a death spiral of debt, financial illiteracy, predation, and unaccountability.
Succinct and well-put analysis. Bravo!
Capitalism is a failed system held together by force.
@@firstlastlastfirst7143 You got a better idea? Please elaborate.
@@theoriginalDAL357 Apparently the commentor deleted the comment, but let me give my thoughts on this. Yes, it is true that nearly every billionaire is there because of corruption, luck, or a combination of the two, but companies themselves aren't inherently evil or to be put under intense scrutiny unless they hold a monopoly, unlike politicians. To me it doesn't make any logical sense that wages adjusted for inflation are stagnant if productivity really is insanely high, after all wouldn't a company that paid fairer wage using their profits attract substantially more skilled workers that make them money? I'm all in favor of breaking up monopolies, but companies benefit from treating their employees well, so it wouldn't make sense why they wouldn't. Additionally even assuming that wage is stagnant that doesn't mean standard of living is. The middle class might make a similar amount of money now then 80 years ago, but could that money buy all the modern luxury we have today? Of course not. The only way to solve businesses spending money on lobbying is to hire selfless politicians, which won't happen, but in the long run businesses being able to show how policies effect them, especially when they are the cheapest in the area, is important.
This is just propaganda for someone who does not understand economics.
I lived in NYC in small apartment for my 20s and 30s with my wife. We wanted kids but could never get enough space to feel comfortable. In my 40s we finally left and moved to a low cost area midsize town where we could afford a pretty large home. We now have 2 kids. That never would have happened in a high cost of living area. Of the 18 houses on my street 10 of the houses have kids under 5. All parents are late 30s and 40s and all moved here from the much more expensive Bay Area or Southern California. All said they moved to have kids. Our housing cost is 20% of the costs of those higher cost areas but our median wages are 65% as much of these high cost of living areas. This is why there are so many kids in my neighborhood and I believe the collapse is happening in high cost of living areas. Housing costs to local wages will help determine where it’s practical to raise kids. Happy for our choice but also worry that people are stuck thinking big cities will help them “get ahead” but the I think cities have become economic traps for indentured servitude that prevents people from forming families and having kids.
Cities have always been demographic black holes, going back thousands of years. They suck up youth and spit out money. The people that allow a city to grow are supplied from financially poor but very fertile rural communities. Suburbs as we know them are a recent invention that allowed higher fertility in urban areas, and suburbs only work thanks to cars.
And progressively, as those people leave high income areas and move to middle income areas, people that already had trouble affording homes and getting jobs in middle income areas are forced to move into low income areas. Then repeat the process for the low income areas, and then you have a whole lot of homeless people.
@@cin806 And now that we're out of rural communities, they suck up immigrants.
NYC is not normal for the US and is not something that should be held up as an example of anything and neither is LA. Those are outliers and not part of the greater population in terms of effect.
Too many people are watching TV shows and allowing that to obsequie their view of the world. NYC does not represent typical America.
what we need is better city design that allows for more affordable housing so that families can exist in big cities affordably.
This is a great video. So few people can pull this all together and explain this so clearly. Well done!
I know a number of people who are very hard working and may likely never get ahead financially. Disabled, for the last 8 years I've needed to hire personal help. Once a week, pay my bills, do appointments, keep me organized. $15 / hr. plus minor (very minor, I'm talking lunch out together) benefits.
Many are trapped in poor cars, cars needing constant repair. I sometimes help with that. Others have children sucking up money, both little kids and adult kids.
There's no one thing to put my finger on, except that life has treated them unfairly in small ways that JUST NEVER QUITS.
@@veramae4098 there are so many disillusioned people under 75 years of age. There's a thrust of reality denialists that really want to blame everyone else. You know, I can't keep my business running because no one wants to work hard for me... Yeah? Isn't that your cue to lure people in with money? Oh business owners don't have any money? Well, how privileged they must feel to think their wealth should be restored, when 2 seconds ago it was all about boot straps and gusto.
Yep Mr. EPB here for domestic politics and Perun for geopolitical-related economics 👍
I think the video is nonsense at best.
The decline of population is an unavoidable result of the cost of living in developed countries. Would be interesting to see an investigation into that aspect of modern population.
There has been. Check out Peter Zeihan. Plenty of YT videos out there. However, read his new book "The end of the world is just the beginning". You'll get up to speed right away. What is happening now is global, not just in the US.
Governments/Companies/Organizations want good slaves who are married/have kids. After about 20 years working, I'll tell young people you should not have any loyalty to any organization, they will turn on you in a second when its convenient and fire/replace you. Also to ensure no slavery, young people dont get married and dont get a girl pregnant, make sure she takes the birth control pill daily in front of you and both wear protection. You will just condemn your new child to increasing poverty and freedomless slavery and these control/money/job trends worsen. Promote this idea in videos and social media to help prevent more young people into this new slavery.
I often wonder about the veracity of this statement. Developed nations have some of the best conditions in human history for life yet their fertility rates are dropping below replacement levels. I would think living as a peasant in the Dark ages, the Middle Ages, even Rome was worse than being poor in a developed nation currently. Yet the human population kept growing.
@@themachine9366 Because at the time children were a retirement plan, free labor and an economic asset.
@@TheStephaneAdam Also, no birth control and women were basically property of their husbands.
Outstanding. No emotions, no politics, just great data analysis. Subbed.
same
Yup. Simple, concise, logical, and earnest. Subbed as well.
Governments/Companies/Organizations want good slaves who are married/have kids. After about 20 years working, I'll tell young people you should not have any loyalty to any organization, they will turn on you in a second when its convenient and fire/replace you. Also to ensure no slavery, young people dont get married and dont get a girl pregnant, make sure she takes the birth control pill daily in front of you and both wear protection. You will just condemn your new child to increasing poverty and freedomless slavery and these control/money/job trends worsen. Promote this idea in videos and social media to help prevent more young people into this new slavery.
There's no such thing as apolitical economics. Economics are political. Every time anyone says "X causes Y to happen" in economics, they're telling you what kind of economic theory they believe in.
You might enjoy
Empty Planet: the shock of global population decline
Good book.
When the economy is so awful that it's almost impossible to raise a family, this is what you get.
Its not about the economy. Children are time consuming and people (men and women) are assholes so aside the sex you dont want to be married for more than a decade.
People with children are the ones who actually get the govt freebies and don't pay income tax- or fractional rates. Singles with no kids really take it up the behind.. getting only self derived wages to survive paying massive taxes while shouldering all household expenses alone.
Plus your kids are going to get brainwashed in govt schools. Then they are going to go to some woke UNI and their brains will be totally destroyed. So as you say whats the point.
It's not the economy. People were having kids during the fall of Rome, Viking invasions, the Great Depression, and under Bolshevism. It's this individualist ethic of our society. How tragic it is to think nothing would be lost if your family line ends with you.
Ain't nobody on welfare stopped having kids. They basically get paid to have kids. Money for nothin... except having a Dem voter.
All the news of existential dread aside, the fact that child care averages over $1,000 a month per kid is explanation enough for population decline in the USA. Having a child is simply unaffordable for most people.
Well this gets a little complicated depending on how the child is cared for. If you are going to have two working parents, a chunk of the second income gets taken into that 1,000 per month . That’s not including the fact that you still pay even with daycare, for the diapers and milk for your kids still on top of that. There’s less need for daycare when your kids get into school as well, so yes it sucks. Just remember some not so rich people like me take part in raising those kids.
Simply put - When you live in a society where a tik tok influencer can make almost 10x the money than in someone in skilled trades or professional services , something has to give… money/value is ultimately finite, and when someone who isn’t contributing to the true economy wins out , there will be severe consequences.
the market doesnt need people in professional services if they suck or are average at it. I would rather have a tik tok influencer than a mediocre lawyer
@@gijane2cantwaittoseeyou203 ...And it needs Tiktok influencers _more?_
@@PeterDivine Entertainers are pretty much a constant in any economy.
the tik tok influence does ad value to the economy though, they are paid because essentially they are advertisers. What 'gives' here is traditional marketing and advertising jobs.
"when someone who isn’t contributing to the true economy wins out , there will be severe consequences"
Add the entirety of Wall Street to the category of those not contributing to the true economy; except that Wall St is even worse than the tik-tok influencer b/c Wall St readily EXTRACTS from the real economy. Adam Smith, the godfather of capitalism, in his book "The Wealth of Nations" made fun of stock market workers, calling them "unproductive labor" because their labor doesn't produce anything of value. And Wall St *long ago* "won out." They now run our entire political system. When they crash the economy on purpose, instead of jail sentences they get bailouts.
One thing to point out is the value of a labor hour, which in the US and many other countries is substantially low. At least in my view this is because of the low amount of jobs, due to Boomers and Gen X'ers remaining in the workforce past retirement and refusing to give up lucrative job placements to either retire (boomers) or advance (because boomers remained) up the chain.
With the Boomers and gen X'ers starting to retire, the value of a labor hour starts to go up, a smaller workforce, but more jobs meaning that employers now have to invest more in finding talent, and are willing to pay more to keep said talent.
It's also why I believe many politicians and Corporations are cheering and even encouraging mass immigration, legal or otherwise. It drives down the value of a labor hour, making talent easier to find, and easier to replace, why pay Joe $15 to flip burgers, when Jõse, Muhammad, Juan-Ji, Sir Edward, and Billy are all standing outside and willing to do the same job for $10 or less.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, don't bring Gen-X into this. We're just along for the ride.
Gen X isn't even AT retirement age but thanks for blaming us. Also, boomers are still working because THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO RETIRE. Blame that on the top 1% not an entire generation. And yes, I defend you from boomer attacks too. Don't give me cause to regret it.
"Corporations are cheering and even encouraging mass immigration"
They only encourage it if they can ensure that it is illegal. That way, they can have complete power over their immigrant workforce and threaten to turn them in to ICE if they dare to not smile when shat upon
@@havable boomers and their huge political power elect the politicians who gutted the saftey mechanisms this country enjoyed before. They are also to blame and need to accept their responsibility in this mess.
"Gen X'ers remaining in the workforce past retirement"
Generation X has not reached retirement age so why are you wanting them to retire?
Great job Eric! Keep em' coming!
Many thanks, Robert! More coming!
This is one of the best videos I've seen on this (massively underrated) subject.
Just discovered this channel. Subscribed right away... excited to see what else this channel will have to offer
This fails to account for "automation"... So, by example, Telephone companies used to hire armies of switchboard operators to route calls. Thus a mundane and menial task could be automated by computers. This effectively decouples the job vs economic growth curves. So unless you overlay how much labor that computers and automation perform, then these graphs are likely misleading...
They're not because the notion of technological unemployment doesn't track like how people think it does. Jobs aren't created purely out of need for a service, but also out of the need for a job. People go out to find how they can make money and will create new needs people weren't aware existed; so despite automation replacing nearly 50% of the workforce we instead gained jobs over the same periods with only momentary declines.
In all practical purposes though, the amount of productivity of automated systems in a society will be very closely tied to the population of that society. More population=more automation. This could certainly be modeled.
@@TheGrape1234 our iPhone can do more math in 1 second than 1,000 accountants could in 1 year by hand 100 years ago. Mark Twain made the arduous trip from St. Joseph, Missouri, to Carson City, Nevada in 21 days by wagon, and now you can drive it in 22 hours... So labor gets replaced with cumulative though, we call technology, that leverages our labor so we don't have to toil so hard. The best inventions in the World are born by man's desire to be lazy/productive by means of prior work and investment in knowledge and force multipliers.
@@thetruthserum2816 I agree with all you share. Reinforcing that as population increases throughout the globe so will automation, and fairly equally.
@@TheGrape1234 Population growth and automation have a correlation, but no causation between them. Technological progress is not a garauntee of simply having a population.
Good video Eric. Future video: Industries/sectors that lead and lag the short term economic business cycle.
Good idea.
Did you see the last video?
ua-cam.com/video/7akLC9lkQ2I/v-deo.html
Great video, I love seeing all the data and research on display on this channel.
Could listen to your work for hours. Well done.
Such a nice compliment. Thanks!
Amazing video! I didn't know that about the population vs fed rates. Interesting!
Fed Funds rate is tied to growth, and growth is tied to population!
Why would I purposely create a child in this country? So they can have no hope of advancement or betterment in a stagnant society? That's what the state of this country is. People have no hope and don't want to doom their child to stagnation and misery. 4 decades of poor voting and policy making has lead to this.
Wow, great content! Forward this to your Congressmen and Senators!!!
Great content! Keep on working on more of these kind of videos.
More on the way! Everyone likes them so far so I will definitely keep going.
A good lesson here to help explain the disconnect between the average citizen and corporate/political interests. The average Joe sees lower costs and less pressure on resources, as well as increased public safety and availability of infrastructure, as a good thing. Governments and corporations want to flood their countries with as many people as possible for those Benjamins.
Because the pressure on young people will keep rising as your population shrinks. Basically, all the money for infrastructure and the younger generations will dry out paying for the retirement of the old folk. Not only that, but the old people will constitute a larger voting block comparatively so they will keep voting to preserve their interests and winning. Japan has been trying to solve this problem for more than 30 years now with little success. No wonder their younger people are some of the most overworked on the planet and their politics is one of the most conservative among developed nations. As the pressure on young people increases, they have less children and the cycle goes on.
Then indian will take over
@@themachine9366 US growing conservative!
Not the mention that having lots of people makes a nation's domestic market is much more attractive to global investors. That also grants those countries political power on the world stage.
@@themachine9366 It's a mixed bag. Less demand and less supply... It comes out in the wash as long as the population reduction is slow enough. America isn't in any real trouble on this point, but most of Asia is. Europe is also short-term screwed. However, there's a lot to that. PART of the problem is the direction of corporate capitalism creating bad incentive structures. PART of the problem has come from the changes to tech pushing down wages, and ties back to the capitalism problem.
For right now, the inflation issue is partially being driven by younger generations "coming online" while still supporting the boomers as they retire. They're still consuming, but producing a lot less... Which is fine, but at the same time creates more mismatched incentives as you called out via voting. So... Interesting decade or two coming up.
For many reasons Boomers are still working, producing and consuming way past 64. You can't just write them off the charts at 65.
Thank you. Short enough to highlight the major issues.
Awesome video, thanks for making it!
The way the world's been going, I wouldn't wish life on this planet on anyone, too cruel to force it on anyone
What? In 20 years we dropped the global poverty line rate from like 40% to 20%, the world everywhere is starting to have electricity, food, and even internet. Do you think the world and raising a child was better 100 years ago? 200 years ago? 1000 years ago? 100 years ago you had a very high chance of death due to infection from a simple cut. most countries don't even lunch homosexuals in sight anymore. We are alive in the best times in human history.
@@Peglegkickboxer Unfortunate that we don't do that anymore.
life is better than its ever been
@@wade2boshtrue
@@Peglegkickboxer 100-200 years ago, most people lived on farms. They needed to have lots of kids for free farm labor. Also, infant and childhood mortality were much higher back then, so you have to have lots of kids to ensure some would make it to adulthood.
Fantastic Work. Would you mind going through countries with funded pension plans, and whether they have the same hurdles?
I came here from the NZS newsletter (Brad Slingerland). Great stuff. Subscribed!
That was really well explained, well done.
Awesome clip!! I will have to show it to my parents and non-finance friends to help them better understand how macro-economics affects Main Street
Please share the video! Super helpful for me, and I really appreciate it!
They still won’t understand. Either you have a natural interest in this or you don’t.
Macro economics IS main street... But, I guess you might need to read more and pull your head out of your own echo chamber.
When you factor in the sharp drop in labor participation from 2008 onwards has been targeted to largely younger populations, it makes the trend worse than it looks on the surface.
Greta content. Very Luke Gromen like
The real unemployment rate has been 20% since 2008 (spiking high win 2020) 1 in 5 "men" is unemployed between ages 18-59
@@JenX422 There’s no way unemployment was 20% for a 14 year average. That’s ridiculously high.
The reason for this is male demoralization. Look at a graph of male virginity rates and the amount of sex the average man is having. It's way up/down respectively. No sex and no wife will pretty much drain the desire to achieve anything from many men. Plus obesity and plunging testosterone levels destroy male energy and keep them out of physically difficult jobs that typically employ men.
It all started to collapse when Obama got elected.
It is a nonsense hypothesis. It shows nothing more than natural contractions and expansions that are part of the business and economic cycle. The US is not facing a population collapse.
Keep doing these videos, they are very educational.
Can't stop, won't stop.
Very, very, very good video. Thanks!
Hey man. Im absolutely enthralled with your content and subject matter. This is all stuff i drool over during the week. The pace you explain at is perfect too and you cut the fat off and get into it. Love love love. May i ask what your baclground degree is in if you have one?- economics by any chance?
Cheers Sir! Fantastic content. Please keep it coming.
Wow.. I have to say, very well done. I have issues with focus but this video I've only watched once and I have learned enough to want to know more.
Amazing video! Thank you!
Population growth and consumption are variables that interact heavily. A wage crunch, if for example incomes were stagnant but key cost of living elements like housing continued to rise, will drive down population growth because having children is expensive. People need to consume more when they have kids to take care of, and if they can't fuel that consumption, they're not going to want to have kids.
And the impact of people having less children is that working age population continuing to shrink.
Thank you for a good video about how major economies are kind of boned on the growth front.
The US has a millennial generation that is larger than the baby boomers and Gen X.
@@bighands69 By how much? Last I checked, population growth has been slowing for a while.
Lower population may lead to lower overall economic output, but as long as productivity per capita doesn't drop, quality of life remains the same for the average citizen. The whole world is going to have to stop relying on a growth economy at some point anyway. Population can't increase forever.
Very nicely presented !! Great Info !!
Well done and shared. Thank you.
On the age dependency chart it is very low in 1962. Do you know why? How did it build so high over the next 20 years?
Brilliant stuff Eric, yes more videos please! You know the importance of the subject matter better than us so you choose. My "most important" is liquidity or global money creation/destruction. Possibly, changes in liquidity come before the housing and durable goods boom/bust cycle...
That was great! Thanks!
this is so incredibly informative!!
Who'd have thunk there would be inevitable diminishing returns to a system reliant on untapped expansion
The US is not facing those inevitable diminishing returns. It has periods of contraction and expansion and people like your self will look at those contracting periods to fulfil your personal opinions.
Let me guess you are a communist?
Hmmm, so what you're saying is that if someone happened to develop a virus that took out the elderly and weak yet left the younger people unharmed it would help the world economy?
Yes. Covis is that example.
Very interessting, thank you
Eric.
Thanks, Connor! Glad you liked it. If there's anything you'd like to see me cover, send it my way.
Awesome and very informative video!
Thanks?
A population crash is definitely bad for the world economy but good for the ecological systems on Earth. The exponential growth in population in the last 100 years was always unsustainable.
Japan is a perfect example of why our economic system doesn't work with the power that corporations have. Unlike in medieval times for those that worked farms and such, having a big family is actually pointless in the modern era. Therefore, it is more beneficial for low income families (the bottom 60% of the population) to not have kids. Then, the rich often don't have time for kids as their wealth comes from working a lot in their prime and then is consumed by activities once they have it, and so don't often have more than 2 kids (with rich families that have more than often seeing branches fall to lower classes).
The main example of a sustainable population growth in the USA only existed in the 40s-70s, when our middle class was strongest, when a home and all additions only required one person working. With plenty of income and one parent free to raise the children, a larger family was sustainable as a low level worker. But alas, those days are gone and lost the everyone up to the current gen.
But, point being, we need to bring the middle class back, as the modern era as a whole is not sustainable on peon wages.
Most ignorant comment I’ve ever read
The whole "peon" wages thing is that people couldn't see the complicate nature of economics to realize that welfare, as it is implemented, is extraordinarily bad for wages of the lower classes.
To put it simply: the rich don't participate in the poorer markets so their money is irrelevant to poorer market prices compared to poorer wages. Welfare jacks up demand for the poorer markets while doing nothing to provide supply for those markets; in fact, it directly contributes to supply shrinking through taxes and the fact that people who can't cover their needs are simply provided for by welfare and thus don't cover their needs through creating supply.
1) Taxes dry up investments reducing supply growth.
2) Welfare increases demand, lowering supply, increasing prices.
3) Welfare replaces some supply production as people who would otherwise produce supply are then covered by welfare.
Welfare needs a 2.0; this is unsustainable.
@@Ryanowning
Absolutely right.
But take this in for thought too. If workers were paid a proper amount, welfare's increase on demand/inflation wouldn't be impactful either compared to workers wages.
Say we passed a law that made it so no profit earning location (a McD or apartment complex as example) could have more than 100% what it's expenses are taken by the owner, franchise, or corporate from the gross income, lest it be 100% taxed.
As example: Location earns 300k, expenses are 100k. Either the company increases expenses (wages being one of the only repeat expenses) to 150k or they are taxed 100k. Which would add 50% to the workers wages (And in actuality, it would be closer to 200-300%. Which is why minimum wage should actually be closer to 30/hour right now, based on my research).
A couple additions to close loop holes. A full time employee in that locations expenses must be on sight for 20 hours a week or be excluded from the expenses (this cancels out corporate from rolling district wages into local expenses). As well, supplies and equipment purchased at a location on that location's expenses must be used at that location (to prevent expense shuffling which would impact low end locations).
But do that, and we'll see the middle class boom again as wages go up without any inflation (because if profit goes up, so will wages).
@@dylanwatts9344 Demand always causes inflation and what you're talking about is doubling down on demand as a method of solving a fundamentally supply related problem. That will work just as well as all other systems that try to solve supply shortages by increasing demand; that is to say, it would not be capable of working because you're looking at the wrong math. Garbage input gives garbage output.
As for your minimum wage: your graph doesn't take into account supply deflation because if you did you'd notice a few things VERY strange about our markets. For example, food has largely tracked with worker productivity; basically, we more or less actually earn substantially closer to the correct amount in "food dollars," for example. Yet, if you take the full CPI into account with the minimum wage graph you still find that people are earning far less than they produce despite not fully catching up with how much debt we actually see people be in. Why is that?
As far as food is concerned we throw away a LOT of food because government subsidies are pumped into over-producing food in order to massively reduce costs despite food being a chunk of welfare. Meanwhile, it's impossible to keep up with the demand for college educations because of government loans making it easy to get trapped into debt for life.
The answer is simple: we need to stop butchering ourselves on demand focused welfare and switch to a supply focused welfare system. That is not necessarily the only way to solve our problem, but the vague avenue holsters a lot of possibilities on how that could be done.
@@Ryanowning
I see it differently, mainly because most of our economy vanishes into the top 1%. And, that an increase in need of suppliers will give the current suppliers more control, which, especially in food, are lacking at the moment.
Comparing wages to just what we need to eat is why the poverty level is below a living wage and why welfare doesn't catch people very well. You have to account for housing as it is mandatory to keep yourself clean to keep a job in the first place. If you take Colorado average rent for a 1 bed is 1700. 15*40*4 = 2400 - 20% (rough tax) = 1920. You have 180 for phone, food, and gas with no money for extras. Even if tax wasn't included, you'd barely make it. So basing it off of food while over producing food stuff to make it cheap sounds like a way to intentionally push people into poverty.
Agreed that gov loans need to stop for schooling.
How would supply welfare work, how would it not cause demand? Actual question, first I've heard of it and at the moment cannot imagine how diverting essentials out of the market wouldn't still increase demand.
Excellent video, once again!
Great content. Keep goings
Great video. Love the format, brief, but so clearly communicated. In an aging empire you must debase the denarius or are we already at antoninianus?
3:25 there is not a single economic textbook out there that says if supply goes up, then price goes up. In fact, books tell you to increase supply so you can decrease cost so more demand can buy it.
Edit:if there is a economist saying otherwise, either he didn’t study, or he bought his/her degree.
It depends on the state of that excess supply. Is it supplying a foreign market, is it replacing inventory and so on.
Thank you so much Eric!
Fantastic research, thank you for sharing this.
Glad you enjoyed it!
The nightmare will be if the population DOESN'T crash soon
Excellent presentation. Are there any developing economies with POSITIVE demographic trends that you would be willing to do a presentation on? I'm thinking countries like India, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey and Brazil. Just briefly skimming their demographic distribution curves, they all have sizeable youth swells compared to middle and older age cohorts.
brazil has tfr of 1.7
love the videos, learning a lot
Those videos are excellent!
Thanks! So glad you like them. Many more in the pipe.
I really like the clarity of your explanation. Would love a video on nonlinear effects of debt/GDP. Lacy Hunt brings it up but doesn't go too much into it
Ooooh. That's a good one. Maybe I can get an explanation from the man himself.
@@EPBResearch Ehm....I've heard Dr. Lacy Hunt speak several times. I don't mean any disrespect, but I'd rather have you do the explaining.
@@cyclingphilosopher8798 I agree wholeheartedly. Dr Lacey Hunt is fantastic, but a bit long winded. I would prefer to hear a synopsis. All the best.
Super interesting, I've noticed you're one of the few looking far enough out to be focusing on this topic. Very enlightening on future projections
Thanks, Kyle!
These long-term trends are like gravity. We need to start our analysis with this framing. Shorter-term cyclical trends are important too but having the foundation is where we need to start IMO. Thanks!
Fantastic. More please.
Excellent synopsis of a critical facet of both Domestic USA and Global Economic destiny! The presentation style & objectiveness is Outstanding
Love your videos Eric! So well and thoroughly explained.
One suggestion: The click between changing slides is a little distracting. Could you please mute it for future videos?
Keep up the great job!
One suggestion, focus. Your lack of attention is No one elses problem. Solve it, overcome it and make yourself better for it. Don't beg others to accomodate you. That is a defeatist attitude that will get you nowhere in life. What's next, Help my sock is 2 inches out of my reach. SOMEONE PLEASE PICK IT UP FOR ME.
Eric, this was excellent. Looking forward to watching your other videos and will be following you on Twitter. " In the end, demographics wins".
Great analysis. You got a new sub out of me. I’m wondering myself would could be potential, reasonable solutions to this dilemma?
Excellent video Eric. I learned more from this than three books I read on demographics.
"Collapse" is such a hyperbole. Income per person is more important than just having a large economy.
What I wonder as well is if a lower labor force growth is associated with an increase in productivity growth, especially in the case of japan with negative labor force growth but high productivity growth. It would seem somewhat logical to assume that if labor is scarce that more effort is employed to make that labor more productive, whereas the opposite would apply when the labor force growth is really high. This seems logical as an hypothesis but would of course need to be tested, I do wonder however -_-
High productivity growth is of course relative -_-
The Japanese having been running out of people for a while now. Their solution was to locate factories in countries that that are buying their products, like Vietnam, Thailand, etc. Japan does the design and high value added products and the other countries do the labor. The USA has Mexico, our largest trading partner, which has a younger demographic. We can also tap Columbia for lower skilled tasks. Argentina is in good shape, but their government is 100% incompetent, so we should offer, young graduates immigration to the USA. Lastly, robotics and automation have provided opportunities to bring back industries like textiles and wire and cable to the USA, as these can be done buy machines now and only require a few skilled workers to program and monitor the equipment. We also have the money to increase automation, whereas most countries don't.
@@jager6863 "we should offer, young graduates immigration to the USA"
But not the tired, poor, and hungry? We actually have land for people to live on, Japan does not. So adopting the Japan strategy isn't required its just something corporations do b/c outsourcing factories means their factories don't have to obey US labor laws. They didn't ship jobs overseas to benefit overseas countries, or overseas labor. They did so because it was a means of evading laws.
Excellent job!
Great video. Scary but very informative
Thank you! The goal is to be educational. Glad it helped.
Great video, a very concise summary of what we're already facing right now.
Just one suggestion, the scale of the 25-54 relative share of population confused me a lot due to its scale of the percentage metric, it is not clear about its scale and paints an extreme picture of this situation. Please consider keeping consistency of scale when stating a point.
The United States is the only country with a large Millennial generation and we have the Zoomers behind them. So we, unlike the rest of the world, we are not doomed. We will be short 400,000 workers for awhile, but we can import skilled and educated 22 to 26 year olds from other friendly countries to make up for the difference. We need to return all the low skilled illegals as they contribute little, don't pay income tax and are a drain of government resources and replace them with educated, skilled immigrants.
Interesting content! Does immigration help in nullifying the gdp dip?
It can certainly help but not the way we are currently going about it.
The American immigration machine is alive and strong. we attract the best minds and talents globally, convincing them to no longer build for their home countries and instead give our companies all their intellectual capital.
I have my money on US imperialism and our uniquely strong brand...
Jobs growth is the most intuitive driver, and people will start to move due to global warming in a couple decades so the Ecuadorians will save us
Great video!
Thanks for your very carefully selected data sets. Ever think of working in advertising?
I love all your videos as they do a great job of explaining the "why". But the question is, "what", as in what can I do as an investor to mitigate these effects? I feel like emerging markets may be an opportunity.... at the minimum they tend to have way better demographics. I've been to developing countries and you can just feel a vitality that is missing in the developed world. But they have their own structural issues that hamper growth.
Trillions in capital is flying into the USA and more is coming. Despite our many problems, we are still the "Cleanest Shirt in the Dirty Pile". Look at companies that are re-shoring production to our hemisphere. If we do everything right, the United States is headed for a new Golden Age in the next 100 years. France is good, Australia and believe it or not Turkey has a very bright future, they just need to dump the Lira and get on the Euro. If the Europeans were smart, they would again let the Turks come in on a guest worker basis to make up for their demographic crisis, as it would help Europe and the remittances would help Turkey too. India is doing smart and dumb stuff and I'm not convinced that they will choose to succeed, same goes for Argentina.
Immigration is the best solution in a world on the verge of needing to relocate climate refugees
@@justinokraski3796 no, as it destroys cultures.
@@justinokraski3796 Climate Change doesn't exist.
I think the video is terrible at best. All it does is reinforce into peoples head emotional ideas that they already had.
Such as minimum wage activism, college debt or their dislike of corporations.
This makes a lot more sense considering the rise of activity by private equity to break apart over bloated older languishing corporations. Though a disturbing trend it makes more sense than to watch them implode like Radio Shack.
What most of you are really saying is that you want micro analysis to match your own emotional positions. The US is not facing a population collapse.
Fantastic analysis
It has always been the case that affluence growth of a population has a negative effect on birth rate. In addition to that, in the United states there are also cultural changes that have occurred after the baby boomer generation and culminating in Millennials and later generations that places over emphases on individualistic attitudes leading to less stable marriages and less children over all. Automation may pick up some of this slack but we are unlikely to deal with this challenge in the morally dubious ways that some other societies have chosen I.E. imported cheap laborers used in Singapore and Saudi Arabia for instance.
"affluence growth of a population has a negative effect on birth rate"
This appears true if you're looking only at GDP. But if you also look at cost of living in advanced societies, the truth is revealed: as a "society" grows in affluence, so does the daily cost of living and so does economic inequality. When most of the money is held by a tiny percentage, then that is the percentage that can afford to have kids. Everyone else struggles. The reason we're told to blame "affluence" is b/c that way we'll compare our household appliances and other conveniences to the lack of them and decide we'd rather be an "affluent" society than to have kids. But who wins in an affluent society? Rich people, mostly. Everyone else has to struggle. In the US today, 80% of people are living paycheck to paycheck and 20% of people never have to worry about money at all. So that 20% can afford kids. The bottom 80% will have to make many sacrifices if they want kids. That is the true correlation, not mere "affluence."
Found the irrelevant boomer conservative
You cannot have infinite growth (population or economic) in a finite closed system such as Earth. The social and economic systems we have now MUST change, especially how we have double the ideal population limit on the planet.
The OVERPOPULATION propaganda is soooo out of date. There is plenty of room on the planet. Population DECLINE is going to be the biggest economic problem we face this century.
No. We need larger space and more kids. Aka move beyond a one planet civilization, promote families, and eliminate scarcity. Anything else guarantees extinction.
@@nygeriunprence Sure. But we still have plenty of space on this planet too. Having worked in and traveled to 23 countries so far…it’s mostly unpopulated. Even in China most live along the coastline. The overpopulation meme is played out.
@@TrendyStone Agreed.
You must have attended the WEF university. You are dead wrong. Just like they are.
Solid analysis here!
Very interesting video !!!
Demographics is certainly destiny. Thanks for laying it out so clearly Eric.
Thanks for watching, Chris! If you have ideas for future videos, you know where to find me. Send it my way.
Just raise immigration caps as population declines, what's the big deal?
Other countries might not have that luxury, but we do.
Even countries like Mexico will have decrease population by 2050s most Latin countries decreasing by 2060s most Africa countries increase in population by that time
I’d love to see a vid predicting rapid growth in emerging economies based on demographics but tempered by other factors such as culture and over-regulation, geopolitics etc.
Love how clear these videos are
Interesting that Japans GDP today is about where it was in the mid 90s. It peaked just a few years after the working age population went negative. That is despite all the advances in technology and productivity in the country too.
Japan is a central planning economy hence why it has had such problems. The government is constantly trying to manage resources and will routinely make decisions that are not efficient. This has been in cycle since post 1945. It works well at first when there is a large population and a desire to build things such as post 1945 reconstruction.
But it can have negative effects such as not creating a good economic and social structure for young people to have children and it can focus populations to centre around certain cities and regions.
Japan has a reputation of living quarters in its cities that are like shoe boxes. Geography does matter no matter what professor tries to show a new system that can defeat it.
Fantastic content! Much appreciated. Have you thought of how a deflationary economic system might work? A system that would not implode bc of demographic declines and declining prices.
Thanks! Well, a system can implode through inflation or deflation so I don't think either extreme is a steady state.
A decline in prices is not very hard to solve if you actually just send money to the people left spending, Japan has never been able to manage it but I am pretty sure a basic income would be able to combat even the worst deflationary problems. I feel like if deflation would ever happen now with the experience and power of central banks it would result in a massive stimulus program on a scale that would make the COVID one seem tiny and we would have inflation after instead, how high that would go depends on how well the central bankers could calibrate that so I hope the learn a lot about how inflation works from right now so they don't overshoot to badly :)
Deflation wouldn't be a problem.....if debt levels are low enough. That's the brick wall we are now running into. National debts levels, measured against GDP, are already high. Deflation would mean the debt to GDP ratio would increase even more and the weight of that debt would press even more on the economy.
@@cyclingphilosopher8798 Unfortunately inflation can be engineered by governments if required. However the stress across many nations due to declining demographics could itself cause inflationary pressures like shifts in power causing wars. Combine this with underinvestment in resources and inflation will rear it's ugly head for some time. Before long government debt will shrink.
All the best.
The next Lacy Hunt!! Love your content brother.
I should be so lucky! Thanks!
Excellent video! I have a degree in economics and this was an excellent refresher. Thank you!!
Pets are the new kids, plants are the new pets, kids are the new exotic animals.
I want kids but I have little time or energy left to socialize after work and errands. This makes it unlikely to meet someone and online dating seems hopeless. I need a matchmaker to help me.
Also, with as difficult as it is to find someone, I also know deep down that even if I find someone, starting a family will add a lot of burden and likely bring me a lot of sorrow/misery. I just keep trying to start a family and maintain a career out of obligation, but I think every choice I make just adds another straw to the crushing stress that threatens to break my back every day.
Dont waste your time. If it happens, good. If it doesnt, good. You''ll be just as happy/miserable no matter what you do.
@@ChefofWar33 Nonsense
It depends if you are male of female.
It is easier for a women to find a partner than for a man. It is more difficult for a women to have a career and family which makes many women having to chose one or the other.
For a man confidence and character is more important when attracting women and for a women it is more important to look their best. That is just basic reality of biology.
Thanks for looking at things in the long term; I feel like too much of economics analysis is focused on short term trends, and we tend to make bad decisions in the long term due to that.
Great informative video. So what's the long term investment play. We are flush with cash and still low rates which have been inflationary but long term is deflationary due to demographics. So will it all cancel out?
So what I gathered from this is 1) The US failed to ensure the current generations (millennials and gen z) a similar quality of life and level of growth as previous generations, and 2) these generations are not having enough kids to maintain our current level because for many its no longer affordable and the social climate is so extremely polarized. I know this is because of the post WW2 economic boom that allowed the US to become immensely powerful, and that growth isn't sustainable indefinitely, but I also feel that the government really jeopardized our future when they began to make decisions that really harmed the actual main body of the population, such as massive college debt, soaring housing prices, stagnating wages, etc.
A lot of factors that influence demographics are out of the govs control.
@@user-dq1je7zy3p I know, but dismantling beneficial institutions certainly doesn't help. How different do you think things would be if the federal government continued subsidizing college education like in the 80s? The people in the government now benefited from these strong support networks and then dismantled them after they had gotten their fill.
but they dont want us having kids, they want to replace us with immigrants who will work for half the salary.
@@gammasea they stopped because a reagan's analyst thought that they would have created massive quantities of unemployed, well educated bolsheviks that would challenge the US political system, so they decided to restrict access to colleges based on that using debt and higher college fees. The thing is that by creating that frustration on millenials they actually pushed them into supporting Bernie and socialdemocrat policies which they were trying to avoid in the first place. This is just the tragedy of some dumbasses trying to stop ANY political change in their own country which inevitably always happens, you can't expect to live politically between 1950 and 1970 forever, change makes way one way or the other. And some greedy motherfckers also got rich in this process
@@gammasea lmao…what?! The “subsidizing” in the 80s was nothing but government backed student loans…I know….because I got them. That did nothing but CAUSE the price of tuition to go up. Anything that the government subsidizes will go up in price…that is a given economic fact.