http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:59:57 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/18/233621.php#comment-80523 You are right. You never did say that and I am a lazy reader. The US has higher productivity rate than most (if not all) European countries, which will help face the problem at your end of the ocean to some extent. In the end I think it is mostly a matter of political will and priority setting. Europe will face aging populations first, but most post-industrial states will follow. We cannot possibly tell our parents we don't have enough money to give the elderly a decent life. The question is, whether we will want to spend it, and what other spending we can cut back in finding the money. Interestingly, if you look at India and China, they are at the other end of this process. Experiencing growth through a population boom which demographically builds up to a heap of people of productive age, fewer children, and even fewer old folk. I have to wonder how much of economics and sociology could be replaced by demography, when I see such numbers. But being a (somewhat economy oriented) sociologist myself, I won't pursue the question, you feel free to though. 80523@blogcritics.org Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:59:57 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/18/233621.php#comment-80342 Bernard, I never said or implied that a low population growth rate indicated a poor economy. As you pointed out it is quite the opposite, modern industrialized countries tend to have low birth rates and rely on immigration for any overall growth. What I was commenting on is the ratio of retirees to working adults. Many European countries have long life spans and are not having as many children as they have in the past. This could put a strain on their systems when a larger percentage of the population is retirees just as it will in the US. The US has a higher population growth rate than most which will buy us some extra time. Perhaps we could learn a few things by watching how Europe deals with the problem. 80342@blogcritics.org Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:40:51 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/18/233621.php#comment-80317 but we are approaching the same sort of problem here in the UK. And a big factor in recent scandals involving private pension funds is that the governments (it hasn't been *just* the current one, or *just* the last one) are all too willing to "turn a blind eye" (or as is often the case, not-so-blind eye) to mass corruption in the world of finance. 80317@blogcritics.org Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:10:01 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/18/233621.php#comment-80315 And population growth is the sign of great welfare, check out most of Azia and Africa for evidence. Or as the world bank puts it: 'Many countries are trying to slow their population growth in order to raise standards of living. In general, countries that have managed to increase their GNP per capita have tended to contain population growth while following sensible economic policies that can encourage stability and increases in both human and physical capital' Now that goes for third world countries mostly. But surely if anything, a decreasing population in time lessens demands on public social security systems. It will take some time to happen, but in the meantime just stay at home. Fight one less war, and you will be able to provide for a whole bunch of old people. 80315@blogcritics.org Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:46:11 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/18/233621.php#comment-80313 We'll get a good idea of how the Social Security problem might play out by keeping an eye on countries like France. They pay out alot on social programs and their population growth is stagnant. 80313@blogcritics.org Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:24:42 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/18/233621.php#comment-80303 What you seem to be suggesting, if we boil it down, is that instead of the State running social security, people should be forced to put the cash that would usually go to the state into a private scheme. In other words, you're just privatising people's futures. Great if they choose well - and the company they invest with doesn't rake off too much in the way of adminstration fees, and doesn't invest too unwisely. But what if that's not the case? Speaking as someone in the UK, I reckon most people who had a pension scheme arrangement with the Mirror Group, or with Equitable Life, would far rather had had their money being looked after by the government than private companies. That's the whole point of social security. Oh, and "Orwellian" - yes, it does sound Orwellian, although I suspect you take that to mean that it sounds like 1984 rather than a mutual scheme created by a socialist. 80303@blogcritics.org Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:22:18 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/18/233621.php#comment-80287 I just wish the Galveston option was available to more people. I would love to opt out of the system and provide for my own retirement. 80287@blogcritics.org Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:59:11 EDT