Global Economy Bursting?

[Randolph Kinney]

New Study Examines California's Immigrants

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/08/4704271/new-study-examines-californias.html

A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies provides a detailed picture of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the United States and in California. Using the latest Census Bureau data from 2010 and 2011, the study shows California's immigrant population as one of the poorest and least educated of the top immigrant receiving states. While having the nation's largest immigrant population, the pace of growth in the state slowed significantly in the last decade.

Immigrants in the United States: Report

http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-population#execsum

The number of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the country hit a new record of 40 million in 2010, a 28 percent increase over the total in 2000.

In March of 2011, the share of working-age (18 to 65) immigrants holding a job was the same as natives — 68 percent.

We estimate that 28 percent of all immigrants are in the country illegally. Roughly half of Mexican and Central American and one-third of South American immigrants are here illegally.

New immigration (legal and illegal) plus births to immigrants added 22.5 million residents to the country over the last decade, equal to 80 percent of total U.S. population growth.

 

[DMZwerg]

Maybe you have focused too much on the US and not read the original post.

The graph is showing the imminent decline of the West's source of cheap labor — immigrants.

The plots show dependents as a percentage of the overall working age population over time — in other words, how many old folks the working population are supporting.

<snip>
Simply put, a shrinking labor force will have to support a growing retirement population.

Here is the UN charts for the U.S.

Concentrate on the upper right hand graph for a bit and realize that only the first mark past the year 2000 (aka 2010) could be based on actual data, the rest of the chart is speculative. OK, given that you may notice that while the 65+ population is increasing the 14- is nearly flat and the 15-64 is actually growing at the same rate, but before, the 65+ section and the graph is based on continued rise in life expectancies. The real problem with graphs like this is that few people catch the portion of the graph where it states or implies "if things/trends don't change". Life expectancy has to continue to grow at the same rate it as, "fertility" keep decreasing at the same rate, and ... drum roll ... retirement ages have to stay the same!

Let me handle that last point first, namely when Social Security was established in the US average life expectancy was actually under 64. Now it is well above. Because of that there has been talk for decades about moving retirement age to 70, 75 or even higher. That would change the dynamics of "wage earners" and affect the ratios you mentioned in your other post (I thought that was obvious enough that I did not have to mention it before). Heck, look at the average age of appraisers on this forum and how many are well over 65 and still working!

As for life expectancy the current wisdom is that although advances are being made to extend it the costs are rising (thus "economic feasibility" of extending it further is starting to really come into play) and the theory is the hard limit is somewhere between 100-125 and thus the trend will be slowing down.

Throw those two factors into the mix and the future graph you showed the other day is clearly not as realistic as you seem to be trying to claim it is.


Thus "Lies, damn lies and statistics" quote, because until one knows the questions that were asked (and how), and the point being considered and presented (and why) statistics are actually more deceptive than the worst lies.

 

[DMZwerg]

You reduce the gross labor force, you increase the productivity through better systems. Less manual labor, more mechanized labor. Further, you are trending a decline in overall population, thus reducing needs for energy growth, food stocks, etc. At the turn of the last century, food was grown on smaller farms, with horse-drawn equipment. With the advent of mechanized equipment, many moved off the farms, while the actual farm operations grew significantly, as did production.

We will adapt, we always do.

I have to agree.
Our farms are becoming more mechanized even to the point of mechanically harvesting fruit and such (which will reduce common varieties of tomatoes and such) that were previously the highest remaining of the labor intensive farm occupations. Anti-immigrant legislation will likely only help speed up the process.
In industry machines have taken over and what many companies now lack is skilled tool & die makers and trained CNC operators given 1-2 generations of Americans schooled in the thought that blue collar jobs will go away and white collar (sales) is the education to get.

People may well have to work longer to keep their financial security (and delay retirement) but there will be work and eventually people will be retrained to do it.

 

[Big ole Boy]

GM - Government Motors - new frontiers

I came across a blog which in shorthand shows how the current administration bought off the unions and made it look like GM has real demand for its product ....




from a blog ....

1. GM and ChryFiat's so called roaring sales are due to Ally Bank subsidizing 32 month vehicle leases at 30% of their true cost. How else do you get a 2012 Cadillac for $319 per month for 32 months or some garbage Chevy product for $112 per month?
2. $60 Billion in cash and another $100 Billion in indirect funding thru bond purchases by the Fed have kept those companies barely alive


...more worthless bonds .......

 

[Couch Potato]

Concentrate on the upper right hand graph for a bit and realize that only the first mark past the year 2000 (aka 2010) could be based on actual data, the rest of the chart is speculative. OK, given that you may notice that while the 65+ population is increasing the 14- is nearly flat and the 15-64 is actually growing at the same rate, but before, the 65+ section and the graph is based on continued rise in life expectancies. The real problem with graphs like this is that few people catch the portion of the graph where it states or implies "if things/trends don't change". Life expectancy has to continue to grow at the same rate it as, "fertility" keep decreasing at the same rate, and ... drum roll ... retirement ages have to stay the same!

Let me handle that last point first, namely when Social Security was established in the US average life expectancy was actually under 64. Now it is well above. Because of that there has been talk for decades about moving retirement age to 70, 75 or even higher. That would change the dynamics of "wage earners" and affect the ratios you mentioned in your other post (I thought that was obvious enough that I did not have to mention it before). Heck, look at the average age of appraisers on this forum and how many are well over 65 and still working!

As for life expectancy the current wisdom is that although advances are being made to extend it the costs are rising (thus "economic feasibility" of extending it further is starting to really come into play) and the theory is the hard limit is somewhere between 100-125 and thus the trend will be slowing down.

Throw those two factors into the mix and the future graph you showed the other day is clearly not as realistic as you seem to be trying to claim it is.


Thus "Lies, damn lies and statistics" quote, because until one knows the questions that were asked (and how), and the point being considered and presented (and why) statistics are actually more deceptive than the worst lies.

When Social Security was established, the life expectancy for people who reached age 35 was not much different than it is now. The big change in life expectancy from birth is due to the shrinking number of children dying, not people living longer.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Throw those two factors into the mix and the future graph you showed the other day is clearly not as realistic as you seem to be trying to claim it is.

You need to give credit where credit is due. It is not my graph or my data. The credit goes to the United Nations. All of those statistics and graphs come from the UN web site.

You continue to focus on the U.S. so I posted the UN data and graphs for the U.S.

The discussion was not about Social Security.

The discussion represented by the above United Nation's graph represents dependents as a percentage of the overall working age population over time of developed nations, lesser developed nations (source of immigration) and the world.

The upward path in the red line is the dependency ratio for more developed regions of the world. The working population is growing at a lesser rate than the dependent population.

Until recently, immigration into the advanced economies from developing economies was taken as a given and made up for a declining fertility rate so that the population as a whole continued to grow. That will change. Immigration is slowing.

For the U.S., the data on immigration was just released.

New immigration (legal and illegal) plus births to immigrants added 22.5 million residents to the country over the last decade, equal to 80 percent of total U.S. population growth.

The estimate is 28 percent of all immigrants are in the country illegally.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

When Social Security was established, the life expectancy for people who reached age 35 was not much different than it is now. The big change in life expectancy from birth is due to the shrinking number of children dying, not people living longer.

Just anecdotal evidence, my mother-in-law died at 94 and born in 1918.

My father died at 89 and was born in 1913.

My grandmother died at 95 and was born in 1888.

People are living longer. Just look at any of the assisted living homes.

 

[Couch Potato]

Just anecdotal evidence, my mother-in-law died at 94 and born in 1918.

My father died at 89 and was born in 1913.

My grandmother died at 95 and was born in 1888.

People are living longer. Just look at any of the assisted living homes.

Thank you for helping to confirm my point that people who reached adulthood lived long lives even when social security was new.

 

[DMZwerg]

When Social Security was established, the life expectancy for people who reached age 35 was not much different than it is now. The big change in life expectancy from birth is due to the shrinking number of children dying, not people living longer.

Really?
[url]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html[/URL]

I think they would beg to differ given the 2004 numbers are 8 years higher than 1939-1941 numbers for both the the 30 and 40 year olds. I think 8 more years out of 40 more on average (aka, reaching 78 on average rather than just 70) is a big enough difference.

 

[DMZwerg]

You need to give credit where credit is due. It is not my graph or my data.

So, let me get this straight ... I say "the graph you showed the other day" and somehow that means that I tried to say it was your graph???

Um, this explains a lot as to why you never seem to understand what I am trying to say and you don't even understand the words I use (aka, the difference between "you" and "your", and the difference between "show" or "post" and "possess").

But yeah, that MoneyGram graph is speculative bupkis.

Do some research of average life expectancy from age 20, 30 .. 60, 70 and 80 and you may come to realize what is truly wrong with that graph

Here is a link that may help some [url]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html[/URL]
especially when taken into account with that upper right-hand graph I mentioned in my previous post.

That is an acorn, not the sky.