3 ms·
> Perhaps we'll have so many wealthy retired people chasing so few goods that we'll need hikes so large that they will have to crush asset values altogether to
by jopsen 4y ago
> Perhaps we'll have so many wealthy retired people chasing so few goods that we'll need hikes so large that they will have to crush asset values altogether to keep prices as they are today.
Really? That would be a paradigm shift. For the most part we've had no problem producing as much stuff as people can consume.
It's possible that resource exhaustion and declining population will challenge that.
But what we see now is economic shock in the wake of covid, and the usual/predictable energy price spikes as a result of war.
Why wouldn't we recover now?
Even if population decline is happening, it's not happening now -- it'll happen slowly.
- jmoak3 4y agoThe economic shock from the wake of covid is, in my view, primarily caused by early retirements in Advanced Economies. There is also the rising tide of on-shoring, but I think it's still related to the initial shrinkages of labor in Eastern Europe and in China. I think that the changes in price from the lack of labor will be fairly wild, even though the change in laboring population will be fairly predictable. Please compare these graphs, unfortunately they are USA only but similar trends can be found in most Advanced Economies: 25-54 year olds in workforce - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 All ages in workforce - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART (note the peak in the 2000's). Their difference is not caused by a surplus of children, but by a surplus of old. We are in for a very very bumpy ride.
- jmoak3 4y agoI made a custom graph and while a lot of 55+ have left a lot of 16-24 have also left, so these graphs turned out to not be as convincing to my argument as I thought. Wanted to update if anyone follows this thread!