Comments on Peter McDonald "Growing old before growing rich in Asia", 9/12/2015
I think Gunther has raised a very good point in terms of the likely widespread using of robots to replace simple and low skilled labour in the coming decades and its implications or interactions with the ageing demography in many countries.
In that context, it may not necessarily a bad thing there is a relative decline in the share of younger and working population, should the prediction of robots to replace labour on a very large scale. It is likely that the education including vocational education needs to train people to be have the skills to use, interact with, change and create robots.
Human capital may play a more important role in the economy and dictate international specialisation and trade.
Nevertheless, it will be important for many to understand such implications.
Showing posts with label population aging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label population aging. Show all posts
2015-12-09
2015-07-11
Population aging is not a grey tsunami
Comments on Sri Wening Handayani "Is Asia ready to face a ‘grey tsunami’?" 11/07/2015
It is an interesting and probably timely article. That said, the use of "grey tsunami" is unfortunate, because it is not a very good analogue at all and certainly not funny by any means. The author used quote, probably realised its not that.
I understand the author works at the ADB and its efficient to use PRC. But there can be many readers who may have difficulties to understand what it means, so it may be better to fully spell it out before the its use.
More importantly, the article did not fully explore the "opportunities" that may exist for older people. For example, many people at existing retirement ages can still be engaged in working or even volunteering activities to be an asset of labour force, particularly because that many types of work today may not necessarily hard labour but of office nature that uses more brain. And that trend of more work of office type will continue with increasing speed. By engaging in some of those potential activities, the older people can expand the areas over which to maximise life experience, content, happiness and fullness of their lives.
One if not the key one of the purposes of the article is to prepare for more aging societies, but the author did not seem to have prepared himself enough.
It is an interesting and probably timely article. That said, the use of "grey tsunami" is unfortunate, because it is not a very good analogue at all and certainly not funny by any means. The author used quote, probably realised its not that.
I understand the author works at the ADB and its efficient to use PRC. But there can be many readers who may have difficulties to understand what it means, so it may be better to fully spell it out before the its use.
More importantly, the article did not fully explore the "opportunities" that may exist for older people. For example, many people at existing retirement ages can still be engaged in working or even volunteering activities to be an asset of labour force, particularly because that many types of work today may not necessarily hard labour but of office nature that uses more brain. And that trend of more work of office type will continue with increasing speed. By engaging in some of those potential activities, the older people can expand the areas over which to maximise life experience, content, happiness and fullness of their lives.
One if not the key one of the purposes of the article is to prepare for more aging societies, but the author did not seem to have prepared himself enough.
2014-03-13
Rely more on productivity rather than population growth for economic growth
Comment on David Gruen "Asia’s economic challenges and policy choices", 12/03/2014, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/03/11/asias-economic-challenges-and-policy-choices/
Gruen states that “Much of Northeast Asia is facing a period of demographic ageing. China, Japan and South Korea are already rapidly ageing societies, which in China’s case is a direct consequence of its one-child policy. This will detract from future growth, yet Northeast Asia has been unwilling or unable to adopt more open immigration policies like those that enabled Australia and the United States to partially replace ageing working age populations.”
Many Asian countries have very different conditions to Australia’s, so they are unlikely to embrace open immigration programs as Australia or some other countries do.
Further, while there is an issue in terms of inter-generational balance and/or transfer, growth relies on population growth is likely to mask the importance of productivity growth.
Even though sometimes demographic dividends may contribute to economic growth and possibly productivity growth, it is by no means a certainty that a growing world population is naturally optimal to the welfare of the people of the world as a whole.
China adopted the one child family planning policy in the belief that it was, rightly or wrongly, good for the country. Of course, its one child policy has not necessarily been the best family planning policy, even if one accepted that it is desirable to limit population growth. China now seems to be changing its one child policy, albeit very slowly.
It is important to carefully consider how population growth may or may not contribute to productivity growth and based on that to make informed discussion on the role of population growth in economic growth.
Gruen states that “Much of Northeast Asia is facing a period of demographic ageing. China, Japan and South Korea are already rapidly ageing societies, which in China’s case is a direct consequence of its one-child policy. This will detract from future growth, yet Northeast Asia has been unwilling or unable to adopt more open immigration policies like those that enabled Australia and the United States to partially replace ageing working age populations.”
Many Asian countries have very different conditions to Australia’s, so they are unlikely to embrace open immigration programs as Australia or some other countries do.
Further, while there is an issue in terms of inter-generational balance and/or transfer, growth relies on population growth is likely to mask the importance of productivity growth.
Even though sometimes demographic dividends may contribute to economic growth and possibly productivity growth, it is by no means a certainty that a growing world population is naturally optimal to the welfare of the people of the world as a whole.
China adopted the one child family planning policy in the belief that it was, rightly or wrongly, good for the country. Of course, its one child policy has not necessarily been the best family planning policy, even if one accepted that it is desirable to limit population growth. China now seems to be changing its one child policy, albeit very slowly.
It is important to carefully consider how population growth may or may not contribute to productivity growth and based on that to make informed discussion on the role of population growth in economic growth.
2013-04-02
Longevity and productivity
Comments on Tomoko Kinugasa "Reaping the rewards of the second demographic dividend", 1/04/2013, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/04/01/reaping-the-rewards-of-the-second-demographic-dividend/
While the first demographic dividend is logically true, the second one may still need to be fully tested, given that many older population now have already faced the longevity without necessarily the high savings made during their working age.
Further, younger working age people may use the same logic that when they are older the young may support them just the same as they are supporting the now older population.I think the more practical policy should be to make use the more important demographic dividend resulting from longevity, that is, the more experience and more accumulated knowledge of those older people and their increased health at the normal retirement age. That is the increased longevity also means the increase of working age and at the knowledge age more productive working people at older but still working age.What this means is the second demographic dividend should be more of the way to utilise both the increased working age and the increased productivity of longevity as compared to increasing savings per year during the working age.
While the first demographic dividend is logically true, the second one may still need to be fully tested, given that many older population now have already faced the longevity without necessarily the high savings made during their working age.
Further, younger working age people may use the same logic that when they are older the young may support them just the same as they are supporting the now older population.I think the more practical policy should be to make use the more important demographic dividend resulting from longevity, that is, the more experience and more accumulated knowledge of those older people and their increased health at the normal retirement age. That is the increased longevity also means the increase of working age and at the knowledge age more productive working people at older but still working age.What this means is the second demographic dividend should be more of the way to utilise both the increased working age and the increased productivity of longevity as compared to increasing savings per year during the working age.
2013-01-08
Should people be worried about aging population that much?
Comments on Stephen Kirchner "Increasing the super contribution rate is a second-rate solution", 8/01/2013, https://theconversation.edu.au/increasing-the-super-contribution-rate-is-a-second-rate-solution-11467
Jeff raises a very good point that many commentators, analysts, modellers, bureaucrats, policy advisers and policy makers may have not been able to take account in their work.
When people's average lifespans increase, people's working life should increase accordingly. This would be particularly true with the current trend that many people are not working as a physical labourer.
The current modelling assumes a largely fixed retirement age with an increasingly longer lifespan, which is itself illogical and internally contradictory. As a result, many of the policy instruments/measures are unlikely to be needed for the concerns of an aging population.
However, those policies may induce people to retire earlier than their ability to work allows when they reach the retirement age, given that those policies would have a redistributive effect for a person from young to older ages.
Jeff raises a very good point that many commentators, analysts, modellers, bureaucrats, policy advisers and policy makers may have not been able to take account in their work.
When people's average lifespans increase, people's working life should increase accordingly. This would be particularly true with the current trend that many people are not working as a physical labourer.
The current modelling assumes a largely fixed retirement age with an increasingly longer lifespan, which is itself illogical and internally contradictory. As a result, many of the policy instruments/measures are unlikely to be needed for the concerns of an aging population.
However, those policies may induce people to retire earlier than their ability to work allows when they reach the retirement age, given that those policies would have a redistributive effect for a person from young to older ages.
2012-06-21
Living and working longer for happiness
Comments on Hiroshi Yoshikawa "
While raising tax may improve government budgetary positions, it does not necessarily increase output of the economy.
So other ways should be considered to increase the economy at little or no costs to the budget.
Maybe a scheme of volunteers should be established for older people who are able and willing to be involved in voluntary work with government agencies or private firms and organisations.
People are now living longer and healthier, as a result, many older people may still be able to work to contribute to the economy or society.
By getting involved in some sort of productive activities, many older people may be even living happier.
Of course, such a scheme should and must be voluntary.
Japan’s aging population and public deficits", http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/06/21/japans-aging-population-and-public-deficits/
Given that the VAT in Japan is only 5%, there is plenty room to raise revenue from an increase in VAT.While raising tax may improve government budgetary positions, it does not necessarily increase output of the economy.
So other ways should be considered to increase the economy at little or no costs to the budget.
Maybe a scheme of volunteers should be established for older people who are able and willing to be involved in voluntary work with government agencies or private firms and organisations.
People are now living longer and healthier, as a result, many older people may still be able to work to contribute to the economy or society.
By getting involved in some sort of productive activities, many older people may be even living happier.
Of course, such a scheme should and must be voluntary.
2011-10-06
Commenting 'Death and taxes'
Comments on Jack The Insider “Death and taxes”, 6/10/2011, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/death_and_taxes/
I suspect there is some contradiction in your argument somewhere.
If on the one hand, no tax on superannuation after 60 benefits the oldies, it should arguably reduce the burden on the social pension system and hence the burden for the young.
Further, if the non tax of superannuation can encourage people to put aside more of their own money into superannuation, that can work as alternative to increasing superannuation guarantee!
You seem to be as greedy as the government to only see the potential revenue from taxes, but to have forgot the beneficial side of no tax on superannuation after 60!
One needs to be consistent after all!
2011-01-29
No alarm for Australia's aged care
Comments on Mike Steketee “Problem of the ageing boomers won't go away”, 29/01/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/problem-of-the-ageing-boomers-wont-go-away/story-e6frg6zo-1225996154932
Australia should not be too alarmed by the so called population aging issue.
Australia is different from Japan and most Western European nations because of its capacity to absorb immigration.
For Australia, there is the luxury that it does not need to make some hard decisions now and can afford to wait until those nations have resolved the issues associated with population aging and learn lessons and avoid making unnecessary mistakes in tackling those issues.
Further, population aging is a gradual process and will take a very long time to see big differences in age structure and their impacts on social policies.
Australian political governance means the party in government may have a tendency to postpone or avoid making hard decisions that may have long term benefits but short term political damages.
So one has to be realistic about any aging issues and the political processes in Australia.
The best policy any government has to make in relation to population aging and aged care is to realise that it is both the government's and individuals' responsibility for everyone's aged care when it comes to that time and introduce a mechanism that every individual has the incentive to look after their own interests and prepare for his/her care when becoming aged persons.
Government should provide reliable and authority information for the public to enable them to make informed decisions for preparing for their aging and aged care.
Maybe the government can create a system of universal minimum voucher per person based on some sort of tests and a mandatory system for aged care providers to make that minimum care available to those who demand it. They, of course, can and should provide higher standards of cares with private contributions.
Australia should not be too alarmed by the so called population aging issue.
Australia is different from Japan and most Western European nations because of its capacity to absorb immigration.
For Australia, there is the luxury that it does not need to make some hard decisions now and can afford to wait until those nations have resolved the issues associated with population aging and learn lessons and avoid making unnecessary mistakes in tackling those issues.
Further, population aging is a gradual process and will take a very long time to see big differences in age structure and their impacts on social policies.
Australian political governance means the party in government may have a tendency to postpone or avoid making hard decisions that may have long term benefits but short term political damages.
So one has to be realistic about any aging issues and the political processes in Australia.
The best policy any government has to make in relation to population aging and aged care is to realise that it is both the government's and individuals' responsibility for everyone's aged care when it comes to that time and introduce a mechanism that every individual has the incentive to look after their own interests and prepare for his/her care when becoming aged persons.
Government should provide reliable and authority information for the public to enable them to make informed decisions for preparing for their aging and aged care.
Maybe the government can create a system of universal minimum voucher per person based on some sort of tests and a mandatory system for aged care providers to make that minimum care available to those who demand it. They, of course, can and should provide higher standards of cares with private contributions.
2011-01-25
Leave the decision making to people concerned!
Comments on Ian Harper “Unlock home savings to fund old age”, 25/02/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/unlock-home-savings-to-fund-old-age/story-e6frg6zo-1225993848749
Is it true that "AGEING baby boomers are haunted by two questions: will I have enough money to live comfortably in retirement; and how will I pay for aged care when the time comes?"
I don't think that is in Australia.
Don't get me wrong on this. Yes, people would say they are concerned when asked this sort of question. But deep in their heart they also understand that that will not be their problems alone and future and then taxpayers will be part of the problem and solution too.
So that statement is misleading and is nothing short of frightening people into accepting the author's argument.
By all practical sense, the author failed to understand that what his proposal is simply from an ivory tower idea and is impractical in the Australian context.
Why don't people transfer or give their houses to their children and ask the government to provide whatever is needed before they confront the aged care problems?
Let's be practical about it and don't be too naive on this complex issue.
PS: the most equitable and efficient way is to have a government aged care voucher system which entitles everyone over the specified age with a base amount that can purchase the base level aged care. Aged care providers should be allowed to provide above the base level cares with extra charges that is paid by individual receivers.
How each person funds his or her aged care should be left to themselves to decide, as opposed to the proposal in Ina Harper’s post.
Why does he have to worry about other people’s decision?
Is it true that "AGEING baby boomers are haunted by two questions: will I have enough money to live comfortably in retirement; and how will I pay for aged care when the time comes?"
I don't think that is in Australia.
Don't get me wrong on this. Yes, people would say they are concerned when asked this sort of question. But deep in their heart they also understand that that will not be their problems alone and future and then taxpayers will be part of the problem and solution too.
So that statement is misleading and is nothing short of frightening people into accepting the author's argument.
By all practical sense, the author failed to understand that what his proposal is simply from an ivory tower idea and is impractical in the Australian context.
Why don't people transfer or give their houses to their children and ask the government to provide whatever is needed before they confront the aged care problems?
Let's be practical about it and don't be too naive on this complex issue.
PS: the most equitable and efficient way is to have a government aged care voucher system which entitles everyone over the specified age with a base amount that can purchase the base level aged care. Aged care providers should be allowed to provide above the base level cares with extra charges that is paid by individual receivers.
How each person funds his or her aged care should be left to themselves to decide, as opposed to the proposal in Ina Harper’s post.
Why does he have to worry about other people’s decision?
2011-01-21
Australian aged care and homes of aged people
Comments on David Uren and Lauren Wilson “Assets-test reform for aged care”, 21/01/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/assets-test-reform-for-aged-care/comments-fn59niix-1225991995093
It is funny nowadays that the Productivity Commission is used for any inquiry, irrespective whether it has the expertise or not.
What the hell why it should have been asked to inquire into aged care funding issues and whether aged people should sell their homes or not?
What the hell do they have anything to do with 'productivity'?
Is it a joke?
Further, Australia is used to have hundreds of pages reports. This report is reportedly more than 500 pages. The Henry review is few hundred pages.
Why so many hundred pages?
Why so complicated and complex reports?
Isn't it similar to our tax laws running thousands pages that very few people can comprehend?
PS: by the way I do not find the idea attractive of including own homes in means test for aged care and forcing older people to have to sell their homes.
It is funny nowadays that the Productivity Commission is used for any inquiry, irrespective whether it has the expertise or not.
What the hell why it should have been asked to inquire into aged care funding issues and whether aged people should sell their homes or not?
What the hell do they have anything to do with 'productivity'?
Is it a joke?
Further, Australia is used to have hundreds of pages reports. This report is reportedly more than 500 pages. The Henry review is few hundred pages.
Why so many hundred pages?
Why so complicated and complex reports?
Isn't it similar to our tax laws running thousands pages that very few people can comprehend?
PS: by the way I do not find the idea attractive of including own homes in means test for aged care and forcing older people to have to sell their homes.
2010-12-10
Questioning a few of Asher's statements/arguments
Comments on Mukul G. Asher “Ageing Asia’s social protection imperative”, 9/12/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/12/09/ageing-asias-social-protection-imperative/comment-page-1/#comment-311738
I have some questions for Professor Mukul Asher as follows.
Firstly, what does the following statement mean without supplying the information on total population growth in the two regions, Asia and the rest of the world?
"Asia’s share of world population aged 60 or over will increase from 54 per cent in 2010 to 60 per cent in 2030. Asia will more than double its population above the age of 80 over this period."
If population growth is more rapid, doesn't it mean naturally Asia's share of all age groups could be higher?
Secondly, what does the next statement mean? “In China and India by the year 2050 the largest single age cohort will be women over 70 years of age, implying feminization of the elderly.” What are those other cohorts to compare to and where are the boundaries for each of them?
Thirdly, is the next statement correct? “Second, in global terms, there is little accumulated experience in designing and administering pension and health care systems for such large elderly populations. The only way for Asian countries to gain the relevant experience is to invest in social protection themselves.” Don’t we have the experience of population aging in many industrialised countries with pension and health care systems as the experience that could be applied to Asia in the future?
Another question: Why should the next statement be necessarily the case, if social and cultural backgrounds as well as public policies are very different between Asia and the rest? "First, Asian countries should reform their civil service and military pensions, bringing benefits more in line with the rest of the economy."
Why don't you ask the other way round?
PS addition: Professor Asher replied to my questions on the EastAsiaForum site and it is appreciated by me.
I have some questions for Professor Mukul Asher as follows.
Firstly, what does the following statement mean without supplying the information on total population growth in the two regions, Asia and the rest of the world?
"Asia’s share of world population aged 60 or over will increase from 54 per cent in 2010 to 60 per cent in 2030. Asia will more than double its population above the age of 80 over this period."
If population growth is more rapid, doesn't it mean naturally Asia's share of all age groups could be higher?
Secondly, what does the next statement mean? “In China and India by the year 2050 the largest single age cohort will be women over 70 years of age, implying feminization of the elderly.” What are those other cohorts to compare to and where are the boundaries for each of them?
Thirdly, is the next statement correct? “Second, in global terms, there is little accumulated experience in designing and administering pension and health care systems for such large elderly populations. The only way for Asian countries to gain the relevant experience is to invest in social protection themselves.” Don’t we have the experience of population aging in many industrialised countries with pension and health care systems as the experience that could be applied to Asia in the future?
Another question: Why should the next statement be necessarily the case, if social and cultural backgrounds as well as public policies are very different between Asia and the rest? "First, Asian countries should reform their civil service and military pensions, bringing benefits more in line with the rest of the economy."
Why don't you ask the other way round?
PS addition: Professor Asher replied to my questions on the EastAsiaForum site and it is appreciated by me.
2010-04-10
Two important issues in population debate
Comments on Paul Kelly “The biggest game in town”, 10/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-biggest-game-in-town/story-e6frg6zo-1225852009335
Paul, while your beloved rational approach may seemingly appear to be reasonable, it is really based on false belief.
If you think it is impossible to plan population path or growth in advance, how can you plan the infrastructure for an uncertain population size or path? Isn't illogic at the extreme?
The Treasury argument on challenges from population aging in advanced countries is red herring! Old people, if they have enough assets, don't have increased burden to the economy or society at all, because they can have enough income from their productive and valuable assets.
Why the Treasury people can't see or understand that? It is beyond belief.
Further, while your suggested important missing element is not an issue at all, there is a really and extremely important missing element in the population debate. That is the emissions reduction or cap in the future.
For a given target of emissions level in the future based on current emissions (also population), the larger the future population the less the allowable per capita emissions, that means the lower per capita energy with the current energy mix, or much higher costs in reducing emissions.
I have not read Treasury's IGR, and don't know if they have ever considered it at all.
If they haven't, that means they are incompetent in their work! How can they miss such an important, so significant and urgent issue inevitably related to population in the future?
The whole premise on which the IGR has based on needs to be reconsidered, that is, both the population aging and emissions capping!
Paul, while your beloved rational approach may seemingly appear to be reasonable, it is really based on false belief.
If you think it is impossible to plan population path or growth in advance, how can you plan the infrastructure for an uncertain population size or path? Isn't illogic at the extreme?
The Treasury argument on challenges from population aging in advanced countries is red herring! Old people, if they have enough assets, don't have increased burden to the economy or society at all, because they can have enough income from their productive and valuable assets.
Why the Treasury people can't see or understand that? It is beyond belief.
Further, while your suggested important missing element is not an issue at all, there is a really and extremely important missing element in the population debate. That is the emissions reduction or cap in the future.
For a given target of emissions level in the future based on current emissions (also population), the larger the future population the less the allowable per capita emissions, that means the lower per capita energy with the current energy mix, or much higher costs in reducing emissions.
I have not read Treasury's IGR, and don't know if they have ever considered it at all.
If they haven't, that means they are incompetent in their work! How can they miss such an important, so significant and urgent issue inevitably related to population in the future?
The whole premise on which the IGR has based on needs to be reconsidered, that is, both the population aging and emissions capping!
2009-10-08
Population aging - Australia should not be too selfish
Comments on Bernard Salt “Levers available to make up for exit of boomers”, 8/10/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26179529-5016345,00.html
Salt’s argument sounds good from purely Australia and Australians point of view: to us immigration to solve population aging in Australia. There is no doubt about that logic and policy makers, bureaucrats and even the ABS have been using that argument explicitly or implicitly.
But what are the implications of this Australian story for the rest of the world, especially those countries where the migrations might come from? Would the Australian immigration help them solve their demographic changes?
If the answer is yes, the Australian immigration story is well and good. However, if the answer is no, then the Australian story is a selfish one: it would grab useful workforces from other countries to serve Australians only.
Of course, Salt argued that “Targeted migration aimed at fit young workers is a good deal for Australia, and in many cases for origin nations as well. Migrant workers pay tax and they also send money back to family groups. Total remittances paid from Australia over the last financial year were $816m. Our total foreign aid budget is just $3.8bn.”
Not bad, it sounds. However, it is questionable the $816m figure was really from migrated young workers and I doubt the statistics will be able to show that it was.
The second problem with this remittance story is the more significant problems of “brain drain” in those countries. Even the $816m was credible as the remittances from migrated young workers, it is unclear whether that could outweigh the losses those countries incurred due to the loss of those young worker to Australia.
To conclude, demographic changes and population aging is a wider issue than Australia’s alone and need to be considered in that wider context. Australia should not be too selfish and just consider enhancing only its interest at the expenses of other nations especially developing nations.
Maybe we are not used to this thinking yet. But it is time we approach the population issue holistically than we were used to. We need to consider a win-win outcome for all nations involved.
Salt’s argument sounds good from purely Australia and Australians point of view: to us immigration to solve population aging in Australia. There is no doubt about that logic and policy makers, bureaucrats and even the ABS have been using that argument explicitly or implicitly.
But what are the implications of this Australian story for the rest of the world, especially those countries where the migrations might come from? Would the Australian immigration help them solve their demographic changes?
If the answer is yes, the Australian immigration story is well and good. However, if the answer is no, then the Australian story is a selfish one: it would grab useful workforces from other countries to serve Australians only.
Of course, Salt argued that “Targeted migration aimed at fit young workers is a good deal for Australia, and in many cases for origin nations as well. Migrant workers pay tax and they also send money back to family groups. Total remittances paid from Australia over the last financial year were $816m. Our total foreign aid budget is just $3.8bn.”
Not bad, it sounds. However, it is questionable the $816m figure was really from migrated young workers and I doubt the statistics will be able to show that it was.
The second problem with this remittance story is the more significant problems of “brain drain” in those countries. Even the $816m was credible as the remittances from migrated young workers, it is unclear whether that could outweigh the losses those countries incurred due to the loss of those young worker to Australia.
To conclude, demographic changes and population aging is a wider issue than Australia’s alone and need to be considered in that wider context. Australia should not be too selfish and just consider enhancing only its interest at the expenses of other nations especially developing nations.
Maybe we are not used to this thinking yet. But it is time we approach the population issue holistically than we were used to. We need to consider a win-win outcome for all nations involved.
2009-07-30
Older people working - a pool of treasure
Comments on ABC news report “Older Australians the hidden unemployed: study” by Dina Rosendorff for AM, 30/07/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/30/2640430.htm?section=justin
It is hidden unemployment, and it is a huge waste of valuable human resources.
The government has increased the pension age from 65 to 67 in the 2009 budget, in the name of dealing with a long term structural budget issue related to population aging. While I personally do not agree it is a good public policy measure and I like to provide more choices to people especially older people as opposed to forcing on people, it can be understandable why the government is doing it.
What is more important for the nation in dealing with population aging and demographic changes is a cultural change and a change in our thinking. Nowadays most people work in office or as a clerk or salesperson type of job. Most is not doing hard labour type job. Given the increase in longevity and health, most people are still capable of continuing working well into their late 60s or even early 70s.
Even those doing hard labour type jobs should still find other less labour demanding type of work to suit their physical health conditions.
The more people who are engaged in working, the higher the average income and national welfare. But more importantly, when people especially older ones are engaged in working voluntarily they are happier and living a better life, while reducing the pressure of aged pension.
All Australians, especially employers, need to tap into this pool of national treasure. It is and should not a difficult issue. It is a conceptual issue. It is an attitude issue. It is a cultural issue. And it is a thinking issue. It can be easily changed. And we can make that change and improve the lives of our older people and ours as a result.
What are we waiting for? Let’s do it, and start doing it now!
It is hidden unemployment, and it is a huge waste of valuable human resources.
The government has increased the pension age from 65 to 67 in the 2009 budget, in the name of dealing with a long term structural budget issue related to population aging. While I personally do not agree it is a good public policy measure and I like to provide more choices to people especially older people as opposed to forcing on people, it can be understandable why the government is doing it.
What is more important for the nation in dealing with population aging and demographic changes is a cultural change and a change in our thinking. Nowadays most people work in office or as a clerk or salesperson type of job. Most is not doing hard labour type job. Given the increase in longevity and health, most people are still capable of continuing working well into their late 60s or even early 70s.
Even those doing hard labour type jobs should still find other less labour demanding type of work to suit their physical health conditions.
The more people who are engaged in working, the higher the average income and national welfare. But more importantly, when people especially older ones are engaged in working voluntarily they are happier and living a better life, while reducing the pressure of aged pension.
All Australians, especially employers, need to tap into this pool of national treasure. It is and should not a difficult issue. It is a conceptual issue. It is an attitude issue. It is a cultural issue. And it is a thinking issue. It can be easily changed. And we can make that change and improve the lives of our older people and ours as a result.
What are we waiting for? Let’s do it, and start doing it now!
2009-07-29
Aging population - strengths or weaknesses?
Comments on zhangyiduo的日志【转载】印度超越中国的两件秘密武器, http://www.pinggu.name/space-124928-do-blog-id-17298.html
It is never a good strategy to worry about other nations may exceed you one day.
The correct strategy is to learn to become and be the best and stay at best, always.
The contribution of language should be fairly trivial to the success of otherwise of a nation. Japan, Germany, for example, did not rely on English to succeed.
As to population age composition, it is as less important as one can put it to be. Time has changed. Nowadays, it is human "capitals" not labour force per se that is important for the economy. Population aging is a red herring. If you can tap into the wisdom and knowledge and skills of older population, you will get wealth of strengths, as opposed to weaknesses.
We need to analyse issues. It is not enough to just believe what you are hearing or have heard.
New time and new issues require new strategies. Don't fall into the trap of some conventional fallacies.
It is never a good strategy to worry about other nations may exceed you one day.
The correct strategy is to learn to become and be the best and stay at best, always.
The contribution of language should be fairly trivial to the success of otherwise of a nation. Japan, Germany, for example, did not rely on English to succeed.
As to population age composition, it is as less important as one can put it to be. Time has changed. Nowadays, it is human "capitals" not labour force per se that is important for the economy. Population aging is a red herring. If you can tap into the wisdom and knowledge and skills of older population, you will get wealth of strengths, as opposed to weaknesses.
We need to analyse issues. It is not enough to just believe what you are hearing or have heard.
New time and new issues require new strategies. Don't fall into the trap of some conventional fallacies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
