Global Economy verses Global Aging Population

[kitkat]

The U.S. government recently signed the Asia-Pacific region Free Trade Agreement, in my opinion, is due to the fact that by 2020 they will be the largest number of elderly in the world. Which means there is a large market for consumer products which is one of the main reasons why corporations wanted the agreement signed. It is not just here in the U.S. that the baby boomers is created a hugh amount of stress due to aging on a much smaller younger age work force that supports them, China, India, Japan, Finland, Italy and Germany also will have the largest elderly population by 2020.

 

It is Africa that will have the largest population that are under age 65 and most likely you will start to see many corporations moving there to exploit those people since most of the rest of the world's population will have a larger aging population with a much smaller workforce population to support them. All of those species that are in danger of extinction in Africa will no doubt be extinct in the very near future and there is nothing that anyone will do to stop it.

 

I can certainly see now why our government is lax on all of the immigrants that come into this country illegally and why they are making it appealing for foreigners to come live here in America that are now competing for our jobs for less wages. If it is for the reason of obtaining a larger younger workforce to support our elderly then they should make it easier for Mexican illegal immigrants to get their papers so they can start paying taxes.

 

The increasing stress of all countries that are dealing with a high aging population will most likely be forced to reduce restrictions so they can appeal to a workforce age group globally to entice them to come live there. It could become a global competition among governments to attract young workers to move on a global scale to ease the burden of caring for an elderly generation. Regardless of how our global nations is going to deal with this problem, the masses is going to suffer the consequences of their decisions so buckle up, its going to be a bumpy ride.

[iNow]

There are so many logical flaws and unfounded claims in your post that it's challenging to know where to begin other than by simply dismissing you and your conclusions.

 

For starters, since when is age the more important factor in hiring over skill, experience, and ability?

Edited December 10, 2011 by iNow

[Anders Hoveland]

Bringing in more people is only going to make things worse. The idea that there are not enough young people shows a complete failure to understand the real structure of the economy. Simply put, this is an example of the logical fallacy of composition. If there are more people, wages will go down! There simply are not enough decent paying jobs for every person. More competition amongst a surplus of workers for scarce good paying jobs will drive down wages. And who will pay for the new workers once they become older? Seems like a pyramid scheme.

 

I have heard over and over again in these types of articles by western economists that Japan needs to let in migrant labor to take care of its aging demographic. But I myself am very knowledgeable about what it is actually like in Japan, and can say that bringing in more people would be a DISASTER. There is plenty of unemployment as it is, far more so than the government wants to admit or the offical statistics show. And around a quarter of the people who are working are stuck in low wage jobs and essentially cannot afford to live on their own in such a high cost of living country. There are plenty of Japanese younger adults that could be taking care of the elderly already, but many of the old simply cannot afford the care. Are economists seriously suggesting bringing in cheaper labor to solve the problem?!

[JohnStu]

Well, the free trade, for that one - asia-pacific free trade is more of a taxation on the Asian countries. Since Asian countries had much more tarriff on incoming foreign goods than the foreign countries'tax on them.

 

And for the immigration recently, it's due to they want to create a Dominion.

 

 

Any questions feel free to ask

 

 

[JustinW]

iNow,

 

For starters, since when is age the more important factor in hiring over skill, experience, and ability?

Isn't this sort of a conundrum? Hasn't age always been a factor in these things to some degree?

 

 

 

JohnStu,

 

Well, the free trade, for that one - asia-pacific free trade is more of a taxation on the Asian countries. Since Asian countries had much more tarriff on incoming foreign goods than the foreign countries'tax on them.

I'm not understanding this. I thought the purpose of a FREE trade agreement was to lessen tariffs on foreign goods and promote availability to grow economies. Is that not the case here?

Edited February 28, 2012 by JustinW

[JohnStu]

Yes an agreement should be something that bothside agrees to benefit each other. But in the case of Asia-pacific free trade agreement is an agreement to put certain agricultural goods of certain country out of the market. A free trade agreement without precense of customers willing to buy own country products will lead to growth in production of certain goods/service of a country at the expense of descrution of that of another country. Even if the import/export balances for both sides. If let's say agriculture of South Korea get completely replaced by another country then South Korea is put at an danger level.

 

I am not sure if some of those officials agreed to those "agreements" due to bribery, which is quite common now. The Saudi King "donated" over 3 billion to UK, which basically allowed open-door immigration of Arabs and Muslims.

 

 

[iNow]

Isn't this sort of a conundrum? Hasn't age always been a factor in these things to some degree?

No. Neither practically speaking nor legally.

 

While age may limit the long-term return of an employee, their age is simply one additional (and usually minor) variable in the larger discussion of "fit" for the position. If it's heavy lifting, it's not their age that's a problem, but their inability to lift heavy things. If it's the ability to use modern technology that the position requires, it's not age that prevents them from doing the job, but a lack of experience with new technologies, etc.

 

You ensure the person is capable of doing the job, that they are going to bring value, and that they can do it at a competitive salary. Age is not a factor for consideration. If people are considering it, then they're really focused on the wrong things and also breaking the law.

[JustinW]

JohnStu,

 

Yes an agreement should be something that bothside agrees to benefit each other. But in the case of Asia-pacific free trade agreement is an agreement to put certain agricultural goods of certain country out of the market. A free trade agreement without precense of customers willing to buy own country products will lead to growth in production of certain goods/service of a country at the expense of descrution of that of another country. Even if the import/export balances for both sides. If let's say agriculture of South Korea get completely replaced by another country then South Korea is put at an danger level.

 

 

I wasn't aware that any details had been anounced about the negotiations yet.

 

 

iNow,

For starters, since when is age the more important factor in hiring over skill, experience, and ability?

After reading back over your origional post it seems I missed this(bolded) and therefore agree.