Opinion of the "Age Wave"

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think the age wave theory has some merits... at least what I've read about it.

Look at Japan.. it has been the fastest aging society in the world and has had a birth rate near the lowest levels in the world since WWII and even a bit before.  The early 1990s in Japan were a period of transition where not only was the proportion of people under 15 shrinking, but so was the 15-64 population.  In contrast, the 65+ population was growing very quickly and continues to do so as more people retire than join the workforce.

Nobody can deny that since the 1980s, consumer spending in Japan has been weak, housing prices have plummeted, and there has been serious deflation.

Similar trends will occur soon in Europe.  In fact, 2008 could have been the start.  The post WWII baby boomers have reached their peak spending age of around 50 years old and the number of under 50s in many European countries will decline pretty much indefinitely after this point.

Older people are not as productive, they spend less money, but require much more money to be spent on them.

Luckily of all the developed countries, the U.S. is poised to avoid the nastiest of these effects.  We have a relatively large young population compared with other developed nations.. and American women tend to have more children.

There's simply no way of getting around it.  The economies in Europe and Japan will continue to shrink in the long term.. with gains in per capita GDP being the only growth due mostly to productivity gains and technological advancement.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It's a lie

You don't think the unprecedented aging and decline of industrialized societies will have an impact on the economy?

Take a look at rural America.  A shrinking population doesn't exactly harbor innovation.  There's a reason why no businesses are really opening there and the old ones are dying a slow death.  The populations are old and shrinking... there's no prospect for future prosperity in such places.

We have the evidence in our own back yard.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think the age wave theory has some merits... at least what I've read about it.

Look at Japan.. it has been the fastest aging society in the world and has had a birth rate near the lowest levels in the world since WWII and even a bit before.  The early 1990s in Japan were a period of transition where not only was the proportion of people under 15 shrinking, but so was the 15-64 population.  In contrast, the 65+ population was growing very quickly and continues to do so as more people retire than join the workforce.

Nobody can deny that since the 1980s, consumer spending in Japan has been weak, housing prices have plummeted, and there has been serious deflation.

Similar trends will occur soon in Europe.  In fact, 2008 could have been the start.  The post WWII baby boomers have reached their peak spending age of around 50 years old and the number of under 50s in many European countries will decline pretty much indefinitely after this point.

Older people are not as productive, they spend less money, but require much more money to be spent on them.

Luckily of all the developed countries, the U.S. is poised to avoid the nastiest of these effects.  We have a relatively large young population compared with other developed nations.. and American women tend to have more children.

There's simply no way of getting around it.  The economies in Europe and Japan will continue to shrink in the long term.. with gains in per capita GDP being the only growth due mostly to productivity gains and technological advancement.

Um, this is not the "age wave" he is referring to.

Umm.. well maybe you could actually explain what you mean in your post.  When you do a google of age wave, the first things that come up are related to demographics and economics.

[Ban my account ffs!]

From a quick browsing, it appears the theory is basically based on this: Obama was notably strong among young voters, defining them as ages 18-30. In 2012 this group will then be age 18-34, and a larger portion of voters in general, and therefore Obama gains thanks to this, and it should be enough to flip close states like Montana and Missouri.

It's admittedly flawed on many levels.

Thank you for actually explaining it.  But the fact that you explained it is a bit ironic.

Anyway.. that theory is flawed, but could generally be right on some level.  Young people tend to favor Obama and will be a larger proportion of the population as the "echo boomers" enter voting age.

But there are other factors.  If Obama performs poorly, young people could be less supportive and negate any gains that the increase in young population gives.  There are many layers of trends that need to be taken into account.  Demographics won't explain it all.. but it should never be discounted.

[Ban my account ffs!]

From a quick browsing, it appears the theory is basically based on this: Obama was notably strong among young voters, defining them as ages 18-30. In 2012 this group will then be age 18-34, and a larger portion of voters in general, and therefore Obama gains thanks to this, and it should be enough to flip close states like Montana and Missouri.

It's admittedly flawed on many levels.

Though perhaps a sort of "reverse" age wave might occur, as Obama's weakest age group is the one most likely to die of old age by 2012. I think this idea has more merit than pbrower's.

Yes, and it seems that Generation X is more favorable to Republicans.  That was good for Republicans in the '90s and early this decade when you had a relatively conservative youth vote, the sharply divided boomers, and more conservative older voters.

Now, Generation Y is coming of age and from all indications thus far, is far more liberal and Democratic than Generation X.  The biggest difference is that Generation Y is much larger in numbers than Generation X.  We will essentially negate their vote, provided we turn out in good numbers.