Opinion of the "Age Wave"

[Rowan]

See pretty much every single one of pbrowers posts if you don't know what this is.

[Хahar 🤔]

See pretty much every single one of pbrowers posts.

Why would I do that?

[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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

It's a lie

[Vepres]

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.

That's what they get for being socialist

[Rowan]

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.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[Lief 🗽]

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.

[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.

[Psychic Octopus]

It's flawed; but ultimately there is such a thing.

[Rowan]

The biggest problem is that it assumes we live in a vacuum.

[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.

[Smid]

PBrower is to JJ what Age Wave is to Bradley Effect.

[Jake]

If this were true, the Democrats would never lose an election because new voters have almost always favored them. Unfortunately for his theory, people change as they age.

[tik 🪀✨]

PBrower is to JJ what Age Wave is to Bradley Effect.

Uh.. shouldn't it be PBrower is to Age Wave what JJ is to the Bradley Effect? Otherwise I really don't get it. But I'm not terribly strong in these direct analogies.

[dead0man]

If this were true, the Democrats would never lose an election because new voters have almost always favored them. Unfortunately for his theory, people change as they age.

Sure, traditionally, they "wised up" and voted Republican.  What are they going to do now that the Republican Party has staked it's claim as the Christian Fundie party and kicked all the "wised ups" out of the party.  Maybe when Echo Boomers "wise up" we'll get a new party to pick from.

[fezzyfestoon]

Snowguy's "Age Wave" is real and problematic, pbrower's is made up and humorous.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Just, about the other "Age Wave":

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

In France, for what I know the best, old people are those who have the most of money and also those who spend the most. On one side you have the valid retirees, who travel a lot, do a lot of leisures, and give money to their children and grand-children. On the other side, you have non valid ones, who need some special cares, and they pay for these special cares, for example there is a job which is in a huge boom nowadays in France which is the fact to come to help old people at their home, for usual daily tasks (washing, eating, so on) and/or for medical tasks. This becomes more and more a huge market, and knowing someone who work in this realm, I can observe it very closely, it is even called the "grey market" (see? the color of hairs).

Add to this that Europe isn't that homogeneous concerning demography, France reaches its threshold of generation renewing, while on the other side Germany and Italy have big problems concerning this, the gap is significant.

Add to this the question of migration which isn't ruled at all and which is something here (you know, we're the shinning part of Eurasia and Africa can see our coasts with their eyes, some minute men in Europe would be crazy.

So, the analysis you did is not that simple.

[Mechaman]

I found this article to be very interesting:

http://www.aei.org/article/27777

I have to inquire though: What makes this author think that the Republican Party can survive while still embracing the same socially conservative ideas? I'm not suggesting the GOP get rid of all it's social views, just relax on obvious losers like being against gay marriage.

This

You must be logged in to read this quote.

makes no sense.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

It's not so much age that's the best predictor of political tendencies, but life situation.  This typically makes more sense: the simple act of turning 30 is unlikely to change your wants and desires, but getting married or starting a family often does.  Ditto with the transition from renting to home ownership. Or the first "big promotion" to a well-paying job.  Most of this stuff often happens towards the end of that age range, and accounts for a good part of why 29 makes a good end-off point for the youngest demographic.

Perhaps there's no causation, but I'll make the note that the states with the lowest median age for marriage tend to be the strongest Republican states and the states where even the 18-29 age brackets vote McCain.  Idaho males get married sooner than their counterparts in the other 49; ID's 18-29 bracket went 56-41% for McCain. Utah females get married sooner than their counterparts; the 18-29 demo in Utah went 62-33% for McCain.

Things like taxes and national security become more important.  Government spending becomes less attractive because that money is finally coming out of your pocket.  Life's real problems tend to crowd out the kind of idealistic view of the world that often pushes the youngest of the 18-29 set toward the Democratic Party.

Further, it's important to understand that the political inclination of those hitting the magical 18 has a lot to do the world around them when they reach voting age.  Bush isn't there to antagonize their sensibilities, and Obama doesn't have the same magic post-election. After all, don't you get more enthusiastic about Christmas on December 24 than on December 26, even though they're both equally spaced from Christmas Day?

[Eraserhead]

Silly but I'd support it if such a thing existed, obviously.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There might be an ounce of truth to it. See my latest poll for an explanation. But even if so it's still a rather flawed theory which doesn't take into account a million other factors, such as if black turnout will be as high in 2012 just for starters.

[Хahar 🤔]

It does exist in the sense that it'll cause both parties to become more socially liberal. But the idea that it'll help one party is ridiculous.