The Politics of the Elderly

Population growth estimates as we approach 2050 bear a significant impact on where we are going as a political animal.

It is common knowledge that the number of the elderly is growing as a percentage of the overall global population. Estimates indicate that by 2050, that percentage will be roughly 32% of all people. Today, it is below 17%. The average debt for "twenty-somethings" today is $16,120 (USD), according to a USAtoday's report on a statement from Experian. So while the overall cost-per-individual of healthcare will continue to rise, fewer and fewer people will be able to provide for their own as they go through senescence, barring any other changes.

And those healthcare costs will rise. This all boils down into one very disturbing image for the future; Social Security's 'reserve' is estimated only to last until 2017. (After that time, it will be spending more than it is taking in.) It isn't exactly news to anybody that the elderly are a powerful voting block in the continental US. The much-vaunted overturning of the "anti-gay marriage amendment" in Arizona was in fact overturned by the senior population; they rely heavily on domestic partnerships in that state, as a means of preserving SSI & "widow's" benefits. So already the politics of the nation are being strongly affected by the voting power of the senescent.

These trends, as that population expands, will only continue. And there is absolutely no reason to expect that those who look to their retirement will be held to some greater standard when the economic strains they create are greater than ever. In fact, the history of the "Social Security" movement shows exactly otherwise. The Bread-and-Circuses addiction our country already possesses -- entitlements, subsidies, 'ear-marks', etc -- has the potential to bankrupt our nation. Social Security was created as an institution with certain elements in mind: 1) that our elderly lived relatively short periods; 2) that there were a great number of individuals per senior citizen; 3) that there were relatively few costs associated with the combating of senescence.

None of these remains true. By 2050, the ratio of seniors to working adults in the world will be 4:1; for the US that number will be closer to 2:1. As economies continue expand, this trend will result in the absolute need for greater manpower than any developed nation will possess; potentially more than is available, across the board. Much of that needed manpower will be in areas that traditionally aren't available from less-developed countries -- namely, "experts" such as engineers, doctors, and the like. It has been estimated, however, that as much as 50% of the world's economy -- at least in the "industrialized" nations -- will be entirely automated. While that number is essentially a raw guess, it is at least one based in a solid fact; computer programs, online services, and robots have been finding themselves more, and more integrated into the economy as a whole. And that one element might be the key factor in redeeming this whole -- absolutely there's no reason to discount it; while manufacturing jobs have been on a downslide in this nation, manufacturing output has reached all-time highs in the last few years. (Biased documentation here).

So where does this leave the young in the future? Their output will be -- prognosticating here -- more and more heavily taxed for a more and more expensive, larger and larger population of seniors whom will be predictably less, and less, willing to give up their benefits; in fact, without such benefits many won't be able to support themselves at all. Unless something changes in the game altogether -- such as significantly increased "healthy" lifespans -- the entire scenario is a bit gloomy: After all -- the young of today and tomorrow will have to carry the burden of those previous to them while saving to preserve themselves; yet will be precisely the least able to do so.

The answer to this problem is not 'reform.' There is really no way to change the way we do business as a species that will allow for us to care for the great albatross economically speaking that is a 32% of the total population that is non-productive monetarily speaking, yet consumes much, much more than any other individual on an individual-by-individual basis. New technologies are the necessary answer.

Rather than fearing the advent of extreme automation of the economy, perhaps we ought to embrace it. It's better than the alternative of telling the elderly of the future that they're SOL and to not let the door hit them on the way out. If it can be made feasible to avoid the burden of over-taxation to support our seniors, then perhaps the young of the future can look to brighter lives for themselves; or at least ones relatively uninfluenced by what will be the most powerful single voting block "ever". (At least, as long as it lasts.)