#intergenerational equity

[internationaldayoffamilies]

About Ageing populations.

Declining mortality and fertility rates have resulted in rapid ageing with World Population Prospects indicating that by 2030 nearly 12 per cent of the world population will be 65 years of age or older. By 2050 an average longevity globally is to reach around 77.2 years of age. As population grows older, dependency rations increase adding pressures on social security and public health systems. With longer life spans come higher risks of non-communicable diseases and diminished physical capacity leading to higher care needs. The demand for long-term care is rapidly increasing in many countries with care models relying on families increasingly insufficient.

Meeting of the SDG target 1.3 on old age pensions is not only crucial for older persons but for family well-being overall, especially in the context of extreme poverty and household vulnerability with old age pensions helping to strengthen household’s capacity to care for older persons. Questions of intergenerational equity in an ageing world need more attention in preparation for the Sustainable Development Goals Summit and the Summit for the Future.

Strengthening of intergenerational solidarity is key if we are to tackle the challenge of ageing effectively. With rapid demographic changes responsive policies are needed to safeguard the well-being of families and all its members. While the world is shifting towards older populations, an irreversible trend, collective actions and policymaking can shape its path and consequences to ensure that no family and no-individual are left behind.

UNDESA on International Day of Famiiies 2023

As part of the preparations for the thirtieth anniversary of the International Year of the Family, 2024 (IYF+30), the 2023 in-person observa

[jimrosenz]

The Golden Rule, John Rawls and just saving for the future generations

The Golden Rule, John Rawls and just saving for the future generations

Why is the Left so keen to tax the rich of today, which reduces investment, but through this concerns about sustainable development, not tax the rich of the next generation by leaving them a smaller capital stock?

Rawls proposes a principle of just savings. Rawls suggests that each generation puts itself in the place of the next, and asks what it could reasonably expect to receive.

Currently…

View On WordPress

[rjzimmerman]

[inpursuitofsublime]

We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children

Ancient Indian Proverb 

[wemoneyau-blog]

You've gotta worry about an article that opens with "In the good old days..."

Rest assured, it only gets worse from there, with the author commending the wealthiest (and luckiest) generation in history, the Baby Boomers, for their sacrifices and hard work, whilst chastising Gen Y for having unrealistic expectations.

No mention of sky-high property prices which have been driven up by skewed tax policies and Baby Boomers "wealth accumulation", let alone the monumental welfare burden being dumped on future generations to care for the Boomers in retirement!

[moneypowerpolitics]

Banks quite often, nearly always, in just about every business cycle actually, bugger it up owing to their own greed. If you want to trust that your current account deficit is stable, then you’re also going to have to ignore the long and inglorious history of bank greed and bubble-creation.

From The Unconventional Economist's brilliant debunking of RBA Assistant Governor Guy Debelle's lax defence of current account deficits.

TUE's comments regarding intergenerational (in)equity are especially poignant.

[moneypowerpolitics]

In hindsight, the policy of persistent deficit spending seems utterly irrational and short-sighted. On the other hand, one might argue that this outcome is exactly rational in the context of baby boom demographics prevalent in the developed countries. Deficit spending gives an instant and immediate boost to GDP, which can feel like prosperity and good government stewardship. The natural conflict between the future non-taxpayers and the future taxpayers means that Boomers, who have controlled the elections and politics, have rationally chosen a path of more consumption today at the expense of the future generations. Whether deficit spending truly has any significant impact on subsequent growth is rather irrelevant to the discussion; voters and politicians alike would simply misinterpret the economic literature and assume more consumption today will drive more growth tomorrow. In other words, and as scientific as one can put it – the Boomers have screwed Generation X.

This is so on the mark that's it's not even funny... And it continues:

Democracy is one of the great equalizers for income inequality in the cross-section of population. The poor have a mechanism to instigate wealth transfers by voting for welfare and public goods production and to avoid exploitation by voting for pro-labor regulations. Democracy seems to serve quite the opposite role, however, when it comes to equalizing the inequality between generational cohorts. There is no doubt that our future generations have become extremely poor; they are each responsible for tens of thousands of dollars in national debt – in some countries, Gen Xers are staring at outright national bankruptcy. But today, our political process continues to allow the Boomers to pile on new debt for the next generation in order to fund their current consumption and future retirement. It appears that democracy has facilitated the exploitation of our future poor by the current rich and indeed has been a strong contributor to what will become the Boomer's legacy of odious debt.

Bravo, John Mauldin... Bravo!

The problem with modern applications of Keynesianism is that they are predicated on the assumption that pre-GFC consumption levels were "normal" and that public spending must therefore fill the gap until "normal" private spending resumes. 

But what if pre-GFC consumption levels were unsustainably high, as a result of unsustainably cheap money and unsustainably high asset prices?

How long must public spending be expected to fill the gap until sustainable private spending reaches the pre-GFC level (which was, of course, achieved after two decades of excess consumption)?

[moneypowerpolitics]

Another day, another vested interest talking his own book...

According to mortgage broker, Dean Rushton:

“The economics that drove the original (First Home Owner Grant) payment are outdated and need to be reviewed as per any government grant”

Sure Dean, let's go back and review the intention of the original FHOG... After all, it was only ever supposed to provide a temporary boost, before being withdrawn!

Alas, we now find ourselves burdened with a property market which has been so massively distorted that hundreds of thousands of young Australians are staring down the barrel of mortgage stress and negative equity for years to come.

Every cloud has a silver lining, though... At least Mr Rushton will still get his commission *pfft*

PS: I thoroughly enjoyed this interview between Rushton and Scott Pape (aka The Barefoot Investor). You got owned, Mr Vested Interest!