Demographics Is Destiny

Published in Investing Strategy on 17 August 2010

Demographic trends might make you reshuffle your portfolio.

If there is one single factor that will affect which regions of the world will perform best in the years to come, it is demographics. 

An ageing population is one of the biggest challenges the West faces, or so many people claim. They say that emerging markets have the drop on us, because they are in the middle of a youth bulge, and will soon overpower our creaking, decrepit economies.

But demographics isn't simple, and what actually happens is all too often rather different to what the experts predict. Even if emerging economies do have the edge, it may not last for long.

This green and fertile land

Everybody agrees that spoiled Westerners are too selfish to have babies, leading to plummeting fertility rates, too few workers and too many pensioners.

But demographic trends can quickly reverse. Just look at the UK. In 2001, the total fertility rate (TFR) in England and Wales fell to an average of 1.63 children per woman. Given that the population replacement rate is 2.1, we seemed in danger of dying out. Then look what happened. Last year, the TFR rebounded to 1.96, the highest since the 1970s.

True, much of that came from immigration (25% of births were to mothers born outside the UK in 2009, up from 14% in 1999), but also a surprise increase in fertility rates in women over 40. No demographer predicted that. The average UK-born woman now has 1.84 children, up 10% in the last four years.

Whatever you think about immigration, we ain't dying out. Our population is rising faster than many people would like. And we're a lot more fertile than many supposedly more dynamic countries.

It's the demographics, stupid

Look at China. It has a population of over 1 billion. It is awash with workers, its economy is expanding, it's going to take over the world… er, no it isn't. Its one-child policy, implemented 30 years ago, has left the country with a dismal TFR of just 1.14 children per woman.

Worse than that, 120 baby boys are born for every 100 girls, which is what happens when you combine a traditional preference for males with modern clinical procedures such as sex tests and abortion. That will leave a surplus of more than 40 million Chinese men by 2020, who will never marry or have children of their own, forcing the fertility rate even lower.

Can an economy continued to grow at 10% a year when its population is ageing and shrinking?

Sun sets on the East

China isn't the only country in the supposedly booming Far East facing demographic meltdown. The region faces far more severe problems than the West.

There are 228 countries in the UN's TFR rankings, and the Far East is right at the bottom. Japan and South Korea are equal-223rd with a lowly rate of 1.21 child per woman, followed by China (1.14), Singapore (1.09) and Hong Kong (1.02), with Macau (0.91) the least fertile land in the world.

These countries face a double problem, because they aren't just running out of babies, their wealthy populations are living longer, placing an even greater burden on the dwindling band of youth. Even worse, experiments with boosting the population through immigration, notably in Japan, have foundered.

So next time somebody tells you the balance of economic power is irretrievably shifting from West to East, tell them it might not last.

The Motley Fool presents an Exclusive 'Behind the Scenes' look at the revolutionary Champion Shares PRO share-tipping  service! CLAIM YOUR ACCESS To get a sneak peak of the information and tips normally only available to paying subscribers,  CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE PRIORITY WAITING LIST

Russian population roulette

China isn't the only BRIC nation facing demographic doom. Some experts have claimed Russia could lose a third of its population in the next 40 years, although things aren't quite that bad. 

Back in 2000, Russia's TFR was a barren 1.19, but this has steadily risen to 1.53 today (according to the country's own statistics rather than UN figures I have used elsewhere).

Russia also has a big alcohol problem, which is responsible for more than half of all deaths among people of working age. On current trends, one in four men will die before age 55 from drinking, either directly or indirectly. Lung cancer will claim many more, with tobacco-related death rates more than twice that in the West.

If you thought the Russian economy was in a healthy long-term state, think again.

Brazil's TFR has plunged from 6.2 in the 1960s to just 1.9 today. That's what prosperity does for you. Its population of almost 200 million is still younger than the West, but this won't last forever.

If you're wondering which BRIC to invest in, demographics would point to India. It still has a robust (if falling) TFR of 2.81. As it becomes wealthier, birthrates should continue to fall, but it will remain a young and dynamic country.

More eurozone woes

If the UK is relatively healthy, the eurozone looks in demographic trouble. The Italians and Spanish are supposed to love children, but they don't much like having them, with TFRs of 1.38 and 1.41 respectively. 

The Greeks can't rely on the next generation to bail them out of their current woes, with a limp TFR of 1.33. 

And how long can the German economic powerhouse lays ahead with a TFR of just 1.36, especially given the country's failure to successfully integrate its more fertile Turkish immigrant population into the workforce? We can never write off the Germans, but we might run out of them.

If there is one certainty about demographics, it is that nothing is certain. Muslim countries still have the relatively high fertility rates, but they are falling at the fastest rate. On current trends, Algeria and Morocco (both 2.38), Turkey (2.14) and Tunisia (1.93) are heading to European TFR levels, while Iran is below its replacement level at 1.71.

US exceptionalism

Demographics is a fascinating subject, but how should it affect your portfolio? 

It's certainly knocks the long-term China growth story, and suggests Japanese-style stagnation could spread throughout the Far East. It should also make you worry about Russia, and even raise one or two doubts about Brazil. It also looks like bad news for Europe, with the exception of the UK and Scandinavia.

As countries develop, their fertility rates fall. With one notable exception. The US, which boasts a TFR of 2.05. Immigration from Latin America has certainly helped. The future still looks fecund for the US.

More from Harvey Jones:

> For two weeks in September we will be opening the doors of our Champion Shares PRO newsletter service. In order to keep our exclusivity, only a select number of our readership will be able to join us. This is your chance to guarantee your place! Click here to join the priority waiting list.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

supasap 17 Aug 2010 , 5:09pm

I'm off to bed to give our lass one......... for the economy

Jonesey12 18 Aug 2010 , 8:43am

Good effort, supasap, your country needs you.

Afrosia 18 Aug 2010 , 1:23pm

Surely we don't just want to keep growing the population indefinitely though. Higher populations lead to higher prices for oil, grains, meats, metals etc (and then there's the environmental impact) which feeds through to lower standards of living all round.

I personally think every country needs to make a concerted effort to lower population levels to around 25% of current levels. Somehow we need to ween ourselves of the economic Ponzi scheme that we've created.

giveusaquid 18 Aug 2010 , 1:48pm

Good call Afrosia, in the interests of our own longevity we need to work out a way we can all continue to be greedy and grow personal wealth without breeding ourselves off the 'edge' of the planet :)

Japan may make a good test case, it's only a small island, surely soon they will all be standing side by side on the coast hoping nobody else gets pregnant. Meanwhile I'm heading over to Easter Island to start a new colony, past performance may not be repeated in future...

highbrain 18 Aug 2010 , 3:06pm

Harvey Jones points out clearly why population decline is bad for the economy: neither he nor anyone else says a word about keeping population growing idefinitely - which isn't going to happen.
Afrosia trots out time-worn cliches about population growth: in fact it's growth in incomes & not populaton that leads to high prices (a basic economic fact). Afrosia thinks we should reduce populaton by 75%, but gives no reasons: if he/she is so keen, let them give a pesonal lead.

AleisterCrowley 18 Aug 2010 , 3:09pm

I shall refrain from commenting - just have a read of
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/


It's hardly a fringe organisation - supporters include Sir David Attenborough and Dr james Lovelock

giveusaquid 18 Aug 2010 , 3:54pm

I understand that population decline is bad for the economy, but if we're not going to grow indefinately has anyone decided on a number at which we ought to stabilise the population?

I know it is a bit off topic for this article but it does impact on every area of our lives. I think it is important to raise it as a consideration.

BTW I am giving a personal lead by not reproducing, probably a good thing on a number of fronts :)

Afrosia 18 Aug 2010 , 5:32pm

For what it's worth, I am disputing no part of Harvey's article!

shinygoldcar 18 Aug 2010 , 6:37pm

Two separate issues: The first is population as a whole, and the second is demographics, in this case, the proportion of old people to people of working age.

Traditional Chinese families (and perhaps the rest of Asia) have children looking after their parents in their old age. The one-child policy now means that one child is looking after two parents, quite a heavy burden. In Europe, this is replaced with a system where all "children" (people of working age) looking after all "parents" through tax and the state pension. In both cases, too many parents and/or not enough children means poverty for the "parents" and/or heavy burdens for the "children". Increased life expectancy exacerbates this.

This is a different issue to population, but how do you marry the two issues? Well, the average number of children per family should be no less than one (to avoid the demographic problem) but no more than a certain number (I'll leave that to others to decide), with two leading to a stable population (neither population increase nor decline, assuming no-one dies before reproductive age, and life expectancy doesn't change).

Anyway, great article Harvey. I think it also indicates which sectors (care homes for example) to invest in for certain countries.

RobinnBanks 19 Aug 2010 , 12:22am

This area is crawling with kids - I'm sick of the sound of the screaming brats! They are totally undisciplined and untouchable by the school, parents or police! The quicker the TFR drops the better!

Jonesey12 19 Aug 2010 , 11:07am

Hi everybody

Many thanks for your comments! Yes, shinygoldcar (do you own one?) I realised after sending that I should have mentioned healthcare companies (especially in China) as one sector likely to benefit from these trends.

Harvey Jones

ham111 19 Aug 2010 , 12:59pm

Nice post Robinnbanks, I know it's easier to stay in the helicopter when viewing these type of things but there has to be some qualitative assessment of who are having these little ones, my wife (a midwife) comes home in despair somedays having just delivered a baby to a couple of cavepeople who have no idea that life comes with responsibility because we have allowed them to grow up thinking that way.

Any room on that island, I can dig

shinygoldcar 19 Aug 2010 , 6:46pm

Hi Jonesey
Sorry was I starting to sound like an expert? I was mainly regurgitating info I've heard from various places.
No I don't own one, though perhaps I should! I'm trying to remember what else I heard... pharmaceuticals?

Regards
Jeff

highbrain 19 Aug 2010 , 9:10pm

Aleister Crowley "refrains from commenting" - wisely so, as instead he commends a collection of pointless babblings. The whole notion of an "optimum population" is so ridiculous as to be laughable: each of us may have his own view on the subject and ultimately it is not based on facts = it boils down to personal preference.
Giveusaquid wonders whether anyone has decided on "a number" at which the population should be stabilised. In fact lots of people have decided - on lots of "numbers". They should find something useful to do instead: there is no point whatever in any individual or organisation taking such a decision - population levels result from the actions of many people and at present, they are heading us for decline.
Afosia is "not disputing Harvey Jones's article": true, but he trotted out cliches that flatly contradict it.
Shnygoldcar hasn't thought through the arithmetic. To avoid decline, the average number of children per family needs to be not less than two - not one. However, a maximum of two children per couple will still lead to decline because many people have no children, or only one: better to leave things as they are than waste time contemplating "ideal" numbers.

highbrain 19 Aug 2010 , 9:10pm

Aleister Crowley "refrains from commenting" - wisely so, as instead he commends a collection of pointless babblings. The whole notion of an "optimum population" is so ridiculous as to be laughable: each of us may have his own view on the subject and ultimately it is not based on facts = it boils down to personal preference.
Giveusaquid wonders whether anyone has decided on "a number" at which the population should be stabilised. In fact lots of people have decided - on lots of "numbers". They should find something useful to do instead: there is no point whatever in any individual or organisation taking such a decision - population levels result from the actions of many people and at present, they are heading us for decline.
Afosia is "not disputing Harvey Jones's article": true, but he trotted out cliches that flatly contradict it.
Shnygoldcar hasn't thought through the arithmetic. To avoid decline, the average number of children per family needs to be not less than two - not one. However, a maximum of two children per couple will still lead to decline because many people have no children, or only one: better to leave things as they are than waste time contemplating "ideal" numbers.

highbrain 19 Aug 2010 , 9:42pm

Had to break off for one of my own screaming brats: BTW didn't mean to post twice.

shinygoldcar 20 Aug 2010 , 12:28pm

Hang on highbrain! I have thought through the arithmetic! I said two (subject to assumptions) was the number for a stable population. Between one and two allows a decline that is not as bad as the one-child policy. The closer to two the better.

I didn't say a maximum of two children per couple. I said "the average number of children per family should be ... no more than a certain number". By average I mean the "mean", not the median or mode. People who have no children will be reflected in this average.

I don't think discussion and contemplation is a waste of time, but let's agree to disagree on that one.

Afrosia 20 Aug 2010 , 12:53pm

Actually, highbrain, I didn't contradict Harvey's article at all. The economics are accurate. My argument is that the economics are the problem. There is more to life and existence than mere money and economics (which are a mere creation of man anyway).

You state that optimum population is absurd, yet fail to point out why. My economics and accounting textbooks are full of "u", "s" and "n" shaped graphs that show things rising up to an optimum level before falling back. Why should population be different? I don't think it has to be as subjective a matter as you claim.

I know it may sound crass, but why, if there is no optimal population, do you think we cull animals when they breach certain numbers? Cod levels, deforestation and rapidly depleting fresh water supplies suggest that we may have breached our optimal level...

highbrain 20 Aug 2010 , 1:04pm

Shinygoldcar
If you check, you'll see that I haven't accused you of saying anything that you didn't say. You did mention "an average of no less than one (to avoid the demographic problem)". An average of one would lead to catastrophic decline: an average of no less than two would be nearer the mark. I'm pleased to see that you mean the same as I do when you say "average". Nowadays, many people don't belong to families, so an average of two children per family will still lead to decline. I think that it's a waste of time to discuss "ideal" population numbers since a) nobody knows what an ideal population might be and b) the real level of the population is determined by the myriad actions of millions of people - but we can agree to differ on that, as you say.

highbrain 20 Aug 2010 , 4:09pm

Afosia, why do you keep protesting that you haven't contradicted Harvey Jones's article? Neither I nor anyone else has accused you of doing so.
You didn't advance an argument about economics - nor about anything else: you simply asserted that population growth is leading to higher commodity prices. As I pointed out, that cannot be true.
If you now want to shift your tack and argue that the problem is economics, then feel free. However, economics itself cannot be "the problem": economics does not oblige us to do anything.
I have explained - not once, but twice - why any notion of an "optimum populattion is absurd": all you nead to do is read with some care what I've written. I'm not sure what your textbooks have to do with this dicussion - I've read lots of economic textbooks in my time, but I try to relate my arguments to the real world. You don't think that "optimal population" need be subjective, but can you support that assertion?
We humans cull animals when their numbers seem likely to exceed our needs or convenience: what has this to do with our numbers? If - and it's a very big "if" - we are running into genuine shortages of water, etc, then that's a sign that we're consuming too much and should be more careful. Consumption is determined by numbers times income and anyone who is up-to-date with his/her facts knows that rocketing consumption per head is the main factor - far ahead of much slower-growing (and diminishing) population growth.
Finally, a question for Afrosia - and all those who think like him (her?): if you wish to see populations reduced to 25% of present levels - and you've given no reason why - are you prepared to be part of the 75%?

bimber 20 Aug 2010 , 9:06pm

highbrain 20 August at 4.09pm:
Afosia, why do you keep protesting that you haven't contradicted Harvey Jones's article? Neither I nor anyone else has accused you of doing so.

(He only mentioned it once, so "keep protesting" is an exaggeration)

highbrain 19 August at 9.10pm:
Afosia is "not disputing Harvey Jones's article": true, but he trotted out cliches that flatly contradict it.

(Short memory?)

highbrain again:
if you wish to see populations reduced to 25% of present levels - and you've given no reason why - are you prepared to be part of the 75%?

You've assumed he means a cull of 75% of the population and you've given no reason why. Do you not know that people die naturally and that having less than 2 children per couple will lead to a reduction in population, or did you chose to ignore that? This sort of nonsense is as bad as arbitrarily calling for a reduction of 75%. Like everyone else, I am "part of the 75%".

If there is no such thing as optimal population then all population levels must be equally desirable, from zero right up to where we each have a square meter of land to stand on.


When it comes to investing on demographics, why should the TFR matter? People are generally at their most productive between the ages of 35 and 55 so you need to look for a future increase in that age group. You also need to look for a decrease in the retired population (at lease in proportion to the 35-55 cohort). These changes are known well in advance. You are not forced to leave your money in the same country for ever, so a TFR below 2 should not put you off if the 35-55 year old population is growing.

highbrain 20 Aug 2010 , 10:05pm

Bimber states that Afrosia protested only once that he hadn't contradicted Harvey Jones: wrong! - he did it twice, so "keep protesting" is quite correct. Short memory, Bimber, or just lack of attention?
There is a fairly elementary distinction between directly contradicting someone - of which Afrosia is not accused - and trotting out cliches that run contrary to their (Harvey Jones's) reasonable statement: Afrosia is guilty of the latter.
I have not assumed that Afrosia wants a 75% cull of the population and Bimber has given no reason for assuming that I did. Neither Afrosia nor I said anything about the means by which a 75% reduction might be achieved.
It does NOT follow from the fact that there is no "optimal population" that all population levels are equally desirable. This is elementary logic - obviously not Bimber's strong point.
I agree with most of his last paragraph, which has little to do with the points that I've made. The main qualification I'd make is that while it's normally possible to withdaw one's money (tho' I wouldn't count on that in the case of China), the terms on which one could do so from a country heading for demographic catastrophe might be pretty poor.
Bimber's conribution makes it pretty clear that he has taken a dislike to me, simply on the basis of what I've written here. I advise him to take more care and not to let anger - always a bad counsellor - to lead him to make ill-considered statements.

bimber 21 Aug 2010 , 2:25pm

highbrain,

"Contradict" has a different meaning to "dispute". There was no need for you to mention anything about Afrosia's supposed "cliches" (they are opinions) except to antagonise him. He responded nicely, without rising to the bait with a direct response, but you decided it was still enough for you to have another go at him. You're not a nice person.

What assumption for the method of population reduction did you make, to which the question "are you prepared to be part of the [reduction]" can be applied? If you thought a smaller birthrate and natural deaths were being proposed then your question makes no sense because it implies that it is possible for an existing person not to be part of the reduction (ie. not die) or to become part of the reduction (ie. never be born). "Why don't you commit suicide then?" is a response I've seen numerous times when the issue of population growth or size is raised. It allows the questioner to dismiss the issue without properly considering it, which is what you've done above. Instead of going for the jugular in such a disparaging way, you could simply have asked "Why?".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

My logic is sound. Perhaps your understanding of the word "optimal" is lacking.

I'm not angry after reading your comments, I'm dismayed. Why should I not dislike you on the basis of what you wrote? I dislike what you wrote and especially your conduct therein. You are deliberately antagonistic and do not live up to the name you gave yourself except in your derision of others. You need to come down from that ivory tower (and you need to use paragraphs)!

By the way, when you claim that growth in income leads to high prices, to what are you comparing income to determine whether or not it is growing? Does the decline in the proportion of UK incomes spent on food mean that prices are falling or incomes are rising? How does it fit with your "basic economic fact"? Recognising your own limitations is the most important lesson you can learn.

highbrain 21 Aug 2010 , 10:38pm

I thank Bimber for letting me know that I'm not a nice person: I'd never have realised without his advice. I will not only take his finding to heart, but also pass it on to my acquaintances, including the woman who's put up with me for 40 years ( I'll have to lay off beating her long enough to put his message across). I also thank him for his advice on style: I'm sure that he means well, so I regret having to point out to him that my contributions are in paragraphs. If anyone else has a problem with this, I'll post again to show how to distinguish them.
He asks, what assumption did I make about the method of population reduction? I'm sorry to disappoint him, but I don't see any need for reducing population - I thought I'd made that clear: it follows logically that I haven't chosen ANY means of doing so.
Bimber quotes "why don't you commit suicide then?": I'm not sure why he does so, as not even he can have failed to note that I've said no such thing. Nevertheless, he states that "it allows the questioner to dismiss the issue without considering it properly, which is what (I've) done"; I look forward to him explaining exactly which issue I've dismissed without considering it properly. Likewise, I look forwrd to him clarifying the manner in which my use of "optimal" might be lacking: he has, of course, noted that it was not I who introduced the word to the present discussion.
Afrosia used 3 cliches, i.e. worn-out expressions that substitute for thinking about a topic, viz. "surely we don't just want to keep the population growing", " higher populations lead to higher (commodity) prices" and "we need to make an effort to reduce population". The first is entirely pointless as no-one has suggested that "we keep populations growing", the second is demonsrably false and the third is not supported by facts - but even if all three had some truth in them, it would not alter the fact that they are cliches. BTW I'm surprised that Bimber hasn't yet pulled me up over missing out the acute on cliche: in case he's planning to, I'll point out that my keyboard doesn't allow me to do accent markings.
When I state that higher prices are due to rising incomes - which is my basic economic fact - I'm comparing the current level of income to what it was previously: I hope I've made that much clear.
According to my OED, "contradict" can mean the same as "dispute". Obviously, tho', Bimber didn't make that point to antagonise me - after all, he's not angry (didn't he say so himself?). I must confess that I used "cliches" re Afrosia simply because in my view he'd used them: Bimber's claim that I did so to antagonise Afrosia says a lot more about him than about me. I don't presume to know what Afrosia thought as he hasn't given his opinion, but he certainly couldn't "rise to the bait" as I did not bait him: again, Bimber's statement says a lot about him and nothing about me. Afrosia responded to my criticism, to which I responded in turn: I had no problem about Afrosia rsponding to me - tho' I still disagreed with him - nor does it appear that he had any such problem with me, so I wonder why Bimber is so het up about the matter (of course he's not angry, tho'). His claim that I'm "deliberately antagonistic" states volumes about his interpretation: I'll let what I've written speak for itself.
Why should Bimber not dislike me on the basis of what I've written? Quite simply because it's childish to dislike someone about whom one knows next to nothing. He's quite entitled to dislike what I've written, tho' he's a bit short of valid reasons as to why he does so: his disapproval of "my conduct therein" is entirely a matter of his interpretation. Again, he cannot possibly know whether I'm "deliberately antagonistic": that's simply the interpretation that he chooses to put on my words - I think I'd be quite justified in accusing hime of being deliberately antagonistic to me. As for "not living up to the name I give myself", I should explain that the first part of my user-name reflects the fact that I live in the Scotish HIGHlands - I don't see how I can fail to live up to that: the second part is left over from an earlier user-name that I devised to match the name of the website where I first posted. I don't see how my user-name implies "derision of others", but I wait Bimber's clarification of how I've engaged in that regrettable practice.
I didn't realise that I inhabited an ivory tower: if Bimber points out in what way I do, I will try to descend from it - and will likewise try to recognise my limitations. I will not copy him by accusing him of not being a nice person, as I know little about him, but I feel justified in saying that his contribution here is a nasty piece of work. It is also mainly off-topic as, I admit, is much of my reply to him: I hope that if this dialogue continues, it will return to the subject.

SelfDoIt 23 Aug 2010 , 1:44pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/aug/22/global-resources-deficit-land-water-oil


A sustainable population is one that can survive to a reasonable standard on the resources available. We must live within our means one way or another. We need to reduce our use of resources so we either need to reduce our population (through management or reporduction, not through murder) or we need to accept a lower standard of living. Humans can survive in very degraded environments. What kind of world do we want our children to live in? Fewer children to have more or more children to have less.

SelfDoIt

highbrain 23 Aug 2010 , 11:10pm

Its good to see that Selfdolt has returned this discussion to where it should be: that doesn't mean that I completely agree with him.
His view of "sustainable population" isn't wide enough: he neglects the need to have an age-structure sufficiently balanced among the different age-groups (the point that Harvey Jones made throughout his article). He also neglects the 3rd option if we do have to reduce our resource consumption - that of making more efficient use of them. Most important, tho' - he seems not to realise that we ARE having fewer children, and in many countries, too few for sustainability. I find that surprising as he's presumably read what Harvey Jones wrote. However, as Schumpeter wrote 70 years ago, there are those who love storming fortresses that have aleady surrendered.

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.