Japan Births Plunge To Lowest Level Ever Recorded As "Celibacy Syndrome" Takes Its Toll

Back in 2013 we asked "Why Have Young People In Japan Stopped Having Sex?" And while that might sound like nothing more than a clever headline intended for The Onion, it was prompted by a very serious survey conducted by the Japan Family Planning Association which found that 45% of Japanese women aged 16-24 and 25% of men were "not interested in or despise sexual contact"...a growing trend that has revealed itself via the nation"s persistently declining birth rates.  In fact, "celibacy syndrome" has become of such great concern for the Japanese government that it is considered a bit of a looming national catastrophe....a catastrophe that seems to be getting worse at an accelerating rate.

According to data released today by Japan"s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, child births in Japan will drop to just 941,000 in 2017, the lowest since data first started being recorded in 1899, and nearly 65% below the peak birth rate from the late 1940"s.

As the Financial Times notes today, the persistent declines in Japanese birth rates come despite the best efforts of central planners to encourage population growth via a litany of government entitlement programs aimed at helping young families cover the cost of childrearing...

The government of Shinzo Abe, prime minister, has made raising Japan’s birth rate a priority. On Friday it approved a budget that takes the first steps towards providing free pre-school, private high school and university education in an effort to reverse the trend.

 

Unless the low birth rate is reversed, the only option to increase Japan’s population would be for it to take in more immigrants. Yet despite high inflows of guest workers drawn by the strong economy, Japanese politicians have been reluctant to debate the subject.

 

Mr Abe’s government has instead set a target to raise the total fertility rate to 1.8. Officials hope the strong economy, combined with measures making it easier for women to combine work and childcare, will encourage families to have more children.

 

“We’d like to halt the decline by advancing our strategy to support children and make an easier environment for giving birth,” the ministry said.

...they"ve basically thrown in everything except a pony.

Meanwhile, Japan"s aging population means that the number of deaths will likely rise by 3% YoY in 2017 to 1.34 million, a post-World War Two high, resulting in the largest ever natural population decline of just over 400,000.   

Unfortunately, the crisis is only expected to get worse over time as projections from the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research suggest the pace of population declines will accelerate and that by 2045 Japan will be losing about 900,000 residents a year.  On current trends, the population is set to fall from 126.5m to 88m by 2065 and to just 51m by 2115.

All of which means there is really only one thing left to do...instruct the BOJ to print even more money and start passing it out to expecting parents...which we"re pretty sure will solidify Haruhiko Kuroda"s official title of "biggest pimp in the world".

China"s Raging Against Dying Of The Light (Or Why Peak Employment Is Imminent)

Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,

China"s working age population is clearly defined as those aged 16 to 50 years old for females (55 for "white collar" females) and 16 to 60 years old for males.  China mandates retirement at these outer age limits.  Perhaps of some interest should be that this working age population peaked in 2011 and has been declining since.  This decline will continue indefinitely as China has a collapsing childbearing population (detailed HERE), net emigration (outflow), and a still decidedly negative birthrate.

There is no evidence to believe the working age declines will abate any decade soon.  As the chart below shows, China"s potential workforce will be shrinking indefinitely... and by 2030 China"s potential workforce will be over 100 million fewer than the 2011 peak (an 11% decline)...and only further down from there.

China has one of the youngest average retirement ages in the developed world.  On average, according to a recent study (HERE), Chinese leave the work force by age 55 compared to age 63 in the US (Norway has the latest average departure at age 67).  So, perhaps China will be raising the retirement age to curb the ballooning 60+yr/old population entering retirement (chart below)?  More on that later.

Comparing the working age population versus the 60+yr/old population (chart below).  A shrinking potential workforce since peaking in 2011 and a rapidly growing elderly population.

Below, that elderly growth versus the working age depopulation as a % of all adults (chart below)...think hockey stick.  After nearly six decades of maintaining a consistent 60+yr/old % of the adult population...the elderly explosion is just beginning.

If we take the now declining total potential working age population vs. China"s still rising total number of employed individuals (according to Statista)...the chart below shows that if China adds just a mere million employees a year (about a third of the annual average employment growth seen from "06 through "16)...that by 2030 China"s employment will exceed 100% of the potential workforce.  Wait...what?!?  Or perhaps working from the premise that people who don"t exist can"t be employed...it"s time to start considering China"s employed population is set to begin falling.

This idea that there are "millions upon millions of Chinese just waiting to be incorporated into the workforce"...not so much.  While a continuing shift from rural to urban is likely, China has already or will soon experience peak employment. Simply put, there will be fewer consumers of everything (homes, cars, appliances, etc.) every year than the year before. 

Whatever overcapacity exists now will be joined by massive increases in excess housing, excess production, excess shopping malls as this depopulation plays out over the coming years and decades.

Five big points here:

1) China ends one child policy, with little to no impact...

• 
  

  Although China implemented its one child policy in 1979 and officially phased it out in 2015, China"s birthrate was actually consistently higher than most of the other major economies in East Asia (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore...chart below) and only N. Korea"s fertility rate is currently higher.

  
  

• 
  

  None of these other East Asia nations ever implemented birth restrictions.  Instead, their populaces chose not to replace themselves responding to the availability of birth control, surging costs of child rearing, and inclusion of females into the workforce, etc.  Simply put, the one child policy was inevitable and has now organically gone global.  The phase out of this policy will have little to no impact of China"s fertility rates.

  
  

2) China to raise retirement age, but no time soon...

• 
  

  In early 2015, China suggested it would detail in 2017 (which I still have not seen) a gradual, multiyear process to raise the retirement age (China"s version of political suicide).  Suggestions focused on slowly, incrementally, raising female retirement ages to match males and likewise, pushing retirements out by a month or two per year.  However, none of this was even suggested to start within the next five years and like most things, almost surely be back-end loaded so any real impacts are overstated.  Regardless Communist or "Capitalist" politicians, the game is the same.  A little "razzle-dazzle" that ensures any negative policy impacts never occurs on your watch.

  
  

3) China to institute Universal Pension Plan...

• 
  

  In late 2015, China said "We will achieve a basic pension for all employees nationally".  Currently, about 800 million of China"s 1.3 billion are eligible for state pensions.  According to Sinosphere, pensions for non-state employees vary widely, as high as 3000 RMB ($480) month in Beijing to as little as 80 RMB for rural farmers.  Civil Servants pensions are generally higher than those of non-state employees.  The party statement said, China would be;

  
  
  • 
    

    “Building a fairer and more sustainable social welfare system.

    
    
    
    

    Implementing plans for every person to take part in social insurance.

    
    
    
    
    
    

    Diverting capital from state-owned enterprises to social security funds.

    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    

    Offering all urban and rural residents insurance for serious illness.”

    
    

    
    
    
    
  
  

4) Chinese wages & average per capita disposable income rising but gains are hugely variable...

• 
  

  While Chinese factory wages in tier 1 urban areas are now inline with Portugal or S. Africa, this terrific rise has created it"s own problems.  The rise in wages has been met with inflationary spikes in rents, fuel, food, etc. etc.  Average disposable income has risen in the urban areas but flat at best across rural China.  However, the response of employers to the spectacular rising wages has been automation, a shift away from labor intensive production, and outsourcing to lower cost countries.  This is at odds with the generally low skill/low education rural population looking for opportunity in the urban areas.  The breadth and size of further gains in disposable income is likely to be limited.  Economically, a declining total number of workers making marginally more money will not provide the desired growth.

  
  

5) China cannot export its way out of this...

• 
  

  The annual change to the 0-64yr/old combined populations of the 35 OECD nations (US, Canada, Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Australia/NZ) plus China, Brazil, and Russia begin declining in 2018 (chart below).  The core populations of the nations responsible for consuming 80%+ of all Chinese exports have peaked and begin shrinking.  Fewer consumers every year than the year before, indefinitely.  As for the nations that are doing all the growing, India and Africa, they consume about 4% of all Chinese exports.  BTW, the chart below shows when each nation/region 0-64yr/old population began declining.

  
  

Simply put, China is offering to increase and broaden it"s pension system to a ballooning population of elderly but will have a decreasing potential number of employees from which to pay for that increase?!? 

How will China achieve this?  Well, as the chart below shows, as Chinese core population growth has been decelerating, Chinese debt growth has been accelerating. 

While China"s GDP and energy consumption have led the world, they have not responded in kind to China"s debt explosion and exponentially more will be necessary to continue to show "growth".  Over a third and perhaps half of all the debt has been mal-invested in a housing bubble for a population that is never coming. 

What comes next isn"t going to be good for China nor the rest of the world as China looks to flood a depopulating nation with new debt only creating more housing overcapacity... China will look to beat the Japanese at the debt game.

For instance, the Chinese public-pension system as of 2014, took in 2.33 trillion yuan in revenue and paid out almost 2 trillion...with 3 trillion in net funds.  The net outflows and drawdown of those net funds is imminent.

But not to worry, the Communist Party explained that..."We will look at some opportunities with higher yields but will contain risk".  Again, no details were offered.  However, one asset it is clear the Chinese will not be buying...US Treasury"s (chart below, showing the net purchases since the debt ceiling debate of July 2011 according to TIC).  Since that date, China has been a net seller of US Treasury debt despite running record US dollar surplus" (BLICS = Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Cayman Island, Switzerland).

From 2000 "til July 2011, China recycled 50% of its dollar trade surplus into US Treasury debt accumulating over $1.3 trillion.  Since July 2011, China has net sold over $100 billion and as of October, held about $1.2 trillion (chart below).

But I"m pretty sure those dollars aren"t sitting fallow and are finding their way into some asset, probably one in particular that is selling on the cheap about right now.

 

Almost A Third Of Americans Are Working Beyond Age 65

There is a huge disparity in employment rates among over 65s across different countries...

You will find more statistics at Statista

As Statista"s Niall McCarthy notes, a recent OECD report found that the highest rates of people working beyond 65 are in Asia with Indonesia particularly notable as having a 50.6 percent employment among those in the 65-69 age group. That figure is high elsewhere in Asia, standing at 45 percent in South Korea and 42.8 percent in Japan.

In contrast to Europe where there were widespread protests when the retirement age was raised even slightly, much of Asia has actually been supportive of increases in the mandatory retirement age. Reasons for support include everything from a desire to maintaing a fit and active life to more obvious concerns about finances.

New Zealand has no compulsory retirement age and it is another country with a high employment rate among older people with 42.6 percent of those aged 65 to 69 still working. The rate is far less in Australia at 25.9 percent while it"s 31 percent in the United States.

In Europe where all those protests happened, the rate is lower still. In the United Kingdom, the employment rate for 65-69 year olds stands at 21 percent while in France and Spain, it is only 6.3 and 5.3 percent respectively.

Here"s How Much Retirees Are Spending To Support Their Adult Kids

At one point in time in America, living at home with mom and dad after crossing out of your teenage years and into your 20s was embarrassing and something that was generally avoided at all costs.  And while hard times come and go, 20-somethings who were forced back into their parents" care worked their tails off until they could save up enough money to once again regain their freedom.

But, these days millennials seem to be embracing the free room and board provided by their parents.  According to a new study from the Census Bureau, roughly one-third of all millennials live at home with their parents and one-fourth of them can"t be bothered with enrolling in school or finding a job.

Of course, while living at home can help millennials cut down on costs, according to a new study from Nerd Wallet, it can also have a devastating impact on the retirement savings potential of their overly accommodating parental units...to the tune of a quarter million dollars.  Here are some of the key takeaways from Nerd Wallet"s survey:

• Parents could miss out on almost a quarter-million dollars in retirement savings by paying their adult kids’ expenses: According to NerdWallet analysis, a parent’s retirement savings could be $227,000 higher if they chose to save the money that would otherwise go to their child’s living expenses and tuition.

 

• Parents paying college costs could be missing out on almost $80,000 in retirement savings: More than a quarter of parents of children 18 and older (28%) are paying or have paid for their adult children’s tuition or student loans. The average parent takes out $21,000 in loans for their child’s college education, but the hit to retirement savings is almost quadruple that amount.

 

• Most adult children are living with their parents for more than a year after they turn 18: Almost 3 in 5 parents with kids 18 and older (59%) have had adult children living with them for more than a year; over 1 in 5 (23%) have had adult children living with them for more than five years. On average, these parents say the longest period of time they have had their adult children living with them is 4.5 years.

 

• Parents expect their kids to help them financially during retirement: Almost a quarter of parents saving for retirement (23%) expect their children to provide financial support for them after they retire. Millennial parents are most likely to say this (44% vs. 25% of Generation X parents and 5% of baby boomer parents), despite saving more than parents from other generations.

So where is the money going..

Many parents of children 18 and older are paying or have paid for their adult children’s basic living costs, including groceries (56%), health insurance (40%) and rent or housing outside the family home (21%). Some parents are also covering or have covered their adult child’s cell phone bill (39%) and car insurance (34%). But it’s important for parents — especially those who are behind in saving for retirement — to note that those same dollars could significantly grow their nest eggs over time.

 

In addition to these living costs, some parents of children 18 and older are paying or have paid for other expenses, such as clothing (32%), entertainment (20%), an allowance (10%) or a car loan (10%).

So, how long can your adult children be expected to interrupt your golden years? According to Nerd Wallet, 1 in 5 households surveyed said their adult children lived with them for more than half a decade.

Frankly, we continue to be shocked that all of those kids out there with $250,000 Art and Anthropology degrees are finding it difficult to land their dream jobs...

Millennials Have Ushered In The "Baby Bust" Cycle

Negative Population Growth, Inc., has issued a November report warning that America is no longer making enough babies to keep pace with deaths. The report blames, the ‘baby bust’ phase on the millennial generation (1980-2000), who are having children at record low rates.

Their attitudes towards marriage, procreation, and materialism changed dramatically after the Great Recession when the economies of the world came to a screeching halt. After a decade of excessive monetary policy from the Federal Reserve. The millennials have been forced to take out an excessive amount of debt such as auto loans, consumer debt, and student loans in an era of wage stagnation. This has fundamentally changed the game for millennials and perhaps changed the course of the United States. The implications of falling birth rates in a low growth economic environment coupled with massive amounts of debt - is a perfect storm that will lead to the next crisis. 

Falling birth rates in the United States have been classified of what some call the ‘baby bust’. Like any bubble, there must be a bust cycle and when it comes to births in the United States — that time, is now. According to the report, some demographers are “freaked out by the falling birth rate, an occupational hazard for people who spend their professional lives scrutinizing population statistics”. As the demographic winds shift, the United States is preparing for a ‘Japanification’ period of lower birth rates and a much old generation to strain the economic and healthcare systems.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of babies born declined by 338,000 or 8.7% between 2007 and 2016. Over the period, the national fertility rate declined from 69.3 to a historic low of 62.0 in 2016. For more color, the peak was in 1960 at 118 after World war II, ever since it’s been in decline.

As a result, the national fertility rate (all ages) broke a bearish flag (chart below) and fell -11% between 2007 and 2016. To keep pace with deaths, moms need to have 2.1 births, but that is not the case today with 1.8.

“The fertility rate decline is driven entirely by millennial mothers in their teens and twenties,” said the report.

 

“Birth rates for all age groups of women under 30 fell to record lows in 2016,” it added.

Besides poor economic conditions and a transitioning economy, the report added the increased “availability and effectiveness of sex education and contraceptives for males and females” have played a large role in reducing the birth rate for millennials.

Despite demographers freaking about out by the falling birth rates, the report offers an insight into how others are dealing with the negative trend,

Economists, however, have made peace with the notion that a shrinking population is not necessarily a bad thing. While GDP may slow, a better measure of the country’s economic health – GDP per capita – can benefit.

 

This is especially relevant in a world where robots, AI, and other technologies threaten the jobs of many Americans

The United States is not alone in the demographic shift of less birth rates, as it’s evident below. Major developed economies and emerging growth economies are feeling similar pain.

The report says “we have been here before” relating today’s economic-stress to the 1930s and the late 1970s coinciding with ultra low brith rates for the younger generation. Interesting enough, the report asks: Is it different this time? 

As the paper suggests– it is different and millennials are increasingly delaying kids or just outright abandoning altogether.

The report lists four reasons why this time is different:

• A 2016 study of Census data from Pew Research found nearly one-third of young adults (ages 18-34) live with their parents, slightly more than the proportion that live with a spouse or partner. Not since record keeping began in 1880 has living at home for this age group outpaced living with a spouse. “They’re concentrating more on school, careers and work and less focused on forming new families, spouses or partners and children,” Richard Fry, lead author of the Pew report, said of millennials. Although student debt is often blamed, it may not be the dominant factor: the trend is stronger for those without a college education.


• When it comes to marriage, millennials say “I don’t” more than any previous generation. Research by the Urban Institute finds that if current trends continue, 30.7% of millennial women will remain single by age 40, approximately twice the share of their Gen-X counterparts. The data show similar trends for males. Marriage rates fell drastically during the Great Recession, but they had been declining for years prior to that event. At this point even a return to pre-recession levels will not prevent marriage rates among millennial women from falling below those of Gen-Xers by age 40.4 Ironically, the aversion of millennial females to marriage may reflect their economic strength vis a vis males: “Sharp declines in the earning power of non-college males combined with the economic self-sufficiency of women — rising educational attainment, falling gender gap and greater female control over fertility choices — have reduced the economic value of marriage for women.”


• A cross-generational study conducted at Wharton School of Business found more than half (58%) of millennial female undergraduates do not plan to have children. That is nearly three-times the 22% of Gen-X female undergraduates who did not want children when surveyed in 1992. Results were similar for male students. (The researchers compared surveys of the Wharton graduating class of 1992 and 2012.) While Gen-X women felt “motherhood fulfilled their need to help others” millennial females believe they can serve the greater need by succeeding at work. For millennial men “doing good” is increasingly connected to creating greater balance between work and family. Not surprisingly, they are less likely to think of themselves as the sole breadwinner. Even millennials who do want children say they do not see a clear path toward it.


• Immigrants are the wild card. They account for 15% of U.S. millennials, up from 6% of the prior generation.8 Although birth rates for foreign-born millennials are generally above those of native-born, a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies finds that the gap is narrowing.9 From 2008 to 2015: birth rates for foreign-born women ages 15 to 19 fell 50.6% versus a 43% drop for native-born in that age cohort; birth rates for immigrant women 20 to 24 fell 40.5% versus a 28.5% decline for native-born. The Total Fertility Rate – a measure of the number of children a woman can be expected to have in her lifetime based on current patterns – fell 21.5% for immigrant women and 15.4% for native-born women over that period. The implication is clear: When it comes to family size, immigrant millennials have embraced the “smaller is better” ethos of the larger, native-born millennial community. That is good news to those of us who believe a smaller population is in the national interest.

Welcome to the new normal: Millennials will be the first generation that the American dream will most likely not be attainable, as show on the home ownership rate below. Since the real estate boom of the 2000s, homeownership rate for people under thirty-five has literally fallen off a cliff.  The report explores a number of factors of why this trend exists: student debt and the lingering impact of the Great Recession… 

Another new normal: With the introduction of Uber and Lyft fewer millennials are driving– leading to a shake up in the auto industry. The conventional wisdom among automakers are that millennials will unlock a new tranche of demand, but that narrative is going cold as the sharing economy disrupts.

Meanwhile, General Mills in 2016 ran a national advertising campaign targeting the millennial generation titled: ‘make more babies’… The type of conditioning is self-evident of one large corporation that is clearly aware of the low birth rate trend.

The Washington Examiner sums it all up,

The report explains the shift to smaller families is driven by the poor economy, broken American Dream, and job losses millennials witnessed growing up. 

 

Visualizing The Rapidly Aging Western World

From issues such as declining fertility rates to the ongoing complications resulting from China’s famous “One Child Policy”, there are many demographic challenges that the world must grapple with in the coming years.

However, Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins notes one problem of particular importance – at least in places like Europe and the Americas – is a rapidly aging population. As the population shifts grayer, potential consequences include higher dependency ratios, rising healthcare costs, and shifting economies and cities.

EUROPE: A PRIME EXAMPLE

We’ve discussed Germany’s demographic cliff before, but it’s not only Germany that will be impacted by a rapidly aging population.

The above animation from data visualization expert Aron Strandberg shows the median age of European countries between 1960 and 2060.

Starting about a decade from now, you can see that the U.N. projects some European countries to start hitting a median age of 50 or higher. This includes countries like Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece, and then later Germany, Poland, Bosnia, and Croatia.

The UK, France, Ireland, Scandinavia, and former Soviet countries will be younger – but only slightly so. Median ages in these places by 2060 will be in the early to mid-forties.

THE AMERICAS

Populations in North and South America are also graying fast, though not quite at Europe’s pace.

Here’s a similar map of the Americas that highlights median age between 1960 and 2060, based on U.N. projections.

Chile and Brazil, in particular, are trending older. Meanwhile, Canada is not far behind with an expected median age of 45 in 2060. Interestingly, the United States is anticipated to only hit a median age of 42 by 2060, which is lower than almost all Western countries.

While this makes the U.S. look younger in comparison, the country will still experience the same type of economic burden from an aging population. In fact, it’s expected that the population of Americans older than 65 years will nearly double from 48 million to 88 million over the coming three decades.

Will Americans Die Young Enough To Save Pension Plans?

Authored by Doug French via The Mises Institute,

“Pension fund problems worsen in 43 states” says the Bloomberg headline.

Laurie Meisler writes,

New Jersey, Kentucky and Illinois continue to lose ground and now have only about one third of the money they need to pay retirement benefits. And three states had double-digit declines in their pension funding ratios in the past year: Colorado, Oregon and Minnesota - though some of this can be attributed to actuarial changes in the way pension liabilities are calculated.

Nevada PERs is thinking about making a change, from assuming 8% investment returns to 7.5%. The higher the assumed rate, the less future beneficiaries have to contribute.  And, ultimately, Sean Whaley writes for the LVRJ,

The assumptions are used to ensure the solvency of the plan over the long term for the approximately 105,000 active members and 54,000 retired and disabled members. Because the public retirement plan is a defined benefit plan where retirees get a fixed monthly pension, taxpayers are ultimately responsible for its fiscal health.

Nevada PERS Executive Officer Tina Leiss said NvPERs funding ratio of 74.1 could drop if the returns assumption is lowered.

The good news (or maybe it"s bad news) is “Americans are retiring later, dying sooner, and sicker in-between” says Bloomberg. Ben Steverman writes,

Data released last week, reports Bloomberg,  suggest Americans’ health is declining and millions of middle-age workers face the prospect of shorter, and less active, retirements than their parents enjoyed.

The mortality rate increased 1.2% from 2014 to 2015, the first time its increased since 2005 and the first time it"s jumped over 1% since 1980.

Full social security benefits don’t kick in until a person is 66+ now, so,

“Almost one in three Americans age 65 to 69 is still working, along with almost one in five in their early 70s.”

That sounds okay, except, University of Michigan economists HwaJung Choi and Robert Schoeni have studied middle-aged folks and found,

“the number of middle-age Americans with ADL (activity of daily living) limitations has jumped: 12.5 percent of Americans at the current retirement age of 66 had an ADL limitation in their late 50s, up from 8.8 percent for people with a retirement age of 65.”

Then you might say, well, I might not be able to get around, but at least my mind is sharp. Except, “Cognitive skills have also declined over time. For those with a retirement age of 66, 11 percent already had some kind of dementia or other cognitive decline at age 58 to 60, according to the study. That’s up from 9.5 percent of Americans just a few years older, with a retirement age between 65 and 66.”

Maybe that’s why people are either killing themselves quickly - suicide - or slowly with alcohol, drugs, or overeating.  

This is all good news for pension plans...

As life expectancy drops - The Society of Actuaries says a 65-year-old man can expect to live to 85.6 years, and a woman can expect to make it to 87.6.

So - the group calculates a typical pension plan’s obligations could fall by 0.7 percent to 1 percent.

That"s a start but it won’t do much good, in New Jersey, Kentucky and Illinois.

*  *  *

Simply put, we"re gonna need a bigger die-off - or perhaps a few more years of unhealthy living will start to really help.

The New American Dream: Work Longer, Live Sicker, Die Sooner

With stagnant wages, rising cost of living (see shelter inflation), and a lack of savings, Americans are retiring later than ever before (if at all). But in a double-whammy for seniors, whose health is declining, their lifespans are shrinking offering them little if any time to enjoy the end of the American Dream walking hand in hand into the sunset on a faraway beach...

As Bloomberg reports, data released last week suggest Americans’ health is declining and millions of middle-age workers face the prospect of shorter, and less active, retirements than their parents enjoyed.

Here are the stats:

The U.S. age-adjusted mortality rate - a measure of the number of deaths per year - rose 1.2 percent from 2014 to 2015, according to the Society of Actuaries.

That’s the first year-over-year increase since 2005, and only the second rise greater than 1 percent since 1980.

At the same time that Americans’ life expectancy is stalling, public policy and career tracks mean millions of U.S. workers are waiting longer to call it quits.

Almost one in three Americans age 65 to 69 is still working, along with almost one in five in their early 70s.

And finally, Americans in their late 50s already have more serious health problems than people at the same ages did 10 to 15 years ago, according to the journal Health Affairs.

Bloomberg"s Ben Steverman points out that researchers have offered many theories for why Americans’ health is getting worse. Princeton University economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, a Nobel Prize winner, have argued that an epidemic of suicide, drug overdoses and alcohol abuse have caused a spike in death rates among middle-age whites.

Higher rates of obesity may also be taking their toll. And Americans may have already seen most of the benefits from previous positive developments that cut the death rate, such as a decline in smoking and medical advances like statins that fight cardiovascular disease.

So there you have it - The New American Dream: Work Longer, Live Sicker, Die Sooner...

The End Is Near... Depopulation Is Out Of Control... So Buy Stocks (Seriously)

Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,

The world economy is premised on a ludicrous idea - that Asia, then India, and then Africa will continue to drive economic growth. 

So as not to turn this article into a book, lets consider this idea focusing on East Asia consisting of China, Japan, North and South Korea, Taiwan, and minor others.  This region consists of 1.6 billion persons or about 22% of earths inhabitants.  However, since 2008, it is this region that is responsible for nearly 100% of the global increase in demand for oil (best proxy available for true economic growth) and having primarily driven global economic growth.  My point in this article is that the growth in this region is entirely a credit driven supernova against collapsing populations which will never be able to fill the 100+ million newly added apartments or pay back the debt incurred to achieve the "growth".  Contrarily, from an investor standpoint, this weakness is the green light to "invest" as aggressively as possible because as long as central banks exist, they have your back.

Consider, since 2000, China"s debt outstanding has risen something like 14x"s to 17x"s or from about $2 trillion to something between $30 to $35 trillion presently.  As for Japan, who knows Japan"s true debt as Japan"s central bank is buying much or most of the debt and essentially throwing it in a black hole, never to be seen again(...monetization with a capital "M").

Why the massive debt creation and central bank monetization?  Depopulation with a capital "D".  First off, consider the collapse in fertility rates for these nations (chart below).  To maintain a constant, zero growth population, the childbearing population needs to produce 2.1 children in order to replace themselves (dashed line, below).  However, as the chart below shows, E. Asian nations have seen negative fertility rates for decades (Japan turning negative in "74, S. Korea in "83, China in "92, and N. Korea in "96).

Looking at the fertility rates from 2000 (chart below), some minor rises in fertility rates have been noticed in China since "00 and since "05 in Japan and S. Korea.  However, despite the minor upticks, all nations remain solidly negative and well below the 2.1 zero decline threshold.

For those expecting East Asia to continue driving global economic growth, I have a very big problem for you.  East Asia is in the midst of a population collapse.  The East Asian childbearing population, after rising by 366 million or +125% from 1950 until peaking in 2005, is now collapsing nearly as fast.  By 2030, those of childbearing age will have fallen by 180 million or a 27% decline (chart below).  By 2050, a clean halving of the childbearing population is likely.

So, the size of the childbearing population is back where it was in 1980 and by 2050 will be almost back to its 1960 size...but hypercritically, that population in 1960 was having approximately 5 children per family versus the 2020 or 2050 versions having somewhere around 1.6.  It is unlikely anything can be done to stop the depopulation daisy chain in East Asia and the economic collapse is already assured.  The collapse in demand against record quantities of assets is a mismatch for the ages...but of course central banks will continue to step in and monetize as long as possible.

As for the rest of the population, the growth among the heart of the regions economy, the 20 to 65 year olds, peaked in 1990 and has now indefinitely turned negative (falling something like 12 million from 2015 to 2020...and hundreds of millions fewer consumers, home buyers, tax payers by 2050).  Even the growth among the 65+ year old cadre will peak about 2035 before beginning to rapidly decelerate (change per five year periods, chart below).

Lastly, even growth among the old will be shifting to the very oldest as the bulk (and then the entirety) of the growth will be among the 75+ year olds (change per five year periods, chart below).

As for investors, this is your last and greatest chance.  The depopulation issue is not confined within East Asia.  The chart below shows the diving global fertility rate falling by more than 50% since peak fertility in the mid 1960"s.

It is a global phenomenon exhibited nearly everywhere but Sub-Saharan Africa.  The chart below shows global fertility rates are universally collapsing and it is nearly solely Africa that continues the global population increases...at least for now.

Even India and/or the Middle East / North Africa (MENA) are likewise seeing collapsing fertility rates. India"s fertility rate is almost sure to be negative by 2020.  There truly are no green shoots from a population growth perspective.

Central bankers will continue to "fake it" until they "make it".  Obviously, they never will "make it" but a select few will get absolutely rich beyond belief from central banker "efforts" as they continue to "fake it" as long as possible.  So, invest accordingly.