An Older World & It’s Implications

[Jimmy Eriksson]

I recently read an interview of Ted C. Fishman, who is the author of a book, entitled “Shock of Gray”. The emphasis of the interview is on the ramification of an aging population or so called an ‘Older World’.


Ted C. Fishman is a veteran journalist who has written a mind-stimulating book ‘Shock of Gray’. It is ostensibly true that we are living in a world where people are constantly living longer, and an aging population have a series of ramification of jobs, family structure, neighbourhoods and society as a whole.

As per figures for 2010, America’s population aged between 75 to 85 years have already reached 17 million. (Source: U.S. National Institute on Aging Statistics). This is just tip of the iceberg, as in 4 decades, in 2050; this figure will reach 30 million in America, assuming that the actual trend persists. In other words, 10 percent of America’s population would be above 75 years.

In addition, the Institute of Aging suggests that in 2050, 2.5 million people will be above 100 years, and that the age group of 65+ will constantly expand. In most developed countries the number of people aged above 100 years has since 1950, doubled every decade.

There is no reason for this trend to end, better healthcare and medication will rather support the trend to balloon. So now the question is what will happen with an older world? Example to

1. Workforce
2. Society
3. Other Trends

Is an Older World Bad for the Economy?

[A. Coperfield]

It is really surprising to see statistics on our aging population – although that we already knew that this was coming. So why are we surprised?

The reality is that it is very hard to plan our old days. Retirement is something that can be anticipated but our mental and physical state is still uncertain. Most people consider that 80 years is the typical limit, and as people are living beyond that limit is even harder to predict.

It is even harder to predict future population due to changes in demographic factors including longevity of developed and developing countries.

[Jimmy Eriksson]

Yes, this is true.

There are constant changes in demographic and socio-economic factors. For instance the aging community are forced to extract their money from younger generation. The government is also condemned to invest more in old-age care centres.

In China, there is a dynamic young workforce, but this population will eventually also age with the years. For the moment, business is doing very well.

China is doing very well nowadays, but it is mainly because they do not really invest much in elders. This applies to other growing economies such as Indonesia and India. Success is reaped by countries who invest in younger segment of the population, and this is something that global companies are doing.

[Andrews]

It is hard for elders to re-integrate into employment due to rapid change in technology, which has rendered their skill obsolete. It is also hard for people aged above 65 years to learn and manipulate new technology required for business.

Those employees that might be able to work longer are;
1. Accountant
2. Lawyers
3. Engineers
Where experience is the key requisite and technology does really change. In contrast to less-skilled, work such as in the service industry where young people are demanded.

There are some other disadvantages for employers with this aging workforce.
1. Older people are expensive to employ
2. To retain elders employees give rising pension costs

[Jimmy Eriksson]

However, an aging population do generate new jobs for young people. For instance old-age care is something that is increasingly demanded in developed countries such as in Europe and America.

I would suggest that young people start to plan for their older days today itself, such as investing into insurance to cover expenses in when they reach their 60s +. But of course with anti-aging research elders will be mentally capable to work until a more advanced age which will prevent this old-age thought-breaking pandemic.

[Living_Forever]

I do not really think that longevity will be such a big problem. People in their 80s and 90s are as fit as people were in their 40s and 50s some 150 years ago. This is a new world. Now retirement is already 60+ and in the beginning of the 20th century people had a longevity of less than 50 years.

In other words, we are smoothly learning to adapt to our own evolution. It is an automatic process, which occurs concurrently without really much of focus.

[Superhuman]

I agree. Longevity is a blessing of intense progress in medical science and technology. If we have been able to increase longevity by 40 years in a period of two centuries, maybe in a thousand years, longevity will be increased by one year every one year. In other words, people will be mortals but living for a very long time.

An old or young population doesn’t really matter as long as everyone is health and able to be productive.

[Jimmy Eriksson]

The Key Concern with Longevity is Population Growth.

Planet earth can accommodate an estimated 10 billion people. However, what will happen if the number goes above. Scientists suggest severe shortage of food. But I believe we will find new means to sustain food supply and even invent new resources to provide energy to the whole world.

[Living_Forever]

There is something known as POPULATION PLATEAU. I believe that a population plateau will be reached whereby the population will no longer increase it will reach a sort of equilibrium. I found some nice resources to depict the increasing, stable or decreasing trends in population growth.



In most developed European countries, the population has already reached a point of equilibrium, where it is increasingly possible to become self-suffcient. The presence of better resources and technology makes it easier to reap higher efficiency, in terms of productivity of labour, food and energy.

Sources: New York Times,, I Look forward To and National Post (Image)

[landharr24628]

Thank you for sharing such nice information with us and i hope in future you also update us.