Notes From All Over, Part 2 -- October 18, 2019

80+ era: this is an interesting article. I don't agree with the premise at all. I think it's a great example of playing with words, playing with statistics. It's over at zerohedge, America 2020 through 2040 -- the era of the 80+ year-old. The writer tries to make a case that going forward, the "big money" is with the 80+ year-olds. The author suggests we're moving into "the era of the 80+ year olds."

It's a fun article to read, but so far off the mark, it's almost click-bait. Except for health care and nursing homes, 80+ year-olds won't be spending much money on much of anything. Unless the author is concerned about the demographic being a drag on the economy: social security; pensions; health care.

I guess that's the problem I have with the article: I'm not sure what the writer means by "the era of 80+ year olds." There may be a lot of them, and their growth rate may be increasing, but I don't see 80-year-olds being the movers and shakers for the US (with the exception of US presidential candidates; based on current trends, our newly elected president in 2040 will be 96 years old).

The article is all about the "rate" of growth in US population. From the article:

Breaking ["US demographic"] growth into twenty year periods by age segments and folding the 20 to 70 year-olds into one grouping [one] can see how the next twenty years are nothing like the US has ever seen before.

The 70+ year old population will rise by 24 million versus just an increase of 9 million among the 20 to 70 year-old working age population. However, even among the elderly, the bulk of the growth will be among the ultra-elderly 80+ year olds, representing nearly 50% of all total population growth over the next two decades.

What the heck? "Folding the 20- to 70-year-olds into one group -- that leaves two other groups

• less than 20 years old
• greater than 69 years old

Talk about playing with statistics.

This is the same kind of talk when folks talk about rig counts. 

The only graph that matters is the first one at the linked article, in 2040:

• 80+ year olds: 28 million
• 70 - 80 year olds: 34 million
• 40 - 70 year olds: 130 million (and the rate of growth slope parallels the 80+ age group)
• 20 - 40 year olds: 92 million
• 0 - 20 year olds: 84 million (and the rate of growth is absolutely flat)

I do suppose this statistic should get our attention, the number of 80+ year olds over the years:

• 2000: 9 million
• 2020: 13 million
• 2040: 28 million

I don't know; mixed thoughts. Yes, it's an issue to deal with but I wouldn't call 2040 the "era" of 80+ year olds. They will be there statistically but few will see them. 

Something tells me this writer does not buy into global warming and that we're all toast in twelve years.

On another note, the only 20-year age group that decreases in absolute numbers is the 70-80 year old age group. This suggests that fewer folks reach age 70 and those that do, live into their 80s. So, what happens between age 65 and 69? Cancer? Heart disease?

A more interesting article to read, looking at demographics is this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/12/in-about-20-years-half-the-population-will-live-in-eight-states/. When you read that article, remember how the Founding Fathers "set up" the US Senate.