Normally (as in pre1990s) the "population bomb" was a problem that postulated that the world population would explode. But we are faced with an entirely different problem and haven't thought how to handle it.
 |
| It gets MUCH worse after 2050 through 2100 |
Let us assume the projections are correct for now. That the population will reduce in the next few decades. Some countries are already well on their way: Italy, Japan, Germany, Finland, China, Russia, Eastern Europe, etc.
Here is where the problem with capitalism intersects this. Capitalism is the practice of providing new goods and services to the population. That requires more people to buy things and/or the same people wanting new goods.
Since the 1950s capitalism has expanded (greatly) on both axis. People with money wanted new and better and bigger things: a second car, big screen TVs, new pots and pans with teflon, SUVs, albums - 8 tracks - cassettes - CDs -LPs, new "open concept" homes. Countries just entering a middle class phase wanted homes, a TV, processed food, diapers, formula, stoves, washers, etc.
But as the population ages and people everywhere less children (everywhere but Africa right now), the turnover rate of new "things" we want slows down.
Great example, smart phones. In the beginning, everyone needed a smart phone. Huge market. For the next 10 years, everyone upgraded as new features were introduced. Now, people wait to upgrade skipping 1 or 2 or more generations. So the smart phone people opened new markets. China, India, South America, Africa, Eastern Europe. But now those markets are pretty mature. Growth of the phones themselves has stopped driving growth in phone producers. Now apps and software drives economic growth.
Once you realize that this trend will only continue, we have to depend on capitalism to find other ways to grow. And, to be honest, that aren't good at that. It is a new skill. It is easy for Proctor Gamble to churn out new toothpaste - but once you've got fluoride in it everything else is just marketing. And if I buy a different toothpaste, I am not expanding the total amount of toothpaste. So Proctor Gamble has expanded the toothpaste market. One area was to newly capitalistic countries (say Hungary and Serbia after the end of communism). Another area was to newly "rich" areas (South Korea, Thailand, Brazil. etc.). But Proctor and Gamble executives and stock depends on growth. What happens when grow stops, but companies are still profitable. As population shrinks, what to companies do?
You can see this early in the car market. The population who both wants and can afford cars is not growing. Cars are saturated in rich countries and new consumers aren't looking for cars, but transportation solutions (that includes Uber, Lfyt, etc). And where they might be a demand for more cars (SE Asia or Africa) there isn't an infrastructure built to handle more (Africa is not investing in interstates and autobahns). Some makers go out of business, others depend on fleet sales (Ford and Hertz) others depend on a state actor to safe them (Nissan / Renault). But anyone who claims they know what the car industry future looks like in 30 years is wrong.
Some companies will flail about and decline (Xerox, IBM and GE). Some companies will be sold and new owners will squeeze profits (and workers) out and resell it. A very few companies will accept profits but little growth. Right now, those types of companies are mainly privately held - they are comfortable and fine, why change? But public companies don't have that luxery. Can public companies make that transition. I don't think they can in current market environment, which rewards growth more than profitability.
Doing nothing and assuming it will all "work out" might be a solution. But it didn't work with a pandemic, so maybe a little thought and planning now is in order.
Latest estimates are coming in at around a peak of 9 Billion - down from estimates in the 1980s of anywhere from 10 - 15 Billions people.
No comments:
Post a Comment