Dean, agree with the general principle, but disagree with the specific example.

There are differences in RoI (as far as future GDP is concerned, vs. future standardized test scores) between $ spent for more college matriculation vs. more Kaplan test prep registration. Koreans are among the most skewed to spending on "education" for the exam.

as a korean-american with family in korea, i would have to add something. much of this spending on education for tutors doesn't really help them 'excel' in the form of better grades, but because of the intense competition is the minimum required just to keep your head above water. there's a real problem in south korea for students trying to get into decent colleges because noone wants to be a blue-collar worker and so it isn't uncommon for people to spend years just trying to get into college or graduate-studies programs since the entrance exams are so intense.

children from middle school and even elementary are basically in class from 8 in the morning to 8 at night with all the tutoring and supplementary instruction they take and it is very common for many students to "go crazy partying" if they manage to get into college.

i have heard this is a problem in japan as well, don't know if it's shared by other industrialized countries.

If they all have medical degrees or PhDs, they will not all be financially secure because there will not be enough jobs that require (and pay for) those degrees for all of them. Some of them will have to be underemployed.

dean i don't think you're doing a good job debunking the "depopulation bomb" idea as yet, at least not recently.

have you in the past more thoroughly explained how the mismatched income and expenses of a higher proportion of seniors can be handled smoothly?

particularly when we're looking at a period of very high labor intensity as we retrofit everything.

ps. it seems to me that "immigration," "robots," and "better healthcare" are all hand-waving.

Hapa,

you lost me -- one of the main reasons that we want high labor intensity jobs right now is because we have high unemployment. What's the demographic problem? In most countries, we're looking at 4-5 years of higher than normal unemployment.

ok that's 5 years, equilibrating wherever/however/with whatever shifting wealth distribution. then come 2030 and 2050, let's call those important markers (a) in the greening process (roughly halfway and halfway, per zeno) and also (b) between generations as the (overstressed/urbanized) birth rate shrinks world-round and various technologies add years to older folks' lives at some general-public expense.

these timelimes are really confusing. we blew away what savings we had in the parts of the economy where it mattered. we can't replace oil and coal with debt. and can we expect boomers and bankster refugees to retrofit their homes and transportation while rebuilding their personal safety nets? if any?

so i guess what i was asking was maybe for a more detailed discussion of how you think the reversed demographic trap -- fewer younger workers, more elders -- will play out given how much economic and ecological deleveraging we have to do and how much household wealth just went pffft?

Clark grossly under-rates the ability of the vast majority of people to become quite educated and skilled, that is high school graduation and college degree, both from good schools with good standards. The vast majority have the ability. They can do it if they work hard and responsibly and persistently for years, even if it takes longer than the standard 4 years (that's been around how long, while the amount needed to learn has increased how much?). Thus, they need not be welfare recipients doing nothing now or in the near future, as Clark intones.