From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 11:50:42 MST
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Ramez Naam wrote:
> A few months ago I was reading something that referred to a mainstream
> economist who has posited that much of the economic growth of the 20th
> century in the western world has come as a result of longer lives.
It would certainly allow you to accumulate more wealth and
pass it on to your offspring (esp. as family sizes decreased).
> The basic idea is that longer life has allowed greater worker
> accumulation of skills and experience which have in turn benefited the
> economy.
Hmmmmm.... I could have lived 30 or 40 years and become the best blacksmith
or lumberjack in my state -- but not have a very big market for my skills
at this time. One could argue that the increasing number of obese
people in modern societies (in spite of all the experience and
messages we get to maintain a healthy weight) will drive the economy
in the other direction. Just because you have knowledge or experience
doesn't mean you use it wisely.
> Does anyone know which economist this is or have a reference to his
> work?
I don't know, and I question the theory (for the reasons outlined above).
I think this chart from Robert's recent talk would cast a substantial
shadow on the idea:
http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/DIAO/Slide18_files/slide0009.htm
It shows the "value" of human life declining significantly after
age 40. So when we were extending life expectancies from 30-40
(mostly in the 1800's) one could argue the economy got a boost.
But given the fact now that medical care costs are rising faster than
the rate of economic growth it seems to suggest that things may now
be going in the other direction (i.e. extending longevity puts a
drain on economic growth).
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:30 MST