[tremon]

In the current economic climate, it is not a good thing. Due to the past 50+ years of policy making, a large part of the able-bodied workforce is excluded from contributing to the GDP. And as long as economic policy (both business and government) is still driven by the myopic vision that GDP is all that matters, all those "old people" are a burden, not an asset.

In itself, having a more reasonably distributed age distribution is neutral (in my view). But it is a consequence of two good things: the population boom is leveling off, and healthcare has improved tremendously around the globe.

[pjc50]

> a large part of the able-bodied workforce is excluded from contributing to the GDP

Could you explain? Recent policy seems to have been about pushing everyone possible into the workforce, even the not-able-bodied. By every means short of actually putting up wages.

[douche]

We've got almost a third of the US population that has dropped out of the workforce completely[1], with another 5.5% unemployed but still trying.

[1] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/americans-not-...

[tremon]

I was referring to pensions and early retirement mainly. Yes, there have been recent efforts to shift the retirement age upwards, and I'm certainly not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to retire at all. But a population-wide cutoff at a certain age seems arbitrary, and I've seen plenty of examples around me of people starting self-employment in their 60s, simply because employers could no longer legally hire them.

Of course, the other side of that coin is that there needs to be enough jobs available to employ everyone, and forcing retirement is one way to reduce a labour surplus...

[marcosdumay]

It literally means there is high unemployment of young people.

It can also be pushed into meaning that young people are mostly barred from effectively investing and creating successful business.