Boomers vs millennials: Who's better for the economy?

17 November 2017 | Markets and Economy


 Remove  Save


Global Macro Matters: A look at how shifts from one generation to the next affect economic growth and investment performance, featuring Vanguard Senior Investment Strategist Jonathan Lemco and Vanguard Senior Economist Andrew Patterson.

Lara de la Iglesia (moderator): Age, income, education: these are just a few of the characteristics that differentiate the world's populations. We all know that. But what you might not realise is just how profound an impact those demographics have on a country's economic growth.

To discuss this, I am joined today by Jonathan Lemco, a senior investment strategist, and Andrew Patterson, a senior economist, in Vanguard's Investment Strategy Group. Guys, thanks very much for being here.

Jonathan Lemco (Vanguard senior investment strategist): Thank you.

Andrew Patterson (Vanguard senior economist): My pleasure.

Lara de la Iglesia: All right, so let's start with a broad perspective, Jonathan. You're the father of millennials. And by that, I mean people generally in their 20s and 30s. Share with us at a high level, what are some of the big differences between your generation and your children's?

Jonathan Lemco: Well, I'm a baby boomer, which is approximately 1946 to '64, and we are told by demographers that baby boomers seem to value more material things. They like houses, cars, things you can buy that are objects, if you will, much of the time. I suspect that the generation before me, the so-called World War II generation, was not all that different really, and, of course, they were moulded by the Great Depression.

But by contrast, my kids, who are in their late 20s, the so-called millennial generation, I think are typical of many North American kids in that they value experiences more than material things. They like social media – extremely important; communicating with friends – extremely important. If they're going to be working, they're going to look for opportunities to work elsewhere, ideally in another country if they can or a different culture if they can. They're going to put a lot of value on vacations, but, again, less on houses and certainly less on cars.

Lara de la Iglesia: Interesting, so that's a bit on consumer spending. I would like to ask, when we have a large population shift, how does that impact government spending then?

Andrew Patterson: If you look at the government spending numbers, the vast majority of that really has to do with entitlement spending. What do we mean when we say entitlement spending? Well, we can talk about the United States as an example, but this spreads across borders.

This is an issue for all, particularly developed-market economies that have slow or, in some cases, even falling population rates where you have the cohort of individuals age 65-plus who tend to retire being supported by the working age population. If that working-age population is not growing as fast as the population of retirees, that tends to weigh more on government budgets. You don't necessarily have the tax revenue growth that you would need to sustain spending on priorities such as Social Security here in the United States.

We're not here to say that that's a good or a bad thing, just more that the numbers are what the numbers are. So, it's something that does need to be considered as we continue to age.

Lara de la Iglesia: So, then what is the impact on economic fundamentals? How does this all factor in, something that we monitor?

Andrew Patterson: With the government spending side, government spending is, by its nature, spending. So that tends to be, again, at its base, positive for economic growth. You can give in to a lot of arguments about what that could mean from a crowding-out perspective. Is government spending more efficient or productive than what would have been accomplished within the private sector if the government hadn't had to use those resources themselves?

There's days and days and months and months of debate on that. What we like to think about when thinking about demographics, really, is more on the spending side, on the individuals.

Lara de la Iglesia: So, the consumer spending, as Jonathan was addressing earlier.

Andrew Patterson: Exactly, exactly. And the way that we view that is more, as the population ages, if you will, different rather than more or less.

Lara de la Iglesia: What does that mean – "different"?

Andrew Patterson: By different I mean that now there are studies that show that millennials may be a bit more risk-averse than some previous generations, maybe as a result of the GFC, the global financial crisis, if you will. But the data's just really starting to come in on that.

What we've seen historically though is that, as a population ages, you tend to spend more on things, whether it's an individual or government, on things like health care and less so on things like education or the costs associated with raising a child. Such that in aggregate growth may not be as impacted as some might think because you're just shifting those spending habits. Inflation, likewise, may not be as directly impacted as some might think because it's more of a shifting of the composition of the basket of goods and services that people spend on rather than outright increase or reduction.

Lara de la Iglesia: Interesting. So then what might all of this mean for investors? Is there a key takeaway here or something that they should remember?

Andrew Patterson: I think when you're looking on the investment front, I mentioned before the difficulty in assigning impacts to growth, inflation based on spending habits, whether it's coming from consumers or coming from the government. There's going to be pockets of increased spending on certain goods and services, decreased spending on certain goods and services because of this ageing of the population.

I would say that demographics, in general, tend to feed into our views on relatively lower growth, relative to where we were pre-crisis; relatively lower inflation which leads to our view, helps to inform our view. The interest rates are likely to be lower relative to where they were pre-crisis, which then feeds into broader portfolio implications, where portfolio returns for similarly allocated portfolios may be somewhat lower going forward.

But I would say at the end of the day you as an individual, you as an institution, it's your own demographics that really matter the most for your investment decisions and your investment success. Has there been a big change in those? Have you seen a big change in the population of your work force? As an individual, has something in your situation changed?

Lara de la Iglesia: Just helpful to understand your situation and helping to explain setting expectations accordingly for what growth might look like going forward, right?

Andrew Patterson: Absolutely.

Important information:

This video is directed at professional investors and should not be distributed to, or relied upon by, retail investors.

This video is designed for use by, and is directed only at, persons resident in the UK.

This video was produced by The Vanguard Group, Inc. It is for educational purposes only and is not a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell investments.

The value of investments, and the income from them, may fall or rise and investors may get back less than they invested.

The opinions expressed in this video are those of the individual speakers and may not be representative of The Vanguard Group, Inc.

Any projections should be regarded as hypothetical in nature and do not reflect or guarantee future results.

Issued by Vanguard Asset Management, Limited, which is authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority.


 Remove  Save