Retirement Fears in China Are Holding Back Their Economy

Rodney JohnsonThe current economic mess in the developed world is easy to explain and hard to fix.

This is a demand-driven downturn, where aging populations choose to save more of what they earn, take on less debt, and generally rotate to a risk-averse world view.

The change isn’t new. It happens to almost all of us as we get older.

The difference this time is that the aging generation is so big compared to other generations, that their actions take on outsized importance.

There aren’t enough young people to drive our economies higher. Empty-nesters don’t spend as much because they want to pad their income in retirement. State-sponsored pension programs aren’t typically generous, so this makes sense. As these people spend less, domestic consumption slows down, dragging GDP with it.

While this storyline applies to many countries, one of the hardest hit is China.

Its working-age population is shrinking because of the one-child policy from the late 1970s, and aging workers are fearful that they will be destitute in retirement.

They have good reason to be scared.

The Chinese Social Security program is set up nationally, but funded and administered in the provinces.

Employees of private companies are required to contribute 8% of their pay and their employers kick in as well. After a minimum of 15 years of contributions, workers can retire at age 60 for men and 55 for women and start claiming their benefits.

What they will receive differs by province and location (urban versus rural), but a typical urban private sector employee is expected to receive 40% of his salary.

That might sound alright, but it puts many retirees under the poverty threshold.

In addition to worrying about how much they receive, like retirees around the world relying on state programs, aging Chinese must also worry about whether or not their funds even exist.

With several hundred billion dollars in surplus, the excess pension funds are supposed to be invested in a mix of mostly bonds, with a little bit of equity as well.

However, many provincial governments have taken the liberty of loaning the funds to their own coffers for building projects and other uses.

If the loans to the local governments don’t pay off, then what? Do the citizens demand a tax hike on themselves? Will the national government step in and make the programs whole? No one knows.

Worried about how much they will receive and if the funds are even available, the Chinese save… a lot.

From 1990 to 2010, the personal savings rate of disposable income shot up from 15% to 30%. In the U.S., that rate sits just under 5%.

Saving is great for a person, or a household. But when large swaths of the population are socking away cash instead of spending it, the economy suffers.

The Chinese economy has long relied on capital investment (domestic building projects) for growth. As GDP exploded, this sector grew from 35% of GDP in 2000 to 48% in 2014, according to the World Bank. Exports fell slightly from 23% to 21%. But household consumption dropped from 47% to 36%.

With domestic building slowing down and exports falling, the Chinese government wants consumers to pick up the slack.

Unfortunately, they are running headlong into the problem of individuals preparing for their own retirement.

Like I said, the problem is easy to see, but hard to solve. If the government greatly increased the level of pensions, then perhaps consumers would spend more today, boosting economic growth.

But there’s no indication that the central government wants to make such a commitment. They could institute a wealth tax, more or less confiscating unspent funds and funneling it to retirees in the form of higher current pension payments, but that might lead current workers to save even more.

One of the few real solutions is a growing labor force, which would mean more workers and therefore more overall spending.

Unfortunately, that’s nowhere in the cards for China.

Of course, the current situation doesn’t apply equally to all Chinese retirees.

While private sector workers pay in 8% and receive around 40% of their salary, government workers have a different deal. They pay in nothing, and retire with pensions up to 95% of their final salary.

Maybe the solution is to have everyone work for the government.

Rodney Johnson

Rodney

Follow me on Twitter @RJHSDent

Why Winners Keep Winning (And Losers Keep Losing)

If “buy-and-hold” and the notion that you can’t beat the market have left you short of your personal and retirement goals, then you’re going to want to hear the truth about passive and active investing.

Chances are, if you’re more than 25 years old, you think it’s impossible to “beat the market!”

But today, there is MORE than ample evidence that proves:

  • The stock market is NOT perfectly efficient
  • Passive investing can be MORE risky than active investing

You CAN beat the market… you just need to use the right strategy!

Get your FREE copy of the latest report from Adam O’Dell, Why Winners Keep Winning (And Losers Keep Losing)

Click to Learn More
Categories: Life Cycle

About Author

Rodney Johnson works closely with Harry Dent to study how people spend their money as they go through predictable stages of life, how that spending drives our economy and how you can use this information to invest successfully in any market. Rodney began his career in financial services on Wall Street in the 1980s with Thomson McKinnon and then Prudential Securities. He started working on projects with Harry in the mid-1990s. He’s a regular guest on several radio programs such as America’s Wealth Management, Savvy Investor Radio, and has been featured on CNBC, Fox News and Fox Business’s “America’s Nightly Scorecard, where he discusses economic trends ranging from the price of oil to the direction of the U.S. economy. He holds degrees from Georgetown University and Southern Methodist University.