A few years ago I wrote a post talking about "depression babies." In it, I cited a research paper that looked at the impact of macroeconomic shocks on people's willingness to take on financial risk in the future. The term "depression babies" stems from the Great Depression and how it is believed to have impacted risk taking, savings rates, and probably many other things.
I was reminded of this when I read this recent article in the WSJ talking about how the Chinese have started spending -- and taking on the debt -- like Americans, particularly among Chinese under 30. It is the inverse of the depression baby phenomenon. In this case, it is arguably years of economic expansion leading to greater comfort around financial risk.
Here are a couple of figures from the article:
JPMorgan estimates China’s ratio of household debt to gross domestic product will climb to 61% by 2020. That’s up from 26% in 2010 and higher than current levels in Italy and Greece.
The level in the U.S. is about 76%, after falling from 98% in 2006, according to the International Monetary Fund.
By another measure—the ratio of household debt to disposable income—China appears to have already surpassed the U.S. Its ratio reached 117.2% in 2018, up from 42.7% in 2008, according to calculations by Lei Ning, a researcher at the Institute for Advanced Research at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. The U.S. peaked at 135% in 2007 and dropped to 101% in 2018.
Not surprisingly, the article goes on to talk about how this dramatic increase in household debt might be something to worry about. Maybe. I'm not an economist. But I do think this is designed to boost the Chinese growth machine and I do think it makes them less reliant on other countries -- such as, maybe, the United States.
Carlota Perez is a professor that specializes in the social and economic impact of technological change. In 2002, she published an influential book called Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages.
One of her arguments is that economic growth since the Industrial Revolution has occurred through a series of cycles and surges, ultimately culminating in a fifth great surge centered around information and telecommunications. This is our current economic environment.
Perez was recently interviewed by strategy + business and they published this diagram (if it’s too small, click through to the article):
The five surges of capital and technology since 1771 are:
Industrial Revolution
Steam and Railways
Steel, Electricity, and Heavy Engineering
Oil, Automobiles, and Mass Production
Information and Telecommunications
Number 4 – oil, automobiles, and mass production – is what produced widespread suburbanization, a middle class filled with homeowners, and new forms of retail employment. And I am sure that most of you would agree that it’s not quite over yet.
According to Perez, each cycle has two phases: an installation phase and a deployment phase. This latter phase is a “golden age.” But in between these two phases is a turning point that is typically characterized by some sort of crisis and recession.
Her belief is that we are in this turning point right now. You see it with Brexit. The demagogues being elected. And more. If you buy this, the key question naturally becomes: How do we cross this chasm and enter our next golden age?
What’s also important to keep in mind about this theory is that it means that what we are seeing today, socio-economically, is not in fact new. We’ve been through this before. I’ll end with this quote from the interview with Perez:
In the 1920s, wealth distribution looked the same as it does today. The top 1 percent received 25 percent of society’s total income. By the 1950s it was down to 10 percent. Every installation period brings inequality until the state comes back actively to reverse it and relieve social unrest.
So what’s happening today may be temporary and it may be history repeating itself. If you’re interested in this topic, you can read the full interview here.
The following chart was created by Branko Milanovic (Visiting Presidential Professor, Graduate Center, City University of New York and Senior Scholar, Luxumberg Income Centre) and by Christoph Lakner (Economist in the Development Research Group at the World Bank.
It is known as the “elephant graph” because, well, it kind of looks like an elephant. The trunk is on the right.
What it shows is global cumulative real income growth from 1988 to 2008 for every percentile around the world.
The trunk on the right is the world’s 1%. Their income is up.
The 50-60th percentile range is also up. These are people in the developing world who started making a bit of money as a result of industrialization. In percentage terms things look good, but in absolute terms they’re not making a lot of money. Still, they are becoming better off.
Where things fall apart is in the 75-90th percentile range. These are essentially the lowest income folks in the developed world. Their incomes haven’t been growing at the same rate and, in some cases, their incomes decreased in real terms. They are falling behind.
Kaila Colbin wrote a Medium post about this graph and asks whether the exponential growth in technology that we are seeing today, will end up creating more jobs than it eliminates – as it did before in the past.
She also wonders whether the dip we are seeing in the 75-90th percentile range could spread left as automation eliminates jobs for those folks in the developing world.
These are important questions.