Connecting the Dots

To Save the Economy, Don’t Retire

June 5, 2018

The US economy is growing but corporate profits are not, according to data released last week. That’s disappointing for stockholders.

On the other hand, we just saw a string of years when profits outpaced economic growth by a mile. So, the two figures can diverge for a long time… but not forever.

On a long-enough time horizon, aggregate stock prices cannot grow faster than Gross Domestic Product. Yes, some individual stocks can outperform for decades. But in total, they can’t, because their earnings are a function of the nation’s earnings (aka GDP).

GDP, in turn, is the product of workers and productivity per worker. For it to grow, we need some combination of more workers and/or more output from each worker.

That’s a problem because neither is growing fast enough, and may be shrinking.

Photo: Getty Images

One-Time Event

Last month, the National Center for Health Statistics reported the US fertility rate had hit its lowest point in more than 40 years. The average woman now has 1.76 children—the replacement rate to keep a population stable is about 2.1.

But is that really news? Look closer at the data, and we see the big drop occurred decades ago. Fertility fell by half between 1960 and 1976, from 3.65 down to 1.76. It’s gone relatively sideways since then.

Image: St. Louis Fed

In theory, lower fertility means fewer workers, which should reduce GDP unless productivity rises enough to offset it. But that didn’t happen. The opposite happened. Here’s real GDP per capita for that same period:

Image: St. Louis Fed

What happened? Well, the rapid drop in fertility let millions of women move from unpaid motherhood, which doesn’t show up in GDP, to the paid work force. They became “productive” in ways the statistics can measure, and so GDP rose.

But that was largely a one-time event. By the 1990s, women were in the labor force at rates comparable to men. Our economy switched from expanding the workforce via new births to importing new workers.

Imported Workers

The graph shows net migration to the US by year from 1965 to 2012. “Net” means the number of incoming immigrants minus the number who left the US, regardless of citizenship.

Image: St. Louis Fed

Net migration peaked in 1997, when the US gains 8.6 million new residents. That was the end of an uptrend that had started in the late 1980s. It also roughly coincided with a period of strong GDP growth.

Now consider what’s happened since 1997: measures of middle-class prosperity went flat or declined. GDP growth hasn’t exceeded 3% since 2005. Other factors are at play too, but if we’re not sufficiently expanding the workforce via new births or immigration, growth suffers. Fewer jobs get created and income stagnates.

Photo: Getty Images

Shifted Expectations

The US is not manufacturing enough workers the old-fashioned way. Even if fertility were to suddenly shoot higher, it would be many years before those children are old enough to work.

Record-low unemployment is starting to pull back some of the prime-age workers, mostly men, who had dropped out in recent years. That helps, but not enough.

The only near-term answer is more immigration.

I know that’s a touchy subject. Of course, we must control the borders, screen out criminals, etc. But our economy needs workers, and millions are willing to work if we let them in.

Unfortunately, government policy is changing in the wrong direction. Last month, the Department of Homeland Security proposed to end the International Entrepreneur Rule, which allows certain foreigners to temporarily enter the US and build businesses here.

Foreigners with capital and talent who want to create American jobs are exactly who should go to the head of the line. Locking them out will hurt the economy, not help it.

Worse, these entrepreneurs will not simply put their ideas back on the shelf. They’ll start their companies outside the US and hire non-Americans.

So, with labor supply too tight, we have two scenarios.

  • Wages will rise enough to spur investment in productivity but will also add to inflation pressure, or
  • Recession will reduce aggregate demand, thereby reducing wages and raising unemployment.

Those are the options unless we get some other major change, like those 1960s women entering the workforce. Is anything like that on the horizon?


One possibility is that automation will enhance worker productivity enough to offset the flat or shrinking labor force. But that solution brings other problems, likely killing millions of human jobs even as it lets the remaining workers produce more. Someone has to have enough cash to buy what they produce.

The other possibility is that we radically shift our retirement expectations. The idea that people should stop working at 65 is increasingly impractical. People don’t have enough savings to support themselves without working, nor is the government able to do it without major tax increases.

As with the birth control pills that let women build careers, medical science could be the catalyst. It doesn’t have to be involuntary either. People who are healthier will want to keep working to 75 or even older. Their talents might launch whole new industries that can employ the automation-displaced younger people.

We may have to endure some rough years first, especially if John Mauldin’s Train Wreck series is right. But as I think through the possibilities, this is the best outcome I can imagine.

Other scenarios exist… but we’ll talk about them later.

See you at the top,

Patrick Watson

Discuss This

We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.


There are no comments at this time.

Use of this content, the Mauldin Economics website, and related sites and applications is provided under the Mauldin Economics Terms & Conditions of Use.

Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited

The information provided in this publication is private, privileged, and confidential information, licensed for your sole individual use as a subscriber. Mauldin Economics reserves all rights to the content of this publication and related materials. Forwarding, copying, disseminating, or distributing this report in whole or in part, including substantial quotation of any portion the publication or any release of specific investment recommendations, is strictly prohibited.
Participation in such activity is grounds for immediate termination of all subscriptions of registered subscribers deemed to be involved at Mauldin Economics’ sole discretion, may violate the copyright laws of the United States, and may subject the violator to legal prosecution. Mauldin Economics reserves the right to monitor the use of this publication without disclosure by any electronic means it deems necessary and may change those means without notice at any time. If you have received this publication and are not the intended subscriber, please contact


The Mauldin Economics website, Thoughts from the Frontline, The Weekly Profit, The 10th Man, Connecting the Dots, Transformational Technology Digest, Over My Shoulder, Yield Shark, Transformational Technology Alert, Rational Bear, Street Freak, ETF 20/20, In the Money, and Mauldin Economics VIP are published by Mauldin Economics, LLC Information contained in such publications is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The information contained in such publications is not intended to constitute individual investment advice and is not designed to meet your personal financial situation. The opinions expressed in such publications are those of the publisher and are subject to change without notice. The information in such publications may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments.
John Mauldin, Mauldin Economics, LLC and other entities in which he has an interest, employees, officers, family, and associates may from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these publications or web site. Corporate policies are in effect that attempt to avoid potential conflicts of interest and resolve conflicts of interest that do arise in a timely fashion.
Mauldin Economics, LLC reserves the right to cancel any subscription at any time, and if it does so it will promptly refund to the subscriber the amount of the subscription payment previously received relating to the remaining subscription period. Cancellation of a subscription may result from any unauthorized use or reproduction or rebroadcast of any Mauldin Economics publication or website, any infringement or misappropriation of Mauldin Economics, LLC’s proprietary rights, or any other reason determined in the sole discretion of Mauldin Economics, LLC.

Affiliate Notice

Mauldin Economics has affiliate agreements in place that may include fee sharing. If you have a website or newsletter and would like to be considered for inclusion in the Mauldin Economics affiliate program, please go to Likewise, from time to time Mauldin Economics may engage in affiliate programs offered by other companies, though corporate policy firmly dictates that such agreements will have no influence on any product or service recommendations, nor alter the pricing that would otherwise be available in absence of such an agreement. As always, it is important that you do your own due diligence before transacting any business with any firm, for any product or service.

© Copyright 2019 Mauldin Economics