MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122502533

Intergenerational Fairness: Will Our Kids Live Better than We Do

2019· article· en· W3122502533 on OpenAlex
Parisa Mahboubi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife expectancyOverlapping generations modelEconomicsGovernment (linguistics)DebtRevenuePopulationGovernment debtGovernment revenueDemographic changeDemographic transitionFertilityDevelopment economicsPublic economicsLabour economicsMacroeconomicsFinanceDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While large government deficits and debt raise concerns regarding intergenerational fairness, their longterm intergenerational impacts can significantly differ, depending on demographic shifts and future economic policy. In particular, population aging in Canada has accelerated during the past decade due to declining fertility and improving life expectancy. This demographic transition poses new fiscal challenges since it dampens growth in government revenue while putting pressure on government spending, particularly in healthcare and public pensions. Generational accounting is a powerful tool for assessing the lifetime fiscal burden on current and future generations, given demographic and economic projections. The method requires estimating the present value of government’s current and future net revenues to cover all current and future spending plus net debt. A large imbalance between the net tax burden faced by current and future generations over their lifetimes, in favor of current generations, would mean that existing fiscal policies are unfair and unsustainable. Using generational accounting, this Commentary shows that the projected lifetime fiscal burdens of the youngest generation (born since 2005) and future generations are very high: higher than those of any other generations, especially those born from the mid-1950s to the 1990s. Generally speaking, babyboomers and their children fare well in this scenario, but the grandkids of babyboomers do not. Looking to the future, we also specifically compare the prospective net tax burden faced by today’s newborns with those that will be faced by future generations. Here, the results are less troubling. We find future generations of Canadians are expected to face a slightly lower lifetime tax burden than newborns, implying relative intergenerational balance looking out into the future. However, small changes to the baseline scenario can make that balance tip unfavourably for future generations. For example, both higher-than-expected interest rates and lower-than-expected population growth would lead to generational imbalance by imposing higher net tax burdens on future generations. Also, failing to restrain the growth of healthcare spending below its recent experience (1996 to 2010 average) could shift the tax burden to future, unborn generations, and lead to a large and likely untenable imbalance. To ensure future intergenerational fairness and sustainability, policies that improve labour market outcomes of youth, women and immigrants, and that encourage a longer working life, should be supported. Restraining the growth of healthcare spending at a sustainable level is also a must.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it