Ageing's raging savings debate

• ? Demographic changes have played a crucial role in pushing savings rates up and real rates down in the advanced economies. Despite some voices to the contrary, we think such forces will remain in place for many years to come.
• ? For such a predictable process, it's amazing that the economic implications of ageing are so hotly debated. Ageing affects everyone's lifetime savings decisions and has an impact on macroeconomic variables through several direct and indirect channels, the strength of which varies over time.
• ? The impact of ageing on savings depends on interpreting two distinct long‐term drivers. On the one hand, aggregate savings may start to fall as the baby‐boomer “bulge” in advanced economies transitions from the peak period of saving to the phase of lower saving in retirement.
• ? On the other hand, rising life expectancy should lead individuals to save more during their working lives or wait longer to retire. Greater labour market participation by those close to the official retirement age suggests that rising life expectancy is already leading many to remain in the workforce for longer – a trend that is likely to continue.
• ? Accounting for ageing and rising life expectancy together, we find there will be no major decline in savings even as the elderly's share of the population rises further.
• ? The impact on future real interest rates will, if anything, be negative. Comprehensive studies have reached a similar conclusion, taking into account the impact of demographic changes on savings, investment and other factors affecting real interest rates.
• ? Ageing populations may be complicating the escape from low global inflation. Crosscountry evidence suggests older populations may prefer lower inflation. As societies in advanced economies continue age, there is a downside risk to the long‐term outlook for inflation and bond yields.

     

How low can U go?

• ? Although there is growing evidence that wage growth is building in response to low and falling unemployment in the advanced economies, there is scope for unemployment rates to fall further without triggering a pay surge.
• ? For a start, current unemployment rates in comparison to past cyclical troughs overstate the tightness of labour markets. Demographic trends associated with the ageing ‘baby boomer’ bulge have pushed down the headline unemployment rate – unemployment rates among older workers are lower than those of younger cohorts. And in a historical context, Europe still has a large pool of involuntary part‐timers.
• ? In addition, rising participation rates mean that demographics are less of a constraint on employment growth than widely assumed. In both 2017 and 2018, had it not been for increased activity rates (mainly for older cohorts), unemployment would have had to fall more sharply to accommodate the same employment increase. We expect rising participation rates to continue to act as a pressure valve for the labour market.
• ? Finally, unemployment rates were generally far lower during the 1950s and 1960s than now. If wages stay low relative to productivity, as was the case during that prior era, employment growth may remain strong, with unemployment falling further. In the post‐war era, low wages were partly a function of a grand bargain in which policy‐makers provided full employment in return for low wage growth.
• ? There is evidence to suggest that many post‐crisis workers have opted for the security of their existing full‐time job and its associated benefits despite lower wage growth, rather than change job and potentially earn more; the rise of the ‘gig economy’ has led some workers to value what they already have more. Put another way, the non‐accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) has fallen. So, the role of labour market tightness in pushing wage growth higher may continue to surprise to the downside.

     

The paradox of rising wage growth and falling inflation

• ? Strong labour markets and rising wages in advanced economies stand in sharp contrast to recent declines in economists’ inflation forecasts and market expectations. In our view, though, these developments are not necessarily contradictory. Even if wage growth edges higher, we think demand factors will limit any pick‐up in prices. Instead, we expect firms’ margins will be squeezed.
• ? Although the labour share has risen more sharply than we had expected over the past couple of years, we are sceptical that this will translate into substantially stronger underlying inflation. Not only has the rise been small, it has been employment rather than wages that has surprised to the upside. The strength of employment is probably more about firms’ production preferences than workers’ capitalising on a stronger negotiating position.
• ? True, wages adjusted for productivity now look high by historical standards. But neither theory or empirical evidence suggests that this must inevitably lead to stronger CPI inflation in the short‐term. Our forecast for flat wage growth in 2019 and the absence of strong cost pressures elsewhere are also a comfort.
• ? Inflation tends to be more responsive to demand indicators – and the recent GDP growth soft patch suggests any further pick‐up in underlying inflation pressures will be limited (see Chart below).
• ? More generally, we think that the consensus view on inflation for the key advanced economies is high. Market‐based inflation expectations are typically lower than our own, which may reflect the perception that inflation risks are skewed to the downside. Positive economic surprises could lead downside risks to narrow, but ageing expansions and secular stagnation worries suggest this is unlikely, limiting any future pick‐up in bond yields.

     

“Whatever it takes” may not be enough

• ▀ Concerns over risks to the global economy from actual and perceived limits to fiscal and monetary policy are well-founded. A decade on from the global financial crisis, evidence highlights chronic demand deficiency, related weakness in supply and a prolonged period of underperformance among the most policy-constrained advanced economies. All lie within the eurozone.
• ▀ To gauge the risks from such policy constraints, we model a broadening of the eurozone slowdown. Despite the ECB's commitment to mitigate adverse cyclical developments, we find that - in the absence of significant accompanying fiscal support - a period of protracted eurozone weakness would ensue.
• ▀ The implications are far-reaching. Our analysis suggests that such a protracted eurozone slowdown would spill over globally, taking 0.4ppts off average global growth over the next five years.

     

Tighter labour markets to finally lift global wages

• Wage growth has been relatively slow since 2007 in advanced economies, but an upturn may be in sight. Slow productivity growth remains an issue but tighter labour markets make a positive response by wages to rising inflation more likely and there are signs that compositional and crisis‐related effects that dragged wage growth down are fading – though Japan may be an exception.
• Overall, our forecasts are for a moderate improvement in wage growth in the major economies in 2017–18, with the pace of growth rising by 0.5–1% per year relative to its 2016 level by 2018 – enough to keep consumer spending reasonably solid.
• Few countries have maintained their pre‐crisis pace of wage growth since 2007. In part this reflects a mixture of low inflation and weak productivity growth, but other factors have also been in play: in the US and Japan wage growth has run as much as 0.5–1% per year lower than conventional models would suggest.
• The link with productivity seems to have weakened since 2007 and Phillips curves – which relate wages to unemployment – have become flatter. A notable exception is Germany, where the labour market has behaved in a much more ‘normal’ fashion over recent years with wage growth responding to diminishing slack.
• ‘Compositional’ factors related to shifts in the structure of the workforce may have had an important influence in holding down wage growth, cutting it by as much as 2% per year in the US and 1% per year in the UK. There are some signs that the impact of these effects in the UK and US are fading, but not in Japan.
• The forecast rise in inflation over the next year as energy price base effects turn positive is a potential risk to real wages. But the decline in measures of labour market slack in the US, UK and Germany suggests wages are more likely to move up with inflation than was the case in 2010–11 when oil prices spiked and real wages fell.

     

Why avoiding ‘Japanification’ could be a massive task

• ? 'Japanification risk’ is back on the agenda in the context of a slowing world economy. Japan's struggle to drag its economy out of an entrenched deflationary cycle offers a cautionary tale for other economies such as the eurozone, demonstrating the enormity of the policy effort needed.
• ? Low inflation and low growth in Japan are linked to demographic and monetary factors, against which Japan has intensified policy efforts since 2011–12. Japan can claim some success in boosting workforce participation but productivity growth has stalled while monetary policy efforts have delivered limited gains.
• ? The eurozone has avoided some of the early policy errors made by Japan and taken a number of steps to tackle ‘Japanification’ risks. But productivity growth has flagged even more than Japan's in the 1990s, and parts of the eurozone still risk sliding into deflation if the global downturn worsens.
• ? The eurozone's policy options to fight ‘Japanification', particularly at the individual country level, are more limited than was the case in Japan. Further ‘heavy lifting’ by the ECB would be required – implying downside risks for the euro and bond yields staying low, if not compressing further.

     

Could unemployment go back to the post‐war heyday?

• ? The current ‘low’ rate of unemployment looks less impressive when compared with the 2–3% rates averaged in the 1950s and 1960s. But both then and now share a common driver of low joblessness – pay growth falling unusually short of productivity gains. While the chances of this continuing look stretching, a return to genuine full employment is not completely implausible .
• ? Why was unemployment so low in the early post‐war period? Given the current uncertainty over how far joblessness can sustainably drop and how this affects monetary policy, our analysis provides useful insights for the situation today.
• ? Several explanations have been mooted. A political commitment to full employment is one, although aspiration alone cannot provide a cause. And demand management using fiscal policy is hard to square with the period's modest budget deficits. Meanwhile, booming post‐war investment and trade and shortages of labour fail to explain why low joblessness did not quickly trigger rapid rises in pay and inflation.
• ? The cause of very low unemployment appears to have sat with wage restraint relative to productivity gains. Unlike most of the last 70 years, real pay growth consistently fell short of productivity rises in the 1950s and part of the 1960s, cutting the cost of workers and ensuring a low ‘equilibrium’ rate of unemployment.
• ? This explanation has parallels with the present day. Since 2010, productivity growth has outstripped real pay rises to an extent not seen since the 1950s. We do not expect this pattern to continue – our forecasts show real pay running slightly ahead of productivity growth over the next five years. But if the factors holding back pay were to persist, alongside a catch‐up in UK productivity, a return to a 1950s/60s‐style jobless rate is possible, if the MPC did not take fright at further declines in unemployment.

     

G7 consumption: after the wealth rush

• ? In only one of 12 large advanced economies do we expect consumption to outstrip GDP growth in 2018. As key drivers rotate, the impact of a recovery in real incomes will be dampened by higher oil prices and waning wealth effects .
• ? Policy‐fuelled asset booms sustained the post‐crisis recovery in G7 consumption, though by historical standards the recovery was nothing special. Historically, the G7's average 5‐year recovery from troughs entailed consumption matching GDP growth, but in the five years from 2010 consumption was 0.2 ppt weaker. Its relative strength only picked up from 2015, when boosted by weak oil prices.
• ? Relatively weak G7 consumption growth is likely to continue as key drivers rotate. Strong employment growth and a modest pick‐up in wage inflation will offset waning equity and housing wealth effects.
• ? Near‐term risks are two‐way. An oil‐fuelled inflation surprise could hit consumers, wreck central bank gradualism and reveal balance sheet weaknesses. Currently, however, we see only limited pockets of credit risk and vulnerability to higher rates.
• ? Conversely, there is scope for a credit‐fuelled boost to consumption. G7 household borrowing relative to its trend is arguably close to 40‐year lows, so unless financial deepening has reached a limit, there is scope for increases in borrowing. Furthermore, G7 bank deleveraging could be over, boosting credit supply conditions.
• ? We see two positive longer‐term drivers of the global consumption share: (i) Asian economies will become more consumption‐driven; (ii) Household re‐leveraging offers scope for some debt‐fuelled consumption growth. Offsetting negatives are that demographics, interest rates and asset prices will provide little support

     

Supply surprise is a ‘nice’ reprise

• ? This year advanced economies have enjoyed a rare positive supply surprise: output is higher than expected and inflation is lower. The initial China‐related boost not only proved to be a great antidote to secularly weak global demand, but it has also engendered unexpected global momentum and a benign inflation response. As a result, 2016–17 resembles a mini‐reprise of the “nice” 1990s, a non‐inflationary, consistently expansionary decade.
• ? The global momentum has been propelled by a strong international trade multiplier. This has contributed to strength in several advanced economies, particularly the Eurozone. We expect global growth in 2018 to be bolstered by US fiscal stimulus as the impulse from China fades.
• ? It will remain “nice” in 2018, albeit in the context of weak secular trend growth. We expect the benign output‐inflation trade‐off to continue. Several of the factors that are underpinning low inflation and unemployment as well as weak wage growth are likely to be present for some time.

     

Why we aren't predicting a global recession

• ? Fears that the global economy is heading into a recession are rising. But while we cannot ignore the risks that a recession could be brewing, our baseline assumption is still for a modest growth slowdown from here.
• ? The global economy is in a similar position to 2012 and 2015, as mounting uncertainties dampen growth. This time, trade tensions are a high‐profile culprit rather than the possible collapse of the eurozone or a China hard landing.
• ? In the previous two cases global growth fell to around 2.5% ‐ around the rates seen in Q2 this year ‐ only to then rebound. Our baseline forecasts assume a similar mini cycle, albeit with only a modest growth rebound.
• ? We also assume that further major adverse shocks won't materialise, and that insurance policy moves by central banks will stop a plunge in investment and households from panicking.
• ? Still, recession fears should be taken seriously ‐ slowdowns can become self‐perpetuating. Once annual GDP growth has fallen by over 1ppt from its peak, the eventual decline typically ends up being much larger ‐ of the seven growth slowdowns since the late 1970s where annual growth slowed by over 1ppt ‐ four resulted in either a global recession or only a narrow escape from one.
• ? With US‐China tensions unlikely to recede and factors like the US yield curve inversion adding to the air of gloom, the latest downturn could gain momentum.
• ? Although reduced macro volatility and anchored inflation have made it easier for policymakers to deliver soft landings, the effectiveness of monetary policy has waned. And with China no longer acting as spender of last resort, it's vital that governments in advanced economies stand ready to pick up the slack

     

Global wages: we don't (yet) have lift‐off

• ? Policymakers, most notably in the US, have been expecting wage growth to pick up for some time as job markets tighten. But the data over the last six months have shown few indications of wage lift‐off. Our review of the latest evidence suggests that although labour markets are, on the whole, still tightening, we see increased downside risks to our forecasts for faster global wage growth in 2018–19.
• ? Rates of “churn” in labour markets – a possible precursor to faster wage growth – have continued to rise in the US and parts of Europe.
• ? But other structural factors may still be holding wages down. A recovery in prime‐age participation in the US may be helping to cap wage rises, as may a pool of “underemployed” workers in the US and UK (though this pool is shrinking fast).
• ? Productivity growth also remains weak, running at a 0.5%–1% annual pace in Q1 2017 across the US, UK, Germany and Japan. This compares with a G7 average pace of 1.5% per year in 1985–2006.
• ? Overall, the risks to our baseline forecast of faster wage growth in the major economies in 2018 look skewed to the downside. We expect wage growth to firm in 2018 by 0.5–1 percentage points in the US, UK, Germany and Japan. We would give this modal forecast a probability of around 60%, but with a 25% chance that wage growth is somewhat slower than this and only a 15% chance that it is higher.

     

Will the Bank of England turn dovish?

• ? Short of a sharp slowdown in the economy and/or inflation expectations, or a no‐deal Brexit, we think that the Bank of England is unlikely to follow recent moves by the Fed and ECB in signalling cuts to interest rates.
• ? Admittedly, the BoE's guidance on rate rises has gone awry before. And the UK has some commonalities with the US and eurozone, including declining core inflation and continued job creation without inflationary consequences.
• ? But growth projections paint the UK in a relatively favourable light, while stable inflation expectations and a relaxation of fiscal austerity offer two more reasons for the BoE to plough its own, more hawkish, furrow.

     

How do on-the-job injuries and illnesses impact wealth?

This research focuses on one neglected area of workers' compensation research, the effect of injury and illness on net worth. We track participants in the NLSY79: one-third of these baby boomers were hurt at work, but 38% of them did not file for workers' compensation. We find that the typical young baby boomer who is never injured has both much higher absolute wealth and wealth growth rates than boomers who are ever injured. Regression results that control for unobserved heterogeneity suggest, however, that the injury does not predict lower wealth unless workers have reported wage losses or spells off work because of their accidents. For these employees wealth is dramatically reduced, regardless of their participation in the workers' compensation system. We also find that injured workers significantly reduce their consumption over time. These results raise new questions about the adequacy of workers' compensation benefits and the quality of jobs injured workers are able to return to. They suggest that sudden health problems caused by occupational injuries may affect more than employers' costs and individuals' incomes; they may have also wider and longer lasting consequences in term of families' wealth and well-being.     

UK inflation set to tumble below target by autumn

• ? We expect CPI inflation to slow markedly this year, dropping below the 2% target by the autumn. The inflationary impulse from the 2016 depreciation is fading and should partially reverse, while global food and energy prices are expected to stabilise. Base effects will become increasingly important.
• ? CPI inflation reached a five‐and‐a‐half‐year high of 3.1% in November, up from a little over 1% a year earlier. The 2017 pick‐up in inflation was the result of a perfect storm of a weaker pound, higher oil prices and sharp rises in domestic electricity bills. But inflation has subsequently slowed, reaching 2.5% in March. And, after a brief hiatus, we expect the downward trend to continue as we move through the year.
• ? The key driver of lower inflation will be weaker core pressures. In line with the literature, there is already evidence that the impact of sterling's depreciation is fading, and we think that the pressures could partially reverse if sterling continues to strengthen. We see little prospect of an offsetting escalation in domestic cost pressures. The recent pick‐up in wage growth has been muted and a further acceleration above 3% looks unlikely while there remains slack in the labour market.
• ? The food, petrol and energy categories contributed 0.8 ppt to CPI inflation last year, compared with a drag of 0.5 ppt in 2016, as stronger global pressures combined with the weaker pound. But as global prices have been more subdued of late, by the end of 2018, we expect these categories to be contributing 0.5 ppt to CPI inflation.
• ? The final element behind the expected slowdown in inflation is base effects. The comparison with last year's strong price pressures will depress the 2018 inflation rate, and we see the base effects being at their strongest mid‐year.
• ? We think it unlikely that such a slowdown in inflation would derail the MPC from hiking interest rates twice this year. But it could temper its hawkishness in 2019.

     

Global economy robust to higher oil,but EM vulnerable

• ? We do not envisage major central banks being pricked into deflationary action by the oil spike as there are limited concerns over a wage‐price spiral. But further rises — say to $100pb — would sour the global economy's ‘Goldilocks’ period. Vulnerable EM are the biggest concern; for some the impact is relatively large and could pile pressure on already‐strained domestic policies .
• ? A comparison with historical precedents is generally consoling. First, the price rise of 60% in the last year — though big — is only the sixth largest since 1973. Second, oil‐related global slowdowns have usually been associated with central bank hikes, which are less likely now than in past periods when inflation was less well anchored.
• ? Global implications: our baseline forecast of $80bp in H2 2018 may prompt a modest rise in non‐energy inflation and wages, and slightly weaker GDP growth. But we anticipate limited monetary policy responses. Concerns about the negative impact on activity are likely to trump fears of second‐round inflation effects.
• ? Model simulations: souring Goldilocks' porridge. Our $100pb oil simulations reveal a peak impact in 2020, knocking 0.7% off the level of global GDP. Inflation rises 1.2pp above our baseline by 2019.
• ? The recent association between strong oil and a strong dollar is unusual, but is probably not reflective of a fundamental change in the usual historic relationship (strong oil‐weak dollar).
• ? Simulations suggest EM oil importers endure the biggest hits via a (i) sharp terms of trade reversal; (ii) dollar strength; (iii) capital flows reversals; and (iv) recent reductions of oil price subsidies leaving consumers vulnerable to price increases. The most affected include already‐vulnerable economies Greece, Argentina and Turkey, as well as EM heavyweights China and India.

     

Can Germany save itself from negative rates?

• German inflation looks set to rise in response to diminishing slack in the economy. But this will be a mixed blessing for those in Germany hit by negative policy rates and ECB asset purchases. Higher German inflation may eliminate the need for further ECB policy action, but it is unlikely to trigger imminent rate hikes. As a result, the rise in inflation will merely lower real interest rates for German savers.
• Structural cross‐country differences mean that the ECB is better able to hit its inflation target when the peripheral economies rather than Germany are the region's growth engine. A key reason for this is that the German Phillips curve is flat by Eurozone standards, meaning that policymakers need to work hard to generate sufficient inflation in Germany to offset sustained weakness elsewhere.
• Despite this, there is evidence to suggest that the tightening labour market is beginning to push German wage growth higher. And if productivity growth remains subdued, this will lead to faster unit labour cost growth.
• While firms could respond by lowering their margins, the strength of household spending suggests that firms may be more inclined than in the past to pass on higher costs to consumers.
• In all, we expect German inflation to rise more sharply than elsewhere to around 2% in 2017, meaning that the ECB will not unveil further unconventional policy support. But it would take much sharper rises in German wage growth and inflation than in our baseline forecast to prompt the ECB to bring forward interest rate rises.

     

Slow but stable(ish) house price growth lies ahead

• ? UK house price growth is running out of steam. And with household incomes squeezed and the affordability of housing stretched, we think a prolonged period of very modest growth lies ahead. But the prospect of a crash is remote.
• ? At 2.6% in Q2 2017, annual house price growth is presently running at a four‐year low. This is a step change down from the recent peak of nearly 10% in mid‐2014 and average growth of 4% over the current economic expansion.
• ? Three developments are likely to lie behind this slowdown. The first is weak growth in households' real income, cutting the ability to save for a deposit or finance a move up the housing ladder. That said, past periods of sluggish income growth have not always been associated with low house price inflation.
• ? The second is the consequence of recent tax hikes imposed on buy‐to‐let investors and second‐home owners, which theory suggests should be capitalised in lower property prices.
• ? The third and perhaps most important reason is the increasing unaffordability of housing to an ever‐widening sub‐set of the population. The ratio of house prices to earnings is almost back at its pre‐crisis record. And the income of the average mortgage borrower is close to £60,000, more than double the average annual wage.
• ? This third factor has implications beyond price growth, suggesting both a permanently lower level of transactions and a further decline in the number of households with mortgages, continuing a trend which began at the beginning of the century.
• ? But set against these headwinds is the cushion provided by record lows for both mortgage rates and mortgage affordability. Overall, house prices are caught between a lack of traditional drivers of accelerating growth, but equally an absence of forces which have typically caused prices to fall. Hence, our expectation of a period of sluggish, but relatively stable, growth.

     

World Economic Prospects Monthly

Overview: Market falls overstate loss of momentum

• ? Financial market moves in recent months suggest that there is increasing concern about a substantial global growth slowdown or even a recession. But we continue to see this as an over‐reaction to the weakening economic data; while the downside risks to the global GDP growth outlook have clearly risen, our baseline forecast for 2019 is little changed at 2.7%, down from 3% in 2018.
• ? Recent economic news confirms that the Q3 economic soft patch appears to have spilled over into Q4, particularly in the industrial sector which has seen a broad‐based loss of momentum in many economies coinciding with a further slowdown in global trade growth. But while surveys of service sector activity have also moderated, the falls have been rather less abrupt, suggesting that overall global GDP growth is slowing albeit not alarmingly so.
• ? On balance, we think that the weaker data do not provide compelling evidence that global growth is slowing more sharply than our December forecast. Although the financial market sell‐off and associated tightening in financial conditions will impinge on growth, this may at least be partly offset by weaker inflation in response to lower oil prices, now seen at US$61pb in 2019. This, combined with the continued strength of labour markets and the likelihood of further moderate wage growth, points to a further period of solid household spending growth.
• ? Nonetheless, the risk of a sharper slowdown has risen. Cyclical risks have increased over the past couple of years as spare capacity has diminished. And uncertainty over the economic and financial market impact of the unwinding of central balance sheets have added to the risk of policy mistakes.
• ? Although our central view is that the recent financial market correction will not morph into something rather nastier, further sustained weakness (particularly if accompanied by dollar strength) would have more significant implications for activity and could see world growth falling below the 2016 post‐crisis low of 2.4%.

     

Soft landings: Difficult but by no means impossible

• ? Policymakers have rarely engineered soft landings, but central banks may be better placed to do so this time around. Crucially though, this relies on central banks being willing and able to use unconventional policy aggressively and China remaining the global shock‐absorber of last resort.
• ? The ability of policymakers to deliver a soft landing will depend on both cyclical and structural factors (see table below). Cyclical risks from prior over‐tightening by central banks or a burst of inflation limiting room to loosen policy seem small. The main cyclical worries currently stem from major financial market sell‐offs and balance sheet problems – and while these risks have risen, they are less of a worry than in 2007.
• ? On the structural side, less volatile activity and better data should make it quicker and easier to identify shocks than in prior decades. Meanwhile, transparent monetary policy frameworks and anchored inflation are limiting fears of inflation overshooting from constraining policy action. But some structural changes may hinder: globalisation has led to freer capital flows, which have the capacity to be destabilising and add to volatility.
• ? There are two other key uncertainties that will determine the likelihood of a gentle deceleration in growth. The first is the degree to which central banks are prepared to aggressively use unconventional policy and the effectiveness of this at delivering a boost to GDP growth. The second will be China's willingness to take growth‐boosting action. Even though Chinese policymakers may put a floor under growth, there is less chance than in the past of a large surge in imports.

     

Brexit deal and demographics drag on long-term outlook

• ▀ We have revised down our long-term forecast for GDP growth based largely on our expectation that the UK is headed for a much looser relationship with the EU. This will result in damage to trade and lower FDI inflows.
• ▀ We now expect potential output growth to slow to 1.4% a year from 2020–2030 down from 1.6% a year from 2010–2020. In the two decades after 2030 we expect the drag from Brexit-related effects to fade, but weaker contributions in labour supply and human capital will cut output growth to 1.2% a year.
• ▀ Demographics have been a key contributor to potential output growth over the past 30 years. But an ageing population and a more restrictive immigration regime are likely to mean the workforce grows far more slowly in the future.
• ▀ Our long-term growth forecast is weaker than the OBR's and implies that future governments will face a combination of disappointing growth in tax revenues and increasing demands for government spending from an ageing population.