The Fort Worth Press - Latin America’s age trap

USD -
AED 3.673042
AFN 65.000368
ALL 82.050403
AMD 367.380403
ANG 1.790403
AOA 918.000367
ARS 1487.484504
AUD 1.438342
AWG 1.8
AZN 1.70397
BAM 1.711104
BBD 2.014725
BDT 123.291207
BGN 1.69088
BHD 0.37707
BIF 2985
BMD 1
BND 1.291257
BOB 6.923833
BRL 5.122804
BSD 1.000276
BTN 95.289131
BWP 13.527665
BYN 2.859418
BYR 19600
BZD 2.011811
CAD 1.414715
CDF 2258.000362
CHF 0.80843
CLF 0.023501
CLP 924.910396
CNY 6.77695
CNH 6.781985
COP 3253.1
CRC 455.032612
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 96.903894
CZK 21.237604
DJF 177.720393
DKK 6.547704
DOP 58.703884
DZD 133.20304
EGP 49.611604
ERN 15
ETB 159.37504
EUR 0.87595
FJD 2.232704
FKP 0.745889
GBP 0.74635
GEL 2.640391
GGP 0.745889
GHS 11.46504
GIP 0.745889
GMD 73.503851
GNF 8777.503848
GTQ 7.632579
GYD 209.249425
HKD 7.840655
HNL 26.87504
HRK 6.598304
HTG 130.910459
HUF 311.66704
IDR 18067.2
ILS 3.010904
IMP 0.745889
INR 95.412304
IQD 1310.5
IRR 1374750.000352
ISK 125.603814
JEP 0.745889
JMD 158.048994
JOD 0.70904
JPY 161.692504
KES 129.220385
KGS 87.448804
KHR 4010.00035
KMF 431.00035
KPW 900.00035
KRW 1501.390383
KWD 0.30956
KYD 0.833548
KZT 471.568117
LAK 22550.000349
LBP 89550.000349
LKR 335.597832
LRD 181.625039
LSL 16.320381
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 6.405039
MAD 9.355039
MDL 17.579053
MGA 4295.000347
MKD 53.985522
MMK 2099.308371
MNT 3585.696251
MOP 8.076444
MRU 40.075039
MUR 47.150378
MVR 15.460378
MWK 1736.000345
MXN 17.480775
MYR 4.073904
MZN 63.903729
NAD 16.320377
NGN 1378.410377
NIO 36.655039
NOK 9.780376
NPR 152.453273
NZD 1.734955
OMR 0.384484
PAB 1.000262
PEN 3.401039
PGK 4.37975
PHP 61.550504
PKR 278.175038
PLN 3.79105
PYG 6081.391432
QAR 3.646704
RON 4.584404
RSD 102.790373
RUB 77.000311
RWF 1466.5
SAR 3.753815
SBD 8.065041
SCR 14.724861
SDG 600.503676
SEK 9.66049
SGD 1.291704
SHP 0.746601
SLE 24.350371
SLL 20969.503664
SOS 571.503662
SRD 37.610504
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.6
SVC 8.752483
SYP 110.532098
SZL 16.330369
THB 33.302504
TJS 9.257824
TMT 3.51
TND 2.94375
TOP 2.40776
TRY 46.983104
TTD 6.79618
TWD 32.120304
TZS 2630.003038
UAH 44.5007
UGX 3680.71322
UYU 40.332811
UZS 12015.000334
VES 699.349604
VND 26267.5
VUV 120.437365
WST 2.769308
XAF 573.893149
XAG 0.01678
XAU 0.000244
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.802808
XDR 0.713149
XOF 572.503593
XPF 104.825037
YER 237.103589
ZAR 16.316204
ZMK 9001.203584
ZMW 18.030621
ZWL 321.999592
  • RBGPF

    5.8500

    67.35

    +8.69%

  • CMSC

    0.0800

    22.1

    +0.36%

  • RIO

    1.3700

    90.86

    +1.51%

  • GSK

    0.2800

    52.75

    +0.53%

  • BTI

    0.0349

    60.07

    +0.06%

  • CMSD

    0.0900

    22.4

    +0.4%

  • BCE

    0.0870

    21.407

    +0.41%

  • NGG

    0.4200

    82.74

    +0.51%

  • RELX

    0.4250

    32.495

    +1.31%

  • BCC

    3.8000

    76.04

    +5%

  • RYCEF

    0.0000

    19.25

    0%

  • AZN

    -6.0900

    172.4

    -3.53%

  • BP

    0.4700

    39.02

    +1.2%

  • JRI

    0.0000

    13.03

    0%

  • VOD

    1.6550

    14.735

    +11.23%


Latin America’s age trap




Latin America has spent generations thinking of demography as a problem of abundance. Governments built schools for swelling classes, cities spread to absorb millions of new residents, and economists worried about whether jobs, housing and food production could keep pace with a rapidly expanding population. That assumption now belongs to the past. The region is entering an era in which there will be fewer children, a slower-growing workforce and many more older people, and the transition is unfolding far faster than most political systems are prepared to admit.

The shift is already measurable. Fertility in Latin America has fallen to about 1.8 children per woman and has remained below the replacement level of 2.1 since 2015. The Caribbean is lower still, at roughly 1.5. In 2024, Latin America and the Caribbean had about 663 million inhabitants, nearly 26 million fewer than projections made at the beginning of the century had anticipated. The population is now expected to peak at about 730 million in 2053 before beginning a long decline.

A peak in the middle of the century does not sound like an immediate emergency. That is precisely why the risk is easy to underestimate. Demographic crises rarely arrive as a single shock. They emerge through thousands of local changes: maternity wards with fewer patients, primary schools with empty desks, small towns losing young adults, companies unable to recruit skilled staff, pension systems collecting too little and families trying to care for elderly relatives with fewer hands available.

Latin America does not yet have the lowest fertility in the world, and it is not yet the oldest region. Parts of East Asia have much lower birth rates, while Europe already has a substantially larger elderly population. The reason Latin America’s predicament could prove harsher is the sequence in which the change is occurring. The region is ageing before it has become broadly prosperous, before much of its workforce has entered formal employment and before durable welfare states have been built. Europe grew old after decades of industrialisation, capital accumulation and the expansion of tax-funded social protection. Several East Asian economies face extreme demographic contraction, but many entered it with high savings, advanced infrastructure, strong education systems and highly productive firms. Latin America is approaching the same pressure with weak productivity growth, deeply unequal access to public services, fragile fiscal positions and labour markets in which informality remains normal rather than exceptional.

The speed of the transformation leaves little room for complacency. In 1950, about 41 per cent of the region’s population was under the age of 15. By 2024, that share had fallen to 22.5 per cent. In the same year, roughly 65 million people were aged 65 or older, representing 9.9 per cent of the population. By 2050, that group is projected to reach about 138 million and almost 19 per cent of the total. The median age, just 18 in 1950, reached 31 in 2024 and is expected to approach 40 by mid-century.

This is not simply a story about people refusing to have children. Much of the fertility decline reflects social progress. Infant mortality has fallen, contraception has become more accessible, women have gained education and economic independence, and adolescent pregnancy has declined sharply. Families no longer need many births to ensure that several children survive to adulthood. Women are also more able to decide whether and when motherhood fits their lives.

The trouble is that institutions have not adapted to the freedom and expectations of modern adulthood. In many cities, secure housing is expensive, formal jobs are scarce, commuting is exhausting and childcare is limited. Parenthood can carry a severe career penalty, especially for women, while domestic and caring responsibilities remain distributed unequally. Young adults often spend years moving between temporary work, informal employment and dependence on relatives before they feel able to form a household.

Low fertility therefore reflects both choice and constraint. Some people do not want children. Others want fewer than previous generations. Many would like to become parents but postpone the decision because the economic and practical conditions never appear sufficiently stable. The postponement of first births explains part of the fall, but not all of it. Completed family size is also declining, meaning that later births are not fully compensating for those deferred in early adulthood.

Chile offers one of the clearest warnings. Its fertility rate fell to about 1.03 children per woman in 2024, below Japan’s level and dramatically lower than it had been only a decade earlier. Uruguay now records far fewer births than deaths. Cuba is losing population through the combined effects of low fertility, ageing and large-scale emigration. Brazil and Mexico still have enormous populations, but their national size conceals shrinking school cohorts and ageing communities across many states and municipalities. Central America remains younger on average, yet fertility there is falling rapidly as well.

The economic consequences will not be determined by headcounts alone. A smaller workforce can support a larger retired population if each worker becomes more productive, if more women enter well-paid employment, if healthy older people remain active and if technology raises output. Demographic decline is not an automatic sentence to recession. It becomes dangerous when productivity stagnates and institutions fail to mobilise the people who are already present.

Latin America enters this test with a serious structural weakness. Nearly 47 per cent of employed people were working informally in the first half of 2025. Among young workers, the share was about 56 per cent. Informal work often means low and unstable earnings, limited training, weak legal protection and irregular or nonexistent pension contributions. It also narrows the tax base from which governments must finance health care, pensions and long-term support. For decades, a relatively large working-age population offered the region a demographic dividend. There were more potential workers in relation to children and older dependants, creating an opportunity for faster growth and higher savings. Yet a dividend is only an opportunity, not a guarantee. Much of it was consumed during years of modest investment, unequal education and poor productivity. The favourable age structure is now beginning to close before the region has completed the economic transformation it was supposed to finance.

The labour force will continue to grow for some time at regional level, but more slowly and with an older profile. Young cohorts entering employment will become smaller. Employers will face recruitment problems in areas that require technical skills, health professionals, teachers and care workers. Rural districts and smaller cities may lose working-age residents even while major metropolitan areas remain crowded. National averages will therefore hide acute local decline.

Ageing will also expose the weaknesses of pension systems designed around continuous formal employment. The basic arithmetic is unforgiving. More people will draw benefits for longer periods, while growth in the number of contributors will slow. Yet raising contribution rates, reducing benefits or delaying retirement is politically difficult in societies where many people already receive inadequate support and where physically demanding work makes longer careers unrealistic.

Pension coverage has expanded, including through non-contributory schemes, but adequacy remains a major problem. Around 43 per cent of older people receive pension income that is insufficient to meet minimum consumption needs. Roughly a quarter of people aged 65 and over were still participating in the labour market in 2024. For some, work in later life is a welcome source of purpose and income. For many others, it is not active ageing but economic necessity.

Health systems face a related challenge. Longer lives are a major achievement, but longevity does not automatically mean more years in good health. Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and disability will demand sustained treatment, rehabilitation and assistance with daily life. Systems that remain divided between public programmes, employment-based insurance and private provision often deliver fragmented care precisely when older patients need continuity.

The most immediate strain may appear not in hospitals or treasury accounts but inside homes. Long-term care remains limited or absent in much of the region, so families provide most assistance to elderly and disabled relatives. Women perform a disproportionate share of this work, often reducing paid hours or leaving employment altogether. That response becomes less viable as families become smaller, adult children migrate and more women participate in the labour market.

The region’s need for professional long-term care workers could nearly triple by 2050. Without planning, the result will be a severe shortage of trained staff, a larger burden on unpaid carers and widening inequality between households that can purchase private support and those that cannot. A demographic model built on the assumption that daughters and daughters-in-law will provide unlimited free care is already breaking down.

Migration complicates the picture. Latin America is simultaneously a region of emigration, immigration and large movements within its own borders. The departure of young adults can accelerate ageing in countries and communities of origin, leaving older relatives behind and draining scarce professional skills. Remittances may protect household incomes, but money sent from abroad cannot provide daily physical care.

For receiving countries, migration can slow workforce decline and bring younger taxpayers into the system. It is not, however, a demographic switch that governments can simply turn on. Migrants need legal status, housing, language support where relevant, recognition of qualifications and access to formal employment. Poor integration can reproduce the same informality that already weakens public finances. Migration can redistribute population across the region, but it cannot reverse low fertility everywhere at once.

Political incentives may make preparation harder. Older voters will form a growing share of electorates and will understandably defend pensions, health services and financial security. Younger households will demand affordable housing, education, childcare and better employment. Governments with limited revenue may present these needs as a competition between generations. That would be a costly mistake. Families span generations, and underinvestment in children today produces less productive workers and weaker pension finances tomorrow. The decline in the number of children also creates an opportunity. Smaller cohorts make it possible to spend more effectively on each child, improve early development, repair weak schools and expand technical education. A country with fewer young people cannot afford to waste their potential through poor teaching, malnutrition, violence or exclusion from employment. Human capital must replace population growth as the main engine of expansion.

Policy should begin by abandoning the illusion that a cash payment for each birth can restore the family patterns of the twentieth century. One-off bonuses may change the timing of some births, but they do not resolve insecure work, expensive housing, inadequate childcare or the unequal division of care. Coercive or moralising pronatalism is even more dangerous. It treats women’s autonomy as the problem while ignoring the economic conditions that make desired parenthood difficult.

A more credible family policy would make having children compatible with a modern life. That means reliable childcare, paid leave for both mothers and fathers, protection against workplace discrimination, predictable hours, affordable housing and reproductive health services. It also means reducing the burden of care that falls on women. Supporting families is not the same as demanding larger families. The objective should be to close the gap between the number of children people want and the number they believe they can responsibly raise.

The second priority is productivity and formalisation. Governments need tax and social insurance systems that make formal employment easier for small firms and portable for workers who change jobs. Better technical education, digital infrastructure, access to finance and competition can help productive businesses expand. Higher female employment would soften workforce decline, but only if jobs provide sufficient pay and if childcare and eldercare are available.

Pension reform must combine financial sustainability with social legitimacy. A universal floor can protect older people from poverty, while contributory benefits should reward formal work without excluding those whose careers were interrupted by unemployment, care or informality. Retirement ages may need gradual adjustment as healthy life expectancy rises, but rules should recognise differences in health, occupation and lifetime income. A construction worker and an office professional cannot be treated as though ageing affects them in the same way.

Health policy must move towards prevention, primary care and the management of chronic disease long before old age. Long-term care should be treated as essential social infrastructure rather than a private family matter. Training carers, setting quality standards, supporting home and community services and giving respite to family members would create employment while allowing more women to remain in paid work.

Older workers will also need a different labour market. Lifelong learning, flexible hours, anti-discrimination rules and adapted workplaces can help people remain productive voluntarily. The purpose is not to compel everyone to work indefinitely. It is to remove barriers that force capable people out while protecting those whose health or occupations make continued employment unreasonable.

Latin America still has time, but not much. The region remains younger than Europe, and its total labour force has not yet begun a broad decline. That creates a final window in which reforms can be introduced before fiscal pressure intensifies. Waiting until the 2040s would mean attempting to build care systems, repair pensions and raise productivity after the ratio of workers to older dependants has already deteriorated sharply. The demographic crisis could become the worst of all not because Latin America will necessarily have the fewest babies or the oldest citizens, but because it risks combining rapid ageing with unfinished development. The decisive variable is no longer fertility alone. It is institutional readiness.

A smaller and older population need not be poorer, lonelier or less dynamic. It can be healthier, more productive and better educated. Reaching that outcome requires governments to treat demography as a central economic issue rather than a distant social trend. Latin America does not need to force people to have children. It needs to make ordinary adulthood viable, parenthood compatible with aspiration and old age secure. Demography is not destiny, but prolonged political delay can make it feel like one.