Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I watched a video today about the plight of young people in Spain. The summary is that the baby boom generation there is the largest, and has tilted the playing field in its direction such that the Spanish welfare state, instead of redistributing wealth from rich to poor, redistributes wealth from young to old.
(Apologize for the jumpy editing, but the message is on point.)
The same story is being repeated in countries like Italy, Greece, Portugal, Japan, Korea, Turkey, basically anywhere where the old outnumber the young and control the political process.
One of the commenters had it right, saying (I paraphrase) that this is how democracies respond to declining birthrates.
I’ll focus now on Ben Wattenerg, a demographer for whom birth rates were an area of interest. Wattenberg was a Democrat, working for Lyndon Johnson and then other DEMs. He had a long relationship with the center-right American Enterprise Institute (AEI) which advocates in favor of private enterprise, limited government and democratic capitalism. Of note, the AEI promoted “supply side” economics, aka trickle down. Though a DEM, via the AEI Ben Watterberg hung out with some very hard right personalities like Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, et al. A key goal of the AEI and the U.S.Chamber of Commerce is a 3% growth rate for the U. S. economy for the sake of ever-expanding corporate profits, thus birth rates are of vital concern to their interests.
Wattenberg’s 2003 book “Fewer” wasn’t his first on this topic.
In 1987 he authored a book The Birth Dearth, What Happens When People in Free Countries Don’t Have Enough Babies.” It is out of print but available on line at The Internet Archive.
Considered racist, Birth Dearth speculates by aiming to quantify the risks to America and the west (economically, militarily, culturally, and spiritually) of not reproducing at replacement level. Essentially, the entire book hinges on the fear of "Western Values” (aka white supremacy) losing its power. He believed that by 2100, the western industrialized nations will make up about 5% of the world population, whereas second and third-world countries would be the overwhelming majority. Without demographic power, the Western values that have pulled the world into the modern era will be lost. With 1980s data Wattenberg extrapolates what the case will be 120 years in the future; man, that's some hutzpah for anyone to speculate.
"Somewhere toward the end of ''The Birth Dearth,'' there is a cartoon of a woman running her hand through her hair, mournfully announcing,''I can't believe it. I forgot to have children!’' This absent-minded woman, this white, middle-class, educated American of childbearing age is the primary culprit of Ben Wattenberg's new book. She is the woman who left the six-pack of children off her life's shopping list until it was too late. Women like her, women who have less than their share of children, are not just involved in personal dramas. They are, in his view, responsible for the impending population decline and political fall of the entire Western world. … In the early 20th century, when American women first started on the path of higher education and lower fertility, there was a similar national concern about something called ''racial suicide.'' The concern in those days was that the Americans of Northwest European stock would be overrun by teeming masses arriving from such dubious genetic pools as Italy, Russia, Greece.”
For whatever reason Wattenberg focuses on how to pay for the militarism he feels is key to maintaining power and security. So, his big worry is that a shrinking pool of taxpayers can no longer ''support the defense systems which are the basis of national power and security?” The cost of empire isn't cheap, so y'all get busy pumping out babies. To his credit he propounds a set of financial incentives for the middle class (i.e., whites) to support having families but precious little has been allocated by Congress and with the gridlock we now have there's little chance of that ever happening as the GOP will use the filibuster to kill any such thing (to do so would also benefit non-whites and enrage the GOP base). This is nothing new, even during the Great Depression the GOP refused to help the unemployed and it wasn't until the GOP was swept aside in 1932 that FDR was able to put people to work building roads and waterway projects that we still use today.
The term “Racial Suicide” goes back to about 1900 and found quick traction. From Wiki: “In 1902, US President Theodore Roosevelt called race suicide "fundamentally infinitely more important than any other question in this country" and argued that "the man or woman who deliberately avoids marriage, and has a heart so cold as to know no passion and a brain so shallow and selfish as to dislike having children, is in effect a criminal against the race, and should be an object of contemptuous abhorrence by all healthy people.” Likewise, in 1905, he argued that a man or woman who is childless by choice "merits contempt."
I could go back much further but suffice to say the fear of losing power, the fear of being replaced by “others” has been around a long time and continues as part of the basis for hand wringing over a decline in world population, as well as a decline in corporate profits.
Next I'll focus on the spate of current articles on the Baby Bust / Birth Dearth that have been all the rage.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 06-07-2022 at 08:50 AM..
Hard to see how immigrants who don't know each others and who are from from dozens of countries can "take a country over and make it theirs". They may form pockets or enclaves but take over the country?... I would think so. Especially given our population of 320M people and our constitution.
Immigrants are important, I think, especially the ones who are qualified and prepared to work. America spends $12,700 per year per kideducating those who graduate from high school. We should jump at the chance to get someone already educated, but that means an overhaul of immigration policy to the point that ID cards are issued at the border after a background check. Congress so far has no will to do it properly.
America will remain the destination of choice for immigrants, just as it always has. As a result, our workforce is expected to grow as the workforce in China, Russia, and Europe begins to shrink.
Africa and the Middle East will grow organically, because of high indigenous birth rates.
The U.S. and Canada, and to a lesser extent Australia, will grow mainly from immigration; native birth rates are stagnant.
The dramatic differences in economic power between these regions comes from the energy and drive of immigrants. Huge families in African villages that can barely afford to feed even half the people do not drive economic and scientific advancement, and in fact they tend to impoverish and destabilize the country.
Energetic immigrants striving to "make it" in developed regions, who tend to have large families and push their children to excel, do drive economic advancement, particularly in the U.S. where the entire system is "programmed" to accept and absorb immigrants.
Immigration is our country's lifeblood and will continue to keep the U.S. on top, even though China appears to be rising in dominance. But China's population is imploding, even worse than projected just a few years ago, exacerbated by the pandemic and incompetent government policies. What's more, China's growth is based on copying and extending American tech, then selling it back to us. China is effectively America's colonial outpost for dirty factories.
When the Americans find a way to re-home manufacturing, via A.I. and automation, 3-D printing, smarter tax policies etc., China will be skrewd and I think we will see an accelerated decline even as the U.S. rebounds.
End-of-century projections have the U.S. at a thriving 500 million, China at a dying 800 million, Japan at 50 million, S. Korea at 20 million (those two countries effectively turned into cultural museums).
Europe will probably hold steady or grow, thanks 99% to Afro-Middle Eastern immigrants. However its cultural identity will be completely replaced.
Many good postings earlier in the thread on the fertility rate so I wanted to dig into that a bit.
Definition of Fertility Rate: "The total fertility rate in a specific year is defined as the total number of children that would be born to each woman if she were to live to the end of her child-bearing years ...."
I found a reference chart that is worth a look as it shows U.S. fertility rates back to 1950, early in the Baby Boom of 1946-1964. It has both a graph and a table listing, plus a listing of how the USA compares to a short list of 60 nations.
For sheer data overload, here's a chart of fertility rates for all nations, 1950-2015. The data is also organized by region, as well as each individual nation.
Peak year of the Baby Boom was 1958 at a fertility rate of 3.582 after which the rate steadily fell until 1978 at a fertility rate of 1.772 and went mostly into a relatively steady state for 44 years until the present day where we have a fertility rate of 1.782 today.
The Roe v Wade decision in 1973 apparently had no effect of the trajectory of the fertility rate, it stayed on a steady decline, bottoming in 1978 at a rate of 1.772.
From the 1978 rate of 1.772 the rate rose a bit to 2.030 in 1993 and stayed in that range until the Great Recession hit us in 2008 at a rate of 2.055 and started a notable decline to 1.776 in 2018. The loss of job security derived from that financial debacle, and the millions of homes foreclosed, clobbered the desire and ability of many couples to start or enlarge a family.
1950s: Clinical trials on the pill begin. Researchers conclude the pill successfully prevents ovulation. 1957: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves Enovid, the first birth control pill, with a catch — it’s only approved to treat severe or painful periods. The label warns that taking the pill will have a contraceptive effect. Unsurprisingly, more and more women begin to report menstruation problems and request a prescription for the pill.
1960: The FDA approves the pill for the purposes of birth control.
In 1957 "the pill" was approved, women began using it, and 1958 was peak fertility, downhill from there, all the way from 1958 to 1978.
So, what else was happening during those years that might have had some impact on fertility rates:
- The post-WW2 era saw a final recovery from the Great Depression and the war, birth rates shot up (until 1958 and the pill) and a relative prosperity took hold. Tax rates were high on the upper brackets and that money was used to fund the Interstate Highway System and the cold war military which provided well paying jobs to millions of bread winners. Millions of soldiers took advantage of the G.I.Bill to get college educations which supported a broad business expansion, decent jobs and supported family growth. By the mid to late 1950s these men were increasingly successful and started families.
- Vietnam war, mostly 1964-1972, kept millions of men away from home, which coupled with The Pill supported the decline in fertility rates to 1978 seen in the graph.
- Periods of Recession, 1969-1970 and 1973-1975 no doubt had a dampening effects on fertility rates to 1978 seen in the graph.
- Women entering college. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was amended with Title IX in 1972 to prevent discrimination against women in college admissions. Women are now the majority of college students. I remember wearing an E-R-A bracelet in 1972 to pass the Equal Rights Act so women could gain educations and get good jobs as I had 3 sisters I wanted to see prosper.
- Women entering the workforce in large numbers. Liberated by The Pill, women began entering the workforce. In 1950, women were 28.6% of the workforce (17.3M) and now are 47% of the workforce (75.5M). The rise of women in the workforce has been steady and a self-reinforcing trend aided by The Pill and their peer group.
So, it's been a long road to get here but we are nearing an era where the population may stabilize.
Some inferences I can draw is that women have always wanted to reduce their burdens from multiple pregnancies, birthing and child rearing. They are taking advantage of passive birth control to that end, a trend we are seeing the world over in steadily declining birth rates. Climate change and income inequality provide strong dis-incentives to family creation.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 06-08-2022 at 07:46 PM..
..............So, it's been a long road to get here but we are nearing an era where the population may stabilize...........
Can it stabilize? And why would it do so?
All the data you referred to shows a steadily decreasing TFR. It has now decreased to the point that it is normal for developed countries to have a TFR of less than 2.1.
Why will the TFR go up? We know why it has gone down, but I have found no source that could tell me why the world wide TFR will ever go up.
Basically, it seems, the normal progress of civilization causes the TFR to drop.
Can it stabilize? And why would it do so?
All the data you referred to shows a steadily decreasing TFR. It has now decreased to the point that it is normal for developed countries to have a TFR of less than 2.1.
Why will the TFR go up? We know why it has gone down, but I have found no source that could tell me why the world wide TFR will ever go up.
Basically, it seems, the normal progress of civilization causes the TFR to drop.
Yes, it can stabilize, and continues to head that way.
It will stabilize as people the world over are better educated, understand the economics of raising children, understand how the economics of the oligarchs work against them, and have better access to family planning products.
IMO the TFR will not increase unless there's a major change in how wealth is distributed to where people feel they can afford to have children and have long-term confidence that sufficient work/finances will be available to them. I don't see this happening.
Yes, the normal progress of civilization causes the TFR to drop for many reasons, starting with the reasons I often trot out which are that:
- mechanization of farm work makes large agrarian families obsolete;
- mechanization of construction work makes armies of pick and shovel manual labor obsolete;
- continual efficiencies in industrial manufacturing (robots, etc) makes large factory labor pools obsolete;
- continual efficiencies in software, communications and automation makes large office labor pools obsolete;
- the beat goes on . . . .
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
There is another thing, I don't remember if I mentioned it before, Mike, but if I were facing a decision about family planning you bet your backside it would be on my mind...
School shootings.
You couple that with the economics that make it really hard (or impossible) to make it with a single earner household, AND make it so that most cannot afford anything other than public school, and then overlay that with stories of schoolchildren being massacred, and how many years have gone by with it not getting any better, but getting worse?... That's a LOT, and I don't think I'd take it on.
I mean, I did not feel good about the basic fact of how just your run of the mill bullies made my public school experience less than stellar and I worried about my kids just having to deal with...school being school... But this? This is another level.
Yes, it can stabilize, and continues to head that way.
It will stabilize as people the world over are better educated, understand the economics of raising children, understand how the economics of the oligarchs work against them, and have better access to family planning products.
IMO the TFR will not increase unless there's a major change in how wealth is distributed to where people feel they can afford to have children and have long-term confidence that sufficient work/finances will be available to them. I don't see this happening.
Yes, the normal progress of civilization causes the TFR to drop for many reasons, starting with the reasons I often trot out which are that:
- mechanization of farm work makes large agrarian families obsolete;
- mechanization of construction work makes armies of pick and shovel manual labor obsolete;
- continual efficiencies in industrial manufacturing (robots, etc) makes large factory labor pools obsolete;
- continual efficiencies in software, communications and automation makes large office labor pools obsolete;
- the beat goes on . . . .
I guess I am not following.
The world wide TFR right now is too low. So the population will decline. Sooner or later it will decline.
So why are you saying population is headed toward stabilization? According to demographers the three factors resulting in a lower TFR are:
* Emancipation of women, who become free to pursue careers.
* Urbanization of families, who migrate to areas where it is costly to raise children.
* Decline of religion.
None of those factors are being reversed.
I guess I am not following.
The world wide TFR right now is too low. So the population will decline. Sooner or later it will decline.
So why are you saying population is headed toward stabilization? According to demographers the three factors resulting in a lower TFR are:
* Emancipation of women, who become free to pursue careers.
* Urbanization of families, who migrate to areas where it is costly to raise children.
* Decline of religion.
None of those factors are being reversed.
Agree, those three factors will remain and probably continue. I'm rooting for more emancipation of women and huge declines in religion.
The population hasn't stabilized yet, it's still growing, but it's heading towards stabilizing and will at some point. The population may remain stable or it may decline. I'm hoping for a steady and gentle but definite decline.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Agree, those three factors will remain and probably continue. I'm rooting for more emancipation of women and huge declines in religion.
The population hasn't stabilized yet, it's still growing, but it's heading towards stabilizing and will at some point. The population may remain stable or it may decline. I'm hoping for a steady and gentle but definite decline.
Gotcha.
We are on different pages in that respect. I do not believe population will stabilize. I believe it will nose over and plunge, but I really have no idea how far. There were an estimated 1B people in the world in 1800. My own feeling is that we will see that 1B mark again before the next 200 years has passed.
I share your vision concerning women and religion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Birth Dearth / Baby Bust / Ben Wattenberg
