Anyway, the picture accompanying the article is of sleeping newborn babies, which is appropriate enough, since the story appeared on Christmas Day. The subject of the article is the declining fertility of Americans, which is headed to an all-time low, dipping below replacement levels. From Barone's article:
"...That's the dominant finding from the thorough -- and alarming -- report "Declining Fertility in America" by Lyman Stone of the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies.
In recent years, demographic journalists have focused on slivers of the population -- the increasing percentages of Hispanics and Asians, the decline in births to teenage mothers, low birth rates in high-cost coastal metropolitan areas. Stone looks at the larger picture, that of total population, and finds that "the specter of low fertility, and ultimately of declining population, has come to America."
That's a different picture from that of a decade ago. Then American birthrates hovered around, and sometimes just over, replacement level. That was a vivid contrast with substantially below-replacement-level birthrates in most of Europe and Japan."
"Those birthrates were buoyed upward by immigrant mothers, after a quarter century of mass migration from Latin America, especially Mexico. But Mexican migration fell toward zero in the 2007-09 recession, and births to immigrants in the U.S. sharply declined, too."
"... And just about everyone, as Stone notes, takes the continuing sharp decline in births to teenage mothers as good news, too, considering that such children have tended to suffer negative outcomes.
But the negative outcomes of increasing infertility and eventual population decline have even greater implications. To put it bluntly: Who is going to pay for Social Security and Medicare when there are fewer working-age adults paying taxes for every oldster receiving benefits? Welfare states assume an expanding population, and America's potential parents don't seem to be providing one anymore. Why?"
"Stone rules out one cause: Surveys show that women want more children than they're having. That was probably not the case, or less so, when America's fertility rate dropped this low in the middle 1970s."
"The culprit this time is something that scarcely existed then: college student loans. The top item on Stone's list of five causes is "increased young adult debt service costs due to student loans." No. 2 is "decreasing young adult homeownership" due to higher prices and -- here it is again -- "student loans." No. 3 is "increasing years spent actively enrolled in educational institutions, which tends to reduce birth rates dramatically."
"Government efforts to encourage higher education have backfired for many intended beneficiaries. Non-graduates still have debt. Graduates with politically correct degrees can't find jobs. College costs have been inflated by administrative bloat and country club campuses. "(T)he entire educational complex is presently structured in such a way as to discourage family formation for young adults," Stone says."
"The result is "delayed marriage." This "changed marital composition explains the vast majority of changes in American fertility over the past 10 or 20 years," Stone writes."
Barone has laid out some good insights into the problem. Even though couples may want more children than they're having, they are burdened by debt, particularly student loan, and increased years enrolled in education, delaying marriage, and the birth of children; and reducing the number of them that they might have.
So one would think that in conclusion he would suggest some solutions; ways to reduce student debt, family friendly policies such as paid maternity leave, etc. Nah. He gives a hint of which direction he is going, early on, with this statement: "To put it bluntly: Who is going to pay for Social Security and Medicare when there are fewer working-age adults paying taxes for every oldster receiving benefits?" Of course it's Social Security in the crosshairs; the conservative/libertarian philosopher's stone of going after "entitlements". He takes a swipe at "welfare states", which the US is not, by most definitions. He also criticizes colleges for their role in the problem, which is in part deserved. But what in the world is a "politically correct degree"?
In conclusion he lauds Paul Ryan, "... the one politician who has worked strenuously to address such problems and at one point got all his Republican colleagues to go along with entitlement reform..." So no new ideas here to help struggling families. Just the same old one of kneecapping Social Security. Which, by the way, would be solvent if political games had not been played with it. In my opinion, articles like this are a gift to the Democrats, if they are looking for ways to appeal to young voters.
That's a different picture from that of a decade ago. Then American birthrates hovered around, and sometimes just over, replacement level. That was a vivid contrast with substantially below-replacement-level birthrates in most of Europe and Japan."
"Those birthrates were buoyed upward by immigrant mothers, after a quarter century of mass migration from Latin America, especially Mexico. But Mexican migration fell toward zero in the 2007-09 recession, and births to immigrants in the U.S. sharply declined, too."
"... And just about everyone, as Stone notes, takes the continuing sharp decline in births to teenage mothers as good news, too, considering that such children have tended to suffer negative outcomes.
But the negative outcomes of increasing infertility and eventual population decline have even greater implications. To put it bluntly: Who is going to pay for Social Security and Medicare when there are fewer working-age adults paying taxes for every oldster receiving benefits? Welfare states assume an expanding population, and America's potential parents don't seem to be providing one anymore. Why?"
"Stone rules out one cause: Surveys show that women want more children than they're having. That was probably not the case, or less so, when America's fertility rate dropped this low in the middle 1970s."
"The culprit this time is something that scarcely existed then: college student loans. The top item on Stone's list of five causes is "increased young adult debt service costs due to student loans." No. 2 is "decreasing young adult homeownership" due to higher prices and -- here it is again -- "student loans." No. 3 is "increasing years spent actively enrolled in educational institutions, which tends to reduce birth rates dramatically."
"Government efforts to encourage higher education have backfired for many intended beneficiaries. Non-graduates still have debt. Graduates with politically correct degrees can't find jobs. College costs have been inflated by administrative bloat and country club campuses. "(T)he entire educational complex is presently structured in such a way as to discourage family formation for young adults," Stone says."
"The result is "delayed marriage." This "changed marital composition explains the vast majority of changes in American fertility over the past 10 or 20 years," Stone writes."
Barone has laid out some good insights into the problem. Even though couples may want more children than they're having, they are burdened by debt, particularly student loan, and increased years enrolled in education, delaying marriage, and the birth of children; and reducing the number of them that they might have.
So one would think that in conclusion he would suggest some solutions; ways to reduce student debt, family friendly policies such as paid maternity leave, etc. Nah. He gives a hint of which direction he is going, early on, with this statement: "To put it bluntly: Who is going to pay for Social Security and Medicare when there are fewer working-age adults paying taxes for every oldster receiving benefits?" Of course it's Social Security in the crosshairs; the conservative/libertarian philosopher's stone of going after "entitlements". He takes a swipe at "welfare states", which the US is not, by most definitions. He also criticizes colleges for their role in the problem, which is in part deserved. But what in the world is a "politically correct degree"?
In conclusion he lauds Paul Ryan, "... the one politician who has worked strenuously to address such problems and at one point got all his Republican colleagues to go along with entitlement reform..." So no new ideas here to help struggling families. Just the same old one of kneecapping Social Security. Which, by the way, would be solvent if political games had not been played with it. In my opinion, articles like this are a gift to the Democrats, if they are looking for ways to appeal to young voters.
I agree that the demographic problem is real.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's time to revisit the idea that primary education is only for 12 (or, I guess including kindergarten, 13) years? If a high school diploma doesn't prepare our children for productive and self-sustaining adulthood, then - that's sort of a fail, isn't it? I'd think that, by definition, primary education should prepare students for that sort of productivity and self-sufficiency. The implication is that young adults need more schooling, and society, i.e. the government, should pay for it instead of saddling our children with debt.
And at the risk of touching the third rail: surely the primary long-term reason that birth rates have fallen is cheap and plentiful contraception. Just putting on my economics hat for a moment: if policymakers want to increase the birthrate (and I guess one of Barone's points is that, if they don't, they should), then policymakers can make it equally as expensive to be childless as to have children. Instead of seeking to tax soda pop, maybe the government should tax birth control.
Barone does point out in his article that most people see the trend of fewer teenagers having babies as a good thing. I would personally prefer that to be because they had good moral formation rather than ready access to contraception, but I'm a realist. I guess I see making contraception more expensive as a non-starter. I think it is more productive to work in favor of making it easier for people who want to start families to do so.
DeleteBTW, I think you are right that it's a fail if 13 years of education don't at least prepare people to be able to support themselves. The British and European education systems do it differently; I don't know if their results are better or worse.
The Atlantic ran a cover story earlier this month, which Katherine's post just prompted me to read through (it's pretty lengthy, but also pretty interesting) on the somewhat disturbing trend that young people these days seem to be having considerably less sex than, say, my generation did when it was young. The author looks at a number of possible explanations. Sort of makes me glad I'm not young anymore.
Deletehttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/
Jim, I read that article too. It made it sound as if for many young people sex is, um, a do-it-yourself project, thanks to internet porn. Which doesn't bode well for demographics or real time relationships.
DeleteKatherine, there were quite a few things in that article that sort of blew my mind, but the one that I can't get past is that it seems that young people literally don't know how to ask one another on dates anymore. As I have no problem talking with people, even strangers, I have a hard time wrapping my head around that.
DeleteAlthough - believe me - nobody was more awkward than me at asking women on dates when I was a young adult. I was always floored when a girl agreed. But I sort of figured it out, and was lucky enough to ask young women who were patient and good-humored.
One positive thing now is that it's okay for girls to ask guys out. When I was young you had to go through all kinds of gyrations to get the message to a boy that you would like him to ask you out. It helped if there was a mutual friend to drop some broad hints for you.
DeleteIt's my opinion that the earth's population needs to decrease to a more sustainable and constant level. But a population crash is not good, as the Japan situation shows. Why was the Japanese population decreasing already while their economy was in full bloom? Doesn't one have to believe that life is worthwhile and not just a treadmill? At the other end of the economic spectrum are the Greeks who are really crashing. In the meantime, world population is still increasing probably due to people liking sex, the oldest reason. I have no offspring but if I had grandchildren now, I'd be worrying about how they would fare in neoliberal Pottersville on the brink of ecological collapse and climate catastrophe. I think the human race will survive though extinction is not out of the question. But how many? I have no idea. As for the present situation, I think the elderly in a shifting demographic and everyone else can be better cared for if we cut back on the imperial military. In this, I agree with Patrick Shannon even as my career was spent supporting the military.
ReplyDeleteI use the term "neoliberal Pottersville" instead of "Repub Pottersville" because a large part of the Democratic Party elected are neoliberal. Witness the Democratic blowback against Ocasio and Sanders. They are desperate to neutralize them.
Delete"I think the human race will survive though extinction is not out of the question." Scripture is pretty plain that there will be an end of time as we know it at some point. Meanwhile we have to keep on keeping on. I do have grandchildren and I don't worry, though I pray for them all the time. You can't spend time around children and not have hope.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWho is going to pay for the Social Security of the declining white folks' population? The children of hardworking brown folks the current administration is trying to keep away from our doors. Yet another example of Republican screwUism: Give up your retirement so we can keep Others out. But where there's a wall, there's a way. Ask Egon Krenz, the kind of guy Trump loves to do business with.
ReplyDeleteStudent loans are another example: Far be it for the federal government to help young people get a complete education if grifter and grafter banks are not cut in on fat profits that are available from student loans under bipartisan ScredUism. Of course if America ever gave a rat's ear about its bright young youth the school day and year as we know it would have been thrown out with the crank car starter. What I can understand is how the home building industry let the banks get away with it. I guess somebody has to keep dumb lobbyists in Washington.
Tom, that thought occurred to me too, that the very people they are obsessing to keep out may be the ones who could help balance the Social Security equation.
Delete"Where there's a wall, there's a way..." The biggest wall I know of is now an archeological curiosity and tourist trap. I don't know how many Mongols it ever kept out.
What I CAN'T understand is how the home building industry let the banks get away with it. I guess somebody has to keep dumb lobbyists in Washington
ReplyDeleteI like to remind my fellow Caucasian oldsters that when they need their diapers changed, butts wiped, meals fed to them and general overall care provided by someone else, the chance that will happen by another Caucasian (except in certain rare areas where a non-Caucasian is not to be seen anywhere) is slim to none. Be nice to "those people" because you will very soon be very dependent on them for virtually everything in your time and space limited lives.
ReplyDelete