FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  »Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: Attack on women-birthrate and the economy
Goto page 1, 2  Next
  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

U.S. Birthrate Falls -- Again - Forbes
www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/01/28/u-s-birthrate-falls...

Jan 28, 2015 ... And the crude birthrate—the number of births each year per thousand women ... of how many children a woman would bear over a lifetime if she experienced fertility rates at ... So where will America's birthrate go from here?
Post Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:28 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Arts & Letters
Jan 28, 2015 @ 10:30 AM 40,720 views

U.S. Birthrate Falls -- Again

Neil Howe ,

Contributor

I cover the big picture--generations, economics, demography, & culture

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Many believed that when the U.S. birthrate held steady in 2012, we had finally seen its nadir. But according to the NCHS, the birthrate again dropped to a historic low in 2013—disappointing a whole industry of forecasters waiting for a strong rebound. Some say that this is just a temporary setback, and look for gains in employment and wages to push fertility back up in the near future—like they have following other recessions. Yet others argue that a birthrate recovery will be more complicated, citing longstanding, non-economic drivers as the main culprit. The truth—and the key to future recovery—probably lies somewhere in between.

Birthrates have fallen across the board. The absolute number of births fell by 20,000 from 2012 to 2013, even as the number of women in their prime childrearing years (ages 20-39) continued growing. And the crude birthrate—the number of births each year per thousand women ages 15-44—fell to 62.5 in 2013, the lowest level ever recorded. Though not at a similar record low, the total fertility rate (a calculation of how many children a woman would bear over a lifetime if she experienced fertility rates at every age in the current year) fell to 1.87—the lowest we’ve seen since 1986.
Absolute Number of Births Per Year (2000-2013)

Absolute Number of Births Per Year (2000-2013)

What concerns experts is not the fall itself, but the fact that it accelerated when we were supposedly experiencing an economic recovery. In 2008, birthrates began falling dramatically before bottoming out in 2011. However, the numbers largely leveled off in 2012, leading many to believe that a rise was imminent and that birthrates would recover steadily along with the economy. But now, even as the economy shows modest signs of improvement, birthrates have dropped yet again.

The continuing decline may indicate that the economic recovery, such as it is, isn’t affecting women of childbearing age. Despite aggregate economic growth, the average GDP per worker has risen faster than the average wage. And the average wage is rising faster than the median wage, the measure relevant to the most people. What’s more, median wages for the vast majority of new mothers have been particularly hurt: Early-wave Millennials and early-wave Xers experienced the largest median wage declines of any age group—and late-wave Xers’ median wages increased by a paltry 0.1%.

Further evidence of the link between income and fertility is news that the birthrate of immigrants fell the most of all subgroups in 2013. The crude Hispanic birthrate fell 2% from 2012 to 2013, the largest decline among any ethnic group. To be sure, this group’s birthrate was falling before the recession even began, but the economic downturn has amplified the trend: Hispanic (both foreign- and U.S.-born) rates of poverty and unemployment grew more sharply than those of the general population following the recession.

Regardless of the extent to which the economy affects fertility, demographers also disagree about the timing of that effect. If women have fixed lifetime birth expectations, then they may react to a short-term economic downturn by not having kids—but have them later when they can’t wait any longer, regardless of the economy (a phenomenon known as the “tempo” effect). Possible evidence of this is the fact that nearly all of the recent fertility decline has been among women under age 30—those who presumably believe that they can afford to wait. What’s more, polls find that Americans without kids “want to have children someday” even more than they did before the recession.

All this points to a possible fertility rebound in the near future. But we can’t be too sure. History provides many examples of long eras of low fertility that did ultimately cause an entire generational group of women to have significantly fewer children than they at first intended. Just look at the 1930s: About 22% of women who began their childbearing years at the onset of the Great Depression never had children at all. (Contrast this with the much smaller share—only about 10%—of childless women who came of age just after World War II.) This effect may be relevant again today.
Post Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:30 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

rts & Letters
Jan 28, 2015 @ 10:30 AM 40,721 views
The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
U.S. Birthrate Falls -- Again



Continued from page 1

Still other demographers point to non-economic drivers. For starters, young women’s birthrates have been declining for decades independent of the economy—due to growing wages for women (which increase the opportunity cost for having children), later marriages, rising college attendance, and a drop in unplanned pregnancies. However, none of these factors explain the sudden post-recession drop.

A driver that fits the timeline better is the recent decline and shifting composition in immigration. Immigrants have for many decades bolstered U.S. fertility because of Hispanics’ higher birthrates. But now, the fertility of Hispanic women has declined, and less-fertile Asian immigrants have displaced them as the country’s leading immigrant group. Yet another intriguing explanation with a plausible timeline is the introduction of MTV’s 16 and Pregnant, which researchers found may have lowered the teen birthrate by as much as 5.7%.

So where will America’s birthrate go from here? As we’ve seen, some of it depends on the degree to which we are seeing a tempo effect. Will the rate bounce back once the economy does, or will potential mothers be forever lost? And non-economic factors will play a part as well.

But most of all, the birthrate will depend on the pace of economic recovery. Indeed, history has shown a tie between fertility and income. In The Great Wave, David Hackett Fischer finds a solid link over many centuries between fertility booms and economic booms marked by growing aggregate demand, accelerating investment, and rising prices. This causal relationship goes both ways. A growing population boosts consumer demand while the expectation of economic growth incentivizes parents to have more kids. The 1950s and 1980s were decades when this virtuous cycle seemed fully energized. Over the last few years, as in the 1930s and 1970s, this cycle seems to have broken down.
Post Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:32 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

EDITORIAL: Birth rate a concern

Jan 28, 2017 (0)

We need to issue a parental advisory for today’s editorial. Shoo the children away. Give them the comics to look at. We need to talk about some, um, adult matters. Specifically, we need to talk about the birds and the bees — and the nation’s birth rate.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s annual population estimates found that between July 1, 2015 and July 1, 2016, the nation’s population grew by 0.7 percent and now stands at approximately 323.1 million.

Those may just be numbers to most of us but to demographers, that 0.7 percent growth rate is a flashing red light. That’s the lowest population growth rate the United States has seen since between 1936 and 1937 — when the Great Depression had an equally depressing effect on the process of making babies.

Demographers attribute the slow population growth rate to two things: One, the rate of immigration is slowing — ironic because, in some respects, it should slow, and in others, well, we need a healthy growth rate and immigration has always contributed to that.

Two, the birth rate is slowing. More to the point, American births now barely outnumber deaths. In fact, American birth rates are now the lowest they’ve been since the government started keeping records in 1909.

People are simply having fewer children. As a result, it’s possible that the United States will soon see its population shrinking, not growing.

Why does this matter? As with many things in life, it comes back to money. Demography is destiny. Demography is also the economy — or, at least, a big driver of the same.

Generally speaking, a slow-growing population translates into a slow-growing economy.

Young adults help drive the economy. They spend money on buying their first home, often a prelude to starting a family. A poor economy leads to fewer people buying homes … which leads to fewer people having babies … which leads to a poor economy … and round and round we go.

There’s also the practical matter of simply staffing the economy. As older workers retire, who will replace them? That impending “silver wave” of baby boomer retirements has been a concern for many in the business community, as it should.

Some countries around the world are taking the next step – and actively encouraging procreation.

In Russia, Vladimir Putin declared reversing the low birth rate the country’s “most urgent problem.” One of the Russians’ solutions was, well, creative, though not something likely to be advocated for here in the U.S. — and definitely not something we will champion. As the British newspaper the Telegraph reported in 2011: “Kremlin youth groups . . . have embraced Mr. Putin’s orders to have more babies by setting aside special tents for sex at their summer camps, organizing group weddings, and wearing T-shirts saying ‘I want to have three children.’”

Something must have worked because Russia is now seeing its population increase again. Maybe it was the sex tents. Maybe it was the $11,000 the government paid mothers who had more than one child. Maybe it was the national contests that awarded “money, cars … and other prizes.”

As we said, we’re not advocating sex tents at summer camps. But for all those adult couples out there ready to raise a child, all we can say is that Valentine’s Day is coming soon. You know what to do.

Adapted from The Roanoke Times
Post Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:38 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Death Spiral Demographics: The Countries Shrinking The ... - ...
www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2017/02/01/death-spiral-demo...

3 days ago ... The impact of population decline will worsen over time, particularly as the ... Keynes, have connected low birth rates to economic declines.
Post Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:41 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Reinventing America #​ForeignAffairs
Feb 1, 2017 @ 01:25 PM 5,794 views

Death Spiral Demographics: The Countries Shrinking The Fastest

Joel Kotkin ,

Contributor

I cover demographic, social and economic trends around the world.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.



For most of recent history, the world has worried about the curse of overpopulation. But in many countries, the problem may soon be too few people, and of those, too many old ones. In 1995 only one country, Italy, had more people over 65 than under 15; today there are 30 and by 2020 that number will hit 35. Demographers estimate that global population growth will end this century.

Rapid aging is already reshaping the politics and economies of many of the most important high-income countries. The demands of older voters are shifting the political paradigm in many places, including the United States, at least temporarily to the right. More importantly, aging populations, with fewer young workers and families, threaten weaker economic growth, as both labor and consumption begin to decline.

We took a look at the 56 countries with populations over 20 million people, nine of which are already in demographic decline. The impact of population decline will worsen over time, particularly as the present generation now in their 50s and 60s retires, begins drawing pensions and other government support.
Gallery


Europe: Homeland of Demographic Decline

Heading up our list of slowly dissipating large countries is the Ukraine, a country chewed at its edges by its aggressive Russian neighbor. According to U.N. projections, Ukraine’s population will fall 22% by 2050. Eastern and Southern Europe are home to several important downsizing countries including Poland (off 14% by 2050), the Russian Federation (-10.4%), Italy (-5.5%) and Spain (-2.8%). The population of the EU is expected to peak by 2050 and then gradually decline, suggesting a dim future for that body even if it holds together.

The most important EU country, Germany, has endured demographic decline for over a generation. Germany’s population is forecast to drop 7.7% by 2050, though this projection has not been adjusted to account for the recent immigration surge. The main problem is the very low fertility rate of the EU’s superpower, which according to United Nations data was 1.4 between 2010 and 2015. It takes a fertility rate of 2.1% to replace your own population so we can expect Germany to shrink as well as get very old.
Post Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:44 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Continued from page 1

Nor can Europe expect much help from its smaller countries. Although too small to reach our 20 million person threshold, many of Europe’s tinier “frontier” countries have abysmal fertility rates. Among the 10 smaller countries with the greatest population declines, all are in Europe, and outside Western Europe, with Bulgaria’s population expected to shrink 27% by 2050 and Romania’s 22%. Each of these have below replacement rate fertility. Things are not that much better in Western Europe, where fertility rates are also below replacement rates, but not quite so low. Long-term, the only option for Europe may be to allow more immigration, particularly from Africa and the Middle East, although this may be impossible due to growing political resistance to immigration.

Demographic Decline: The Asian Edition

If this were just a European disease, it would not prove such a challenge to the economic future. Europe is gradually diminishing in global importance. The big story in demographic trends is in Asia, which has driven global economic growth for the past generation. The decline of Japan’s population is perhaps best known; the great island nation, still the world’s third largest economy, is expected to see its population fall 15% by 2050, the second steepest decline after Ukraine, and get much older. By 2030, according to the United Nations, Japan will have more people over 80 than under 15.

But the biggest hit on the world economy from the new demographics will come from China, the planet’s second largest economy, and the most dynamic.

Until a generation ago, overpopulation threatened China’s future, as it still does some developing countries. Today the estimates of the country’s fertility rate run from 1.2 to 1.6, both well below the 2.1 replacement rate. By 2050 China’s population will shrink 2.5%, a loss of 28 million people. By then China’s population will have a demographic look similar to ultra-old Japan’s today -- but without the affluence of its Asian neighbor.

Other Asian countries have similar problems. Thailand ranks as the fifth most demographically challenged, with a projected population loss of 8%. The population of Sri Lanka, just across Adam’s Bridge from still fast-growing India, is projected to increase only 0.6%.

Also going into a demographic stall is South Korea, another country which a generation ago worried about its expanding population. With its fertility rate well below replacement (1.3), the country will essentially stagnate over the next 35 years, and will becoming one of the most elderly nations on earth.

Full List: The Countries Shrinking The Fastest

Smaller Singapore is an anomaly. The city-state has a rock-bottom fertility rate of 1.2, but projects a population increase of 20% by 2050 due to its liberal and vigorously debated immigration policies.
Post Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:47 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

.

Continued from page 2

Economic Consequences

Most world leaders are fixated on the unpredictable new administration in Washington in the short term, but they might do better to look at the more certain long-term impacts of diminishing populations on the world’s most important economies. Economists, including John Maynard Keynes, have connected low birth rates to economic declines. On the “devil” of overpopulation, Keynes wrote, “I only wish to warn you that the chaining up of the one devil may, if we are careless, only serve to loose another still fiercer and more intractable.”

It is already fairly clear that lower birthrates and increased percentages of aged people have begun to slow economic growth in much of the high-income world, and can be expected to do the same in long ascendant countries such as China and South Korea. Economists estimate that China’s elderly population will increase 60% by 2020, even as the working-age population decreases by nearly 35%. This demographic decline, stems from the one-child policy as well as the higher costs and smaller homes that accompany urbanization, notes the American Enterprise Institute’s Nicholas Eberstadt. China’s annual projected GDP growth rate will likely decline from an official 7.2% in 2013 to a maximum of 6% by 2020.

There are several reasons these demographic shifts portend economic decline. First, a lack of young labor tends to drive up wages, sparking the movement of jobs to other places. This first happened in northern Europe and Japan will increasingly occur now in Korea, Taiwan, and even China. It also lowers the rate of innovation, notes economist Gary Becker, since change tends to come from younger workers and entrepreneurs. Japan’s long economic slowdown reflects, in part, the fact that its labor force has been declining since the 1990s and will be fully a third smaller by 2035.

The second problem has to do with the percentage of retirees compared to active working people. In the past growing societies had many more people in the workforce than retirees. But now in societies such as Japan and Germany that ratio has declined. In 1990, there were 4.7 working age Germans per over 65 person. By 2050, this number is projected to decline to 1.7. In Japan the ratios are worse, dropping more than one-half, from 5.8 in 1990 to 2.3 today and 1.4 in 2050. China, Korea and other East Asian countries, many without well-developed retirement systems, face similar challenges.

Finally, there is the issue of consumer markets. Aging populations tend to buy less than younger ones, particularly families. One reason countries like Japan and Germany can’t reignite economic growth is their slowing consumption of goods. This challenge will become all the more greater as China, the emerging economic superpower, also slows its consumption. The future of demand, critical to developing countries, could be deeply constrained.

What about the USA?

To a remarkable extent, the United States has avoided these pressing demographic issues. The U.N. has the U.S. tied with Canada for the fastest projected population growth rate of any developed country: a 21% expansion by 2050. Yet this forecast could prove inaccurate.
Post Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:49 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

.

Continued from page 3

One threat stems from millennials who, even with an improved economy, have not started families and had children at anything close to historical rates. Today the U.S. fertility rate has dropped to 1.9 from 2.0 before the Great Recession; population growth is now lower than at any time since the Depression. This places us below replacement level for the next generation. Projections for the next decade show a stagnant, and then falling number of high school graduates, something that should concern both employers and colleges. The United States’ high projected population growth rate, like that of Singapore, is entirely dependent upon maintaining high rates of immigration.

But even before the election of Donald Trump, who is hell-bent on cracking down on at least undocumented immigration, total immigration to the United States has been slowing. At the same time the fertility rates of some immigrant groups, notably Latinos, have been dropping rapidly and approaching those of other Americans. This is despite the fact that as many as 40% of women would like to have more children; they simply lack the adequate housing, economic wherewithal and spousal support to make it happen.

In the coming decades, the countries that can maintain an at least somewhat reasonable population growth rate, and enough younger people, will likely do best. To a large extent, it’s too late for that in much of Europe and East Asia. For countries like the United States, Canada and Australia, with among the most liberal immigration policies and large landmasses, the prospects may be far better. However, we also need native-born youngsters to launch, get married and start creating the next generation of Americans.
Post Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:12 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Key point from the story:

But even before the election of Donald Trump, who is hell-bent on cracking down on at least undocumented immigration, total immigration to the United States has been slowing. At the same time the fertility rates of some immigrant groups, notably Latinos, have been dropping rapidly and approaching those of other Americans. This is despite the fact that as many as 40% of women would like to have more children; they simply lack the adequate housing, economic wherewithal and spousal support to make it happen.


A lower birthrate along with increased elderly is said to slow economic growth. A lower standard of living for many of our younger population means these women, as noted in the article, will delay or cease having more children. If the politicians can eliminate women's contraception access and force women to have more children, then they hope to block the "brown" immigration and keep America "white". Limiting health care, especially for our older population, may serve to reduce the ratio of elderly and weak to youth. Not enough yong labor drives up wages.
Post Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:28 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Eugenics
noun, ( used with a singular verb)
1.
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)
Post Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:03 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

This May Be The Most Horrible Thing That Donald Trump Believes...
www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-eugenics_us_57ec4c...

Sep 28, 2016 ... And it just may be the master key to unlocking how he thinks. ... Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has offered a litany of racist ... racehorse theory of human development,” D'Antonio says in the documentary. “They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of ...
Post Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:10 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Shocking video of Trump explaining his dangerous theory that ...
www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/29/1575870/-Shocking-video-of-...

Sep 29, 2016 ... Donald Trump explaining his racist genes theory ... of Donald Trump's long-held beliefs that he (and people like him) are genetically superior:.
Post Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:17 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

DonaldTrump
Eugenics


PBS and The Huffington Post have uncovered video evidence of Donald Trump’s long-held beliefs that he (and people like him) are genetically superior:

The Frontline documentary “The Choice,” which premiered this week on PBS, reveals that Trump agrees with the dangerous and abusive theory of eugenics.

Trump’s father instilled in him the idea that their family’s success was genetic, according to Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio.

“The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development,” D’Antonio says in the documentary. “They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring.”

The Huffington Post pulled together video clips of Donald Trump referencing his superior eugenics theory and it is nothing short of horrifying. Watch and then jump below for further information on the origins of the racist eugenics theory:

Let’s see. Who else held similar beliefs?

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

No surprise, immigration played a key role in furthering these racist views:

In an America demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early twentieth century. Elitists, utopians and so-called "progressives" fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton's eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: populate the earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind--and less or none of everyone else.
Post Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:26 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

There are countries like Japan, that are also dealing with a problem of demographics that stalls their economic growth. Japan has massive government debt, an aging population and a low birthrate. To offset this problem, the solution has been to create work policies to relieve women of the choice of work or family. Also the elderly and those retired have been encouraged to return to the workforce.

Despite the problem of not enough skilled workers, Japan has been reluctant to allow immigration. The general viewpoint has been that ethnic and cultural diversity is a threat. However, Because Japan is expected to decline by 19 million people by 2050, immigration rules may have to be eased.

The three countries with the most immigration are the United States, Canada, and Australia. Immigration is the only reason the United Sates has maintained a growing population despite the declining birthrate.

Japan has created rigid immigration rule, primarily for skilled workers. Viewing threats to their ethnic and cultural way of life, workers who do not assimilate, like some Brazilian workers in the 1980's and 1990's, have been asked to leave the country. Intermarriage is one way to assimilate and the workers have a time limit for learning to speak Japanese. It takes at least three years to achieve permanent residency.
Post Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:58 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >