I've been thinking about this for a couple of weeks now, as my school district's second vote to fund our budget failed (the third time was the charm yesterday and my kid *will* get access to AP courses, hurray.) Something that's striking about the votes and the voters was, the number of Olds talking about how "they didn't have kids in the system, so they shouldn't have to pay for it." Anyway.
When we talk about policy fixes here, I think a big issue is pretty well-described off in (the bipartisan version of) populist-land: the two income trap. The median household income of an American household is something like $74k/yr right now. And usually when I hear about subsidies, we're talking about a far lower number all-in, and usually we're not talking about cash in significant lump sums with a forward-looking guarantee.
Frankly, if the issue is that we have an economic need for children, we should probably just pay people about half the median household income to be primary caregivers over a period of 18 years?
Because, mothers (it's usually mothers but not always) sacrifice a huge amount of earning opportunity and prestige to pursue motherhood, and as one comedian said about kids "one is an accessory, 2 is a lifestyle."
And we really haven't plumbed the policy options of "paying people (enough)" to produce children at replacement level.
Dude. You're the best. And we WANT to hear what you think about a 2nd Trump term. I do not need false hope. I need to be prepared, & my children need to be prepared. Please keep telling it to us straight. WE NEED TRUTH, NOT COMFORT. I'm sorry, but if people gripe about this with you, they are not paying attention. I have a Ph.D. in European History and there are some signs of danger that are frankly not hard to track. And we're hitting a bunch of them, while demanding that people like you stop making us feel bad about the future? Please. No Neville Chamberlain - "Peace In Our Time!" encouragement for me. Give me Churchill instead: there are bad men about, and there are bad things afoot. Let's do our best to be ready to face these things intelligently and together. (my paraphrase :)
Love you guys - all of you.
Love you especially, JVL.
In short, YOU & the way your mind works is why I'm here.
I would note that the bulge at the top of the age chart is the Baby Boomers, or whatever they call them in Japan. Same here. I think in most places, many of them are quite well-off and don't need supporting by the 18-45 cohort. It's Gen X (you JVL!) who need to be worried.
That said, your worries about places that can't afford it - China, India, Brazil, etc - are well-founded.
This is the first time I heard anyone admitting that a population "steady state" would be ideal. Oh, we can still debate about at what global population that state should exist. I'd vote for much less than the current 8 billion, and some would vote for more. But whatever that level, the sobering fact is that the ratio of old people (like me) to young (e.g. <30) does need to be much lower than it is now to sustain it.
Nevertheless, I noticed decades ago that authoritarians, be they "secular" or evangelical, do not want a steady state, but rather an exponentially-increasing population. I recall Rush Limbaugh remarking over 20 years ago about all that unpopulated open space he'd see while flying across the country, and how it could support a much greater population. Ignoring the fact that replacing all those O2-generating trees would be an ecological disaster, my immediate thought was that Limbaugh failed to see the obvious, that most people don't like to disperse, but rather concentrate in heavily-populated centers. Cities, even suburbs, are bad enough now; an authoritarian population "utopia" would be a nightmare. Then again, that's exactly what they want: a "king on a hill" surrounded by layers of loyal servants, and at the base, huddled "masses" scraping by and obeying orders from above. That's how it was in most societies before the great experiment in democracy that founded this country. And that's what authoritarians really want to return to, NOT some fantasy of 1950s America that never existed.
I don't think demographics is something I am going to worry about simply because there is no magic formula to change it.
I live in France which compared to the US is a paradise for parents. National health care, generous maternity and childcare benefits, special tax deals and excellent subisides for people having more (3+) kids and so on and so forth. When my kids were young, we got a check every month from the government to help with the costs. Really nice.
But all that effort hasn't fixed it. Women here are having the number of children they want and that number is usually 1 to 2 kids. I'm sure all those subsidies helped but not enough. Ditto for other European counties and some Asian ones. This is not a problem you can buy your way out of.
Why can’t our brilliant folks at Tesla develop a robot that cleans the bums of old folk, using AI, that doesn’t harm folks in the process. This would be much more helpful than self driving cars. Just ask anyone in HealthCare that currently faces this task on a request basis.
I wish that an organization who fears Trump and the policies he would try to put in place once back in the oval office would put together some smart TV ads to run many times everyday up and on election day. These ads should use direct quotes from Trump, i.e.,, "I'm your retribution." "On day one, I will pardon all J6 hostages." The choices are endless. I have repeated many to friends. There response is "where did you hear that?" or "Are you sure Trump said that?" The voting public is largely unaware. They are going about their daily life, i.e., jobs, children's baseball games, etc. Those of us, retirees, etc. have time to read great reporting and analysis like we find here are able to follow the lies and criminal intentions. It's the public who will reject him given the information. We know we can't depend on Congress.
34 million people starved to death in China years 1958-1962. Main reason-mismanagement using Marxist methods. China probably can’t feed all its people today because they took them off family farms and put them in High Rises where they can’t grow vegetables. Will China be smart enough to prepare? Old people can tend a vegetable garden. They have been doing so for centuries. They don’t need to shop at Walmart for stuff they don’t need. But will China make the adjustments. Our agricultural productivity has improved since 1962. What about our imagination-how old people can live and feel productive-and not get their identity from consuming? That’s a big question that does not interest the current leadership or Wall Street.
I'd have thought Progressives would be thrilled by these population estimates. Fewer people means less demand for fossil fuels and lower profits for Big Oil (little oil, too), no agitation for nuclear power, less toxic waste from mining of lithium, copper, etc. needed for EVs, less destruction of old growth forests for housing, greater opportunities for re-wilding of vacant land.... In other words, every change the environment requires for survival of Life.
It seems to me the only demography fix is to re-interpret the age-population profile. Older people like me (near 70) will keep working. The mandatory retirement at 62 of my grandfather will become working into your 70s. Tough, I know, but what else?
I have a question more than a comment. You focus on the under 30 group for supporting that moment in time's old people. But in reality, the 30-60 age group is paying the most taxes based on them making the most money. Shouldn't that be the demographic to compare to the oldest groups?
Yeah but the problem gets less dramatic. Since there are less Gen X and Millennials than there are Boomers/Silent Generations. I accept there is an issue, but the idea, in a developed country like the USA anyway, that people in their 20s are doing most of the supporting is ludicrous and makes no sense to me.
In the late 90s I decided to not have children. Neoliberal economic policies caused corporations to send manufacturing jobs overseas and corporations would only hire American Engineers once the annual quota for H1B immigrants was used up. The writing was already on the wall that AI would eventually replace all other jobs. I got the message - American economy, American business did not want more people like me, so I did not make any more. Also, it was clear at that time that little would be done about climate change in time to avoid the worst. Why bring children into a ruined environment with no good paying jobs?
Shouldn't we separate discussion about demographic shifts (lower fertility) from the "pay as you go" funding for social safety nets, vs social safety net recipients reaping the benefits from their self funding of those benefits? If we had the latter, the former wouldn't be as big a problem...maybe that's assumed in JVLs piece but it is a different issue than purely declining fertility rates?
About the best case scenario I can come up for a second term is that Americans quixotically put trump in office and give the Dems the house majority, and the Senate a dem super majority. And trump and his vp are removed from office through a convulsive process with so many twists n turns I can't work them out. The worst case I can conjure up besides planetary vaporization is that America loses it economic, political and cultural empire. You will be poorer, permanently so, less secure and have to deal with the fact that at the national level everything is invested in a trump family dynasty. And there will only be one way to end that dynasty.
I've been thinking about this for a couple of weeks now, as my school district's second vote to fund our budget failed (the third time was the charm yesterday and my kid *will* get access to AP courses, hurray.) Something that's striking about the votes and the voters was, the number of Olds talking about how "they didn't have kids in the system, so they shouldn't have to pay for it." Anyway.
When we talk about policy fixes here, I think a big issue is pretty well-described off in (the bipartisan version of) populist-land: the two income trap. The median household income of an American household is something like $74k/yr right now. And usually when I hear about subsidies, we're talking about a far lower number all-in, and usually we're not talking about cash in significant lump sums with a forward-looking guarantee.
Frankly, if the issue is that we have an economic need for children, we should probably just pay people about half the median household income to be primary caregivers over a period of 18 years?
Because, mothers (it's usually mothers but not always) sacrifice a huge amount of earning opportunity and prestige to pursue motherhood, and as one comedian said about kids "one is an accessory, 2 is a lifestyle."
And we really haven't plumbed the policy options of "paying people (enough)" to produce children at replacement level.
Dude. You're the best. And we WANT to hear what you think about a 2nd Trump term. I do not need false hope. I need to be prepared, & my children need to be prepared. Please keep telling it to us straight. WE NEED TRUTH, NOT COMFORT. I'm sorry, but if people gripe about this with you, they are not paying attention. I have a Ph.D. in European History and there are some signs of danger that are frankly not hard to track. And we're hitting a bunch of them, while demanding that people like you stop making us feel bad about the future? Please. No Neville Chamberlain - "Peace In Our Time!" encouragement for me. Give me Churchill instead: there are bad men about, and there are bad things afoot. Let's do our best to be ready to face these things intelligently and together. (my paraphrase :)
Love you guys - all of you.
Love you especially, JVL.
In short, YOU & the way your mind works is why I'm here.
I would note that the bulge at the top of the age chart is the Baby Boomers, or whatever they call them in Japan. Same here. I think in most places, many of them are quite well-off and don't need supporting by the 18-45 cohort. It's Gen X (you JVL!) who need to be worried.
That said, your worries about places that can't afford it - China, India, Brazil, etc - are well-founded.
This is the first time I heard anyone admitting that a population "steady state" would be ideal. Oh, we can still debate about at what global population that state should exist. I'd vote for much less than the current 8 billion, and some would vote for more. But whatever that level, the sobering fact is that the ratio of old people (like me) to young (e.g. <30) does need to be much lower than it is now to sustain it.
Nevertheless, I noticed decades ago that authoritarians, be they "secular" or evangelical, do not want a steady state, but rather an exponentially-increasing population. I recall Rush Limbaugh remarking over 20 years ago about all that unpopulated open space he'd see while flying across the country, and how it could support a much greater population. Ignoring the fact that replacing all those O2-generating trees would be an ecological disaster, my immediate thought was that Limbaugh failed to see the obvious, that most people don't like to disperse, but rather concentrate in heavily-populated centers. Cities, even suburbs, are bad enough now; an authoritarian population "utopia" would be a nightmare. Then again, that's exactly what they want: a "king on a hill" surrounded by layers of loyal servants, and at the base, huddled "masses" scraping by and obeying orders from above. That's how it was in most societies before the great experiment in democracy that founded this country. And that's what authoritarians really want to return to, NOT some fantasy of 1950s America that never existed.
I don't think demographics is something I am going to worry about simply because there is no magic formula to change it.
I live in France which compared to the US is a paradise for parents. National health care, generous maternity and childcare benefits, special tax deals and excellent subisides for people having more (3+) kids and so on and so forth. When my kids were young, we got a check every month from the government to help with the costs. Really nice.
But all that effort hasn't fixed it. Women here are having the number of children they want and that number is usually 1 to 2 kids. I'm sure all those subsidies helped but not enough. Ditto for other European counties and some Asian ones. This is not a problem you can buy your way out of.
Why can’t our brilliant folks at Tesla develop a robot that cleans the bums of old folk, using AI, that doesn’t harm folks in the process. This would be much more helpful than self driving cars. Just ask anyone in HealthCare that currently faces this task on a request basis.
On a regular basis-not request-but need… I think Apple’s language changers need some schooling.
I wish that an organization who fears Trump and the policies he would try to put in place once back in the oval office would put together some smart TV ads to run many times everyday up and on election day. These ads should use direct quotes from Trump, i.e.,, "I'm your retribution." "On day one, I will pardon all J6 hostages." The choices are endless. I have repeated many to friends. There response is "where did you hear that?" or "Are you sure Trump said that?" The voting public is largely unaware. They are going about their daily life, i.e., jobs, children's baseball games, etc. Those of us, retirees, etc. have time to read great reporting and analysis like we find here are able to follow the lies and criminal intentions. It's the public who will reject him given the information. We know we can't depend on Congress.
I think his comments about Hannibal Lector ought to do the job nicely. Sorry, the Late, Great Hannibal Lector.
34 million people starved to death in China years 1958-1962. Main reason-mismanagement using Marxist methods. China probably can’t feed all its people today because they took them off family farms and put them in High Rises where they can’t grow vegetables. Will China be smart enough to prepare? Old people can tend a vegetable garden. They have been doing so for centuries. They don’t need to shop at Walmart for stuff they don’t need. But will China make the adjustments. Our agricultural productivity has improved since 1962. What about our imagination-how old people can live and feel productive-and not get their identity from consuming? That’s a big question that does not interest the current leadership or Wall Street.
I'd have thought Progressives would be thrilled by these population estimates. Fewer people means less demand for fossil fuels and lower profits for Big Oil (little oil, too), no agitation for nuclear power, less toxic waste from mining of lithium, copper, etc. needed for EVs, less destruction of old growth forests for housing, greater opportunities for re-wilding of vacant land.... In other words, every change the environment requires for survival of Life.
It seems to me the only demography fix is to re-interpret the age-population profile. Older people like me (near 70) will keep working. The mandatory retirement at 62 of my grandfather will become working into your 70s. Tough, I know, but what else?
Yep. We should reindex the social security eligibility age (aka "retirement age") every year, based on life expectancy of 50-year-olds.
I have a question more than a comment. You focus on the under 30 group for supporting that moment in time's old people. But in reality, the 30-60 age group is paying the most taxes based on them making the most money. Shouldn't that be the demographic to compare to the oldest groups?
Today's under 30's are tomorrow's 30-60s. It's still a problem eventually.
Yeah but the problem gets less dramatic. Since there are less Gen X and Millennials than there are Boomers/Silent Generations. I accept there is an issue, but the idea, in a developed country like the USA anyway, that people in their 20s are doing most of the supporting is ludicrous and makes no sense to me.
In the late 90s I decided to not have children. Neoliberal economic policies caused corporations to send manufacturing jobs overseas and corporations would only hire American Engineers once the annual quota for H1B immigrants was used up. The writing was already on the wall that AI would eventually replace all other jobs. I got the message - American economy, American business did not want more people like me, so I did not make any more. Also, it was clear at that time that little would be done about climate change in time to avoid the worst. Why bring children into a ruined environment with no good paying jobs?
Okay, so what are the " four criteria for fascism?" The article with that in the title doesn't tell us.
Shouldn't we separate discussion about demographic shifts (lower fertility) from the "pay as you go" funding for social safety nets, vs social safety net recipients reaping the benefits from their self funding of those benefits? If we had the latter, the former wouldn't be as big a problem...maybe that's assumed in JVLs piece but it is a different issue than purely declining fertility rates?
Fun fact: Japan has been selling more adult diapers than baby diapers since at least 2011
About the best case scenario I can come up for a second term is that Americans quixotically put trump in office and give the Dems the house majority, and the Senate a dem super majority. And trump and his vp are removed from office through a convulsive process with so many twists n turns I can't work them out. The worst case I can conjure up besides planetary vaporization is that America loses it economic, political and cultural empire. You will be poorer, permanently so, less secure and have to deal with the fact that at the national level everything is invested in a trump family dynasty. And there will only be one way to end that dynasty.